Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive272

User:Zoomjet3 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

of Bob Simon as an exemplar of media bias against The State of Israel.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Career */Prior to my addition to the page, there was a complete absence of any reference to decades of controversy and criticism

This longstanding outrage against Simon is easil..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..." There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.
 * 1)  "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.


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


 * Diffs after warnings
 * 1)    "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career. --Light show (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Comments:
 * Zoomjet3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Light show (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:121.242.73.226 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable people from the district */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable people from the district */"
 * 3)  "/* Notable people from the district */"
 * 4)  "/* Notable people from the district */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Nellore district. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Nellore district. (TW)"
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:NidhiRazdan77 reported by User:Jonathanarpith (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647088928 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647088776 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 647088639 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 647087898 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 647087612 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 647075864 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 647075877 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 647075888 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 647076097 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 647076182 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 647058182 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 647058327 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 647058555 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647058327 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647058555 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * We have a strange situation in that we have two editors, User:NidhiRazdan77 and User:Nidhi ndtv, both appear to imply that they are the subject of the article. One of them claims that the other one is impersonating her.  One of them probably is impersonating the other one, and there is a conflict of interest problem.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * . Nidhi ndtv and an IP were both blocked for 24 hours by . I'm assuming the IP belongs to NidhiRazdan77 who stopped logging in but continued reverting, so I blocked the account for the same 24 hours. The article has also been locked by yet another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:88.105.146.18 (Result: )
Seems to have page ownership problems and is repeatedly undoing good edits citing Removing non-encyclopaedic [Removing non-encyclopaedic drivel and Non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical drivel. and then just removing for the sake of removing.1 2 3. And also on 1 2 3 I could go on but whats the point. [[Special:Contributions/88.105.146.18|88.105.146.18]] (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Not done anything wrong but removed informative tag from user page with this response. Blatantly doesn't accept responsibility and knows what he is upto.}} 88.105.146.18 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * GGJ's edits seem sound to me and I agree with the "Non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical drivel" comment. WP:CIR and WP:BOOMERANG might apply.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Andcarr reported by User:Squinge (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 645714256 by Sitush (talk) removing accuracy of figures, go away sitush"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647100187 by Sitush (talk) my figures are precise"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 647100761 by Sitush (talk) the source is inaccurate, PwC figures are definitive"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 647101081 by Sitush (talk) vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=647101121&oldid=647100414
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=647101350&oldid=647101121
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=643946194&oldid=643946074


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


 * Comments:

Repeated edit-warring against BLP policy - see the article history and the editor's record of warnings and blocks for the same behaviour. Squinge (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Stonecoldbeach reported by User:VeryCrocker (Result: Both reported accounts indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646907524 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647110473 by Squinge (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 647123092 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 647123928 by VeryCrocker (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on  Sioux City, Iowa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sioux City, Iowa. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The second of two new accounts (the other being ) to turn up in an apparent attempt to use Wikpedia to promote an Iowan event called "Dragonmouth", for which I can find no independent coverage. VeryCrocker (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * indefinitely Stonecoldbeach and Younghopper15.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dmcq reported by User:Scolaire (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: new edit ( by agreement following protracted discussion)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 00:21, 14 February 2015
 * 3) 11:22, 14 February 2015
 * 4) 15:45, 14 February 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:12, 14 February 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first post; thread

Comments:

Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Diff 1 is Scolaire's own edit. So there are three diffs not 4. And I just got a thank you from Qexigator for that fourth edit in which I edited what they put in, not Scolaire, and talk page diif is what they said about the state after that. Dmcq (talk)


 * Apologies, I linked to the original edit a second time, instead of Dmcq's first revert. I've fixed it now. It was four reverts. Scolaire (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies then but you don't have a consensus for your preferred form as Qexigator and I both prefer the current form. Do you wish to revert to before any of the changes and we can continue the discussion as per BRD like I had considered earlier? Dmcq (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay have read 3RR and reverted my latest edit. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view this reference is approaching intimidatory vexation and should be closed immediately. The worst that can be said is that Dmcq incautiously used some mildly vulgar word when he could have used a more decorous one in opposing Scolaire. Anyone editing the article should disregard intemperate remarks prompted by irritation, and move on with the work collaboratively or leave it alone. I see no reason to regard Dmcq as one of those who need this kind of treatment.Anyone who looks at the talk page can see that. Qexigator (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And that has what to do with 3RR? Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since Dmcq has undone his own 15:45 edit to avoid exceeding 3RR. The parties seem to be working on a compromise draft at Talk:Republic of Ireland. If they are stuck they could open an WP:RFC. The page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is available for discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

User:ElCommandanteVzl reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: This page is under WP:1RR general sanctions, and this editor has been repeatedly warned about WP:EDITWAR and WP:POV behavior on controversial subjects related to the Syrian Civil War:   -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm very relieved to see that issues regarding this editor have been raised here. I am having extreme issues with ElCommandanteVzl on both Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War and Bashar al-Assad. On the latter article he is even blanking entire sections without explanation. I understand this user is editing Wikipedia with a specific point of view (which can be deduced from their username), but that doesn't mean they can routinely delete reliable high quality references that they apparently don't like and ignore neutrality policies. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing this same behavior - reverting multiple edits without explanation - by this editor on other articles, as well, also in a topic area subject to 1RR restrictions: I invented &#34;it&#39;s not you, it&#39;s me&#34; (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647232482 by Joseph2302 (talk) rv per WP:NOTSTATS"
 * 2)  "says WP:NOTSTATS"
 * 3)  "/* Statistics */ top 10 is quite sufficient, thank you"
 * 4)  "/* Statistics */ top 10 is sufficient"
 * 1)  "/* Statistics */ top 10 is sufficient"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * User:Tvx1 is being a bit of a jobsworth here. If you notice, the attempt to resolve the dispute was given well after my last so-called revert. I don't think you can even call the first one a revert either, since I was making a WP:BOLD edit rather than reverting anyone. – PeeJay 18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Since your first edit did undo part of the action of another editor, yes that can be interpreted as a revert. But ultimately that decision is up to the administrators and not me. I'm going to state the reason why I made the report and thus what it would like the outcome of this would be. I would love you to realize that repeatedly reverting an edit is not the way to get an article in your preferred version when having a disagreement. You made four reverts within 24 hours, which is a violation of WP:3RR, and you only went to the talk page after making those reverts. That's the exact opposite of what you should have done. Ideally, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss with the other editor(s) and progress towards a consensus after your first revert was undone and worst case you should have done so after the your second revert was undone as well. You certainly shouldn't have made another two reverts. That the content you disagree with would remain in the article while you're conducting the discussion at all is no problem whatsoever. After all it was no disturbing content that was being discussed. Seeing your block log you seem to have quite an issue with refraining from edit warring. Just don't do it. It only gets yourself into troubles. Tvx1 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a current RfC about the issue at Talk:2015_Six_Nations_Championship. Both sides have agreed to talk this over. I'm in favor of letting consensus build itself rather than sanctions as both sides have backed away from edit warring. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed this, there's an ongoing discussion about 2015 Six Nations Championship, following an agreement not to continue the edit war. I don't think he should be punished, because I think both him and myself were at fault. We both should have gone to the talkpages earlier, but my continued reversion of his edits meant that he broke 3RR before a proper discussion began. I did also warn him after the 4th edit, and in my opinion that should be enough of a punishment. If he's punished, I feel that I should receive the same punishment, as although I didn't break 3RR, I was also responsible for the offending edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. The first of the four edits may not be a revert, and there is an active discussion. But User:PeeJay2K3 is advised to be more careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Cirflow reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Advice on users talk page: and here

Comments:

There is a false impression being given here that all interventions by the complaining editor were attempts to to resolve this edit war. They were not. Some of them were defenses or  the other half of this edit war by  the complainer, The editor complained about  is fairly new and may not in fact be aware of their talk page as they have not replied to any of the messages on it. He/She has chosen a tough page in Circumcision to edit. I recommend a gentle approach in this case. He/she has indicated in this diff edit label  an awareness of edit warring and a resolve to stop doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=647231382 --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. It is risky to charge into a highly contentious article in the belief you can fix it. User:Cirflow did engage in discussion but did not stop editing the article while doing so. It is better to wait for discussion to finish before making controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ali.M.A.Saadi reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: User:ClueBot NG is all over this disruptive editor, so it may be a moot point, but User:Ali.M.A.Saadi has been edit-warring on Yemen for the past couple of days and I'd appreciate if an administrator could step in. Thanks in advance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. Not a 3RR but this is edit warring. Repeatedly changing the name of the leader of Yemen. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hokiechicklet reported by User:C.Fred (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11 Feb version before reverts started or this edit today which added a second source

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has refused to discuss matter at article talk page, instead escalating directly to AN/I:

Comments:

User has been invited to discuss the matter on the talk page. User has alternately branded the edits as slanderous or said they've resulted in death threats to the article's subject. User has also expressed intent to continue to edit the article even after passing 3RR. I regret that a block appears to be the next step needed for this user; as I'm involved, I can't place the block myself. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * -- GB fan 01:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Yaksar and User:Srnec reported by User:Niceguyedc (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Users being reported:

(I apologize for the length, but this is a long term issue and not a 3RR issue)

Previous version reverted to: Revision of page before the involvement of Yaksar or Srnec

First change of content by the parties:
 * 1) 14:57, 29 October 2014 Srnec turns the page into a redirect to Tax per head

Diffs of the user's reverts (all times PST, as that's my time zone):
 * 1) 15:23, 29 October 2014 Yaksar reverts Srnec's initial change - back to a disambiguation (dab) page
 * 2) 18:59, 1 November After some cleanup edits, Srnec reverts to a redirect
 * 3) 19:04, 1 November Yaksar reverts to a dab page
 * 4) 12:15, 2 November Srnec reverts to a redirect to Poll tax (United States), then changes that redirect to Tax per head
 * 5) 20:29, 2 November Yaksar reverts one revision, then realizes there were two edits by Srnec, and reverts back to the dab page
 * 6) 14:46, 3 November Srnec removes most of the entries from the dab page
 * 7) 23:33, 6 November After an intervening edit by another user (cleaning up the page per WP:MOSDAB, Yaksar reverts to the full dab page
 * 8) 07:30, 17 December Srnec reverts to a redirect to Tax per head
 * 9) 14:17, 12 January 2015 Yaksar reverts to a dab page
 * 10) 16:35, 12 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
 * 11) 17:29, 12 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
 * 12) 17:24, 13 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
 * 13) 20:36, 13 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
 * 14) 04:34, 14 January Srnec removes moce of the entries from the dab page
 * 15) 10:40, 14 January Yaksar reverts Srnec's removals
 * 16) 11:00, 14 January Srnec adds a POV tag to the page
 * 17) 11:18, 14 January Yaksar reverts the addition of the POV tag
 * 18) 08:05, 17 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
 * 19) 12:05, 17 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
 * 20) 18:11, 5 February Srnec reverts to a redirct
 * 21) 12:17, 13 February Yaksar reverts to a dab page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Yaksar Srnec

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yaksar and Srnec's one statement to each other relating to this issue on User talk:Srnec, and Yaksar and Srnec's one statement to each other on Talk:Poll tax

Comments:

Poll tax has gone back and forth from a redirect to Tax per head to a disambiguation page since the end of October 2014. Neither Yaksar or Srnec have hit 3RR in any 24 hour period, but the history I've shown above clearly shows edit warring. At this point, protection to the WP:WRONGVERSION is probably required. However, the extent of the edit warring has convinced me to bring the request here instead of WP:RFPP. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was stable as a redirect for three years (October 2011 to October 2014), until it was changed because of a misconstrual of a requested move. Srnec (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What should be done about a very long-running edit war? Full protection might seem unfair to other editors, since only two people are responsible. They should be sanctioned if they won't negotiate. I invite both parties to comment here and promise to wait for consensus before making further changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What specifically to you want me to comment on? Srnec (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You should agree to make no further edits at Poll tax that don't have prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Both User:Srnec and User:Yaksar are warned. If you make any further changes at Poll tax that don't have a prior talk page consensus you may be blocked. Feel free to open any discussion that offers hope of resolving the matter permanently. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies EdJohnston, Niceguyedc -- didn't have a chance to weigh in and point out some issues that were not brought up here. But as long as changes moving forward first find talk page consensus everything should be smooth sailing and there's really no need to delve into past issues further.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.167.228 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* International reactions */ "Palestine" does not exist. Removed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647353627 by WWGB (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 647353272 by Aumnamahashiva (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 647353177 by WWGB (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 647352723 by Classicfilms (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* International reactions */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Chapel Hill shooting. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Unrepentant and flagrant 3RR violation, removing well-sourced material with no attempt at discussion beyond making the (false) claim that "Palestine does not exist" in edit summaries. Regardless of one's opinion on the Israeli/Palestine question, it's not a matter of debate that there is a place and government called Palestine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Support block, disruptive editing. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no such place as "Palestine". 124.180.167.228 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:121.242.73.226 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable people from the district */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable people from the district */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Nellore district. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:121.242.73.226_reported_by_User:Vin09_.28Result:_Blocked.29. IP has done it again. Vin09 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Please DO NOT EVER call it "vandalism" if all someone is doing is 'adding himself to the list of notable residents'. That's inappropriate, but it's not vandalism. "Vandalism" implies "I think that you are deliberately adding garbage to the article", and this individual does not think that he is doing anything wrong. DS (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:76.174.65.156 reported by User:Amortias (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647195799 by Kikichugirl (talk)"
 * 2)  "Similar institutions (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins) Wikipedia pages are not smeared with like information. Let's be fair here. It's not common practice to list relatively insignificant information like this on huge institutions' pages."
 * 3)  "minor edits"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 647428277 by 331dot (talk), Not a large removal."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 647429060 by 331dot (talk). See Talk item from 2008 giving reasons why section should be removed. This edit is 7 years overdue."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 647429649 by 331dot (talk). Am I to take it that you represent the consensus?"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647429060 by 331dot (talk). See Talk item from 2008 giving reasons why section should be removed. This edit is 7 years overdue."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647429649 by 331dot (talk). Am I to take it that you represent the consensus?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Posted on talk page but still reverted the section

I'm not sure if User:331dot was also under violation here, here, here, here, here, and here, or if they are exempt because IP was being particularly disruptive by edit-warring. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Reverting blankings are exempt from 3RR enforcement, see WP:NOT3RR. -- Amaryllis Gardener  talk 21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed didnt report other user as they were undoing what was in my opinion vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP user has reverted the page twice even while the issue is being discussed; second time here. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amortias here; the IP was fairly set on getting rid of the material despite being sourced and probably relevant and kept going despite being reverted by three other users. didn't do anything wrong in this case, although it would be better to stop after the third revert to be on the safe side. Bjelleklang  -  talk 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will do my best to keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for the advice. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Danylo7 reported by User:War wizard90 (Result: Account blocked, page deleted)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User continuously removes deletion tags from page. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: since being reported user has vandalized both the related AfD and this page (deleted report about himself). -War wizard90 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now blocked and article deleted. Meters (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Inocencio.alves reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: Repeated vandalism and edit-warring, introducing nonsense text at the top of the article. Pretty cut-and-dried.


 * And now continuing to vandalize the page even after being notified of the 3RR discussion: -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The user is a WP:SPA spamming a foreign language name for East Timor onto many articles, breaking things in the process (ie ). They have been warned on their talk page that the edits are not appropriate, but is not responding and continues the disruption. TDL (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User has been disruptively editing many other pages too, check his contributions. I've reverted many of them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Zigzig20s reported by User:Sladen (Result: Declined )
Page:

User being reported:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2014-02-17 01:22  (reverting )
 * 2) 2014-02-17 00:26  (reverting )
 * 3) 2014-02-17 00:08  (reverting )
 * 4) 2014-02-16 21:17  (reverting  × 3—note whitespace)
 * 5) 2014-02-15 19:35  (rollback  × 7‒note non-vandalism deployment rollback)
 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


 * Diffs of attempts to resolve on article talk page
 * Talk:Amy Pascal, Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/2015 (permadiffs )


 * Comments:
 * 3RR observed on Amy Pascal concurrent with editor's self-initiated ANI escalation at ANI. See also: WP:ANI (permadiff ) and User talk:Gilliam (permadiff ).  —Sladen (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not "edit-warring". My lack of understanding of "rollback" only happened once and has been fixed. This is simply another case of harassment on Sladen's part because of the ANI and his attempt to edit Amy Pascal's page in a way that flouts the third-party references. When Sladen censored/removed Lisa Kudrow's referenced quote, I added it back and added two more references for example. Please discuss on my talkpage if in doubt.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I arrived at this article as the result of an RfC and find this user very difficult to work with. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you introduced yourself by leaving a hysterical personal attack on the talkpage earlier today; this is ridiculous...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems really unnecessary, Zigzig, what you just said seems like a personal attack, i'm not looking at the Talkpage. Do you want help or not? -- do  ncr  am  03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment from non-involved non-admin editor:
 * I reviewed the 5 diffs and they all look different. They are 5 separate reversions by Zigzig20s, with no repetition of removal of the same material.  So this is not a 3RR violation, at all.  One was a reversion of an edit by Sladen that Sladen themself had labeled in edit summary as being very wp:BOLD.  It seems fine for Z to revert that;  next step in wp:BRD process is to DISCUSS at Talk page.  The last listed one included numerous copyedit small changes which I think overall improved the article (except for an accidental garbling of "Hollywood Reporter" in one place), yet Z reverted.  I think there's no Edit Warring violation, this should be dismissed.
 * There was complaint about Z's use of rollback on one of those, but that seems to be understood as not correct, expect no future problems.
 * I do think that Z's repeated use of reverting could be seen as unpleasant and controlling, perhaps too wp:OWN, and Z's use of dismissive edit summaries would be irritating, so I can understand some frustration by other editors. Z, for what it's worth, I suggest you be nicer, and reimplement the last edit for example, and not fight over tiny copyedit word changes, and generally pick your battles not dispute everything, which it kinda looks like you are doing.  But again, no EW violation at all, so this should be dismissed. -- do  ncr  am  03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: It's noted by Bjelleklang below, that in fact wp:3RR does not require the reversions to be of the same material, so I was wrong about that, and 3RR violation did occur.  I did view the multiple reversions as too controlling and causing difficulty for collaboration;  good that 3RR policy actually rules that it is wrong. -- do  ncr  am  17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I reverted the last edit on second thoughts, even though it seems a bit off topic...It's not especially relevant to Pascal. But one sentence is fine I suppose.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's about the last-implemented reversion, which might be the first one listed above? Which had edit summary merely "irrelevant".  About that, I think it would have been better for you to have just copied it to the talk page forn discussion, or perhaps removed it to the Talk page rather than outright deleting it, fine that's back.  Thanks.
 * But actually I was referring to the last-listed one above, this reversion of a number of small edits by User:Elinruby, which to me looks like all-okay wording edits except for accidental intro of a spelling error into "Holywood Reporter" at one point. Oh, now I see Z's reversion was reverted next by Sladen so maybe all those changes by Elinruby stayed in the article after all.  That was the rollback edit, i gather that was discussed elsewhere, with no edit summary, no explanation, because using rollback, which won't happen further. -- do  ncr  am  06:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Operating on a 0RR/1RR basis would be ideal, it does though get hard work for all when minor WP:MOS copyedits also find themselves reverted ( reverting × 5; follow-up ).  Yes, an observation with WP:OWN would appear to be consistent with the whole of Talk:Amy Pascal and the article history; collaborative editing is smoother when precise concerns are known, and when known can then be discussed. WP:DDE provides recommended steps in this sort of case: engagement, RfC consultation and consensus implementation, followed by escalation of any and all WP:3RR instances—which is this step here per An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material —within a 24-hour period−then ANI if still prevalent. : thank you for the self-revert, please don't feel the need to revert—the ideal would be to suggest, to tweak, to try alternative wordings where-ever possible.  Please consider WP:REVERT as a last-resort in cases of clear vandalism in which wording (after trying) is too hard to improve—and in all cases where a revert is used please try to be the one initiating discussion afterwards.   —Sladen (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Although there was a violation (3RR applies to any material not several reverts of the same material), I'm going to decline this one based on the discussion here and on the article talkpage and also per the points listed by above. Bjelleklang  -  talk 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:192.43.227.18 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647152815 by Twofortnights (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647152815 by Twofortnights (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Visa requirements */"
 * 4)  "Did you even care to read the reference/sources before you removed the edit? Please learn to check, or I will report you."
 * 1)  "Did you even care to read the reference/sources before you removed the edit? Please learn to check, or I will report you."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

IP editor has been blocked twice already this year for same behaviour and is currently involved in edit warring over three articles. Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to report this user myself.

Diff of my 3RR Warning:

Further reverts:, (I think that makes 4 in 24 hrs)

Additional follow up in talk:

Various replies to warnings and attempts to discuss with the guy: ,

Lack of good faith:

Basic problem with the edit, is he relies on interpreting one primary piece of legislation, the 2002 Act, whilst ignoring the multiple other acts that preceded it, which had impacts on some territories not others and so there is some variance in citizenship right by territory. WCM email 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * IP blocked for 1 month. MastCell Talk 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Trymeonce reported by User:Denniss (Result:Blocked for 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The A320neo is not a new aircraft. There are no errors in this edit."
 * 2)  "Once again someone is removing facts from a Wikipedia article. My information is correct. It is a re-engine program. "It doesn't seem right" is not a valid excuse for removing my addition to the article."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 647570993 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 647571539 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647570993 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647571539 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647571539 by Denniss (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647571539 by Denniss (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Airbus A320neo family. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal of relevant text and edits. */"


 * Comments:

User keeps on reverting, no attempt to engage in a discussion about this. Multiple user undid his changes (also made as IP before). Denniss (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and User:Trymeonce are possibly the same. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Other edits of Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 were reverted by other users. IP seems to be static. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting for one of the several users that continue to delete my addition to prove that the plane is a new-build aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No one needs to prove anything to you. What you do need to do stop edit warring and discuss any changes you are making, you are well and truly past 3RR which is a bright line rule with few exceptions, none of which are likely to apply here. Also, you should be properly sourcing any additions you are making to the article. The source you are providing doesn't support the claims you are making. If anything in the article isn't sourced and you wish to dispute it, you can probably tag it appropriately. But remember things in the WP:Lead may just be a summary of later in the article so may not need inline WP:RS as the statements are already sourced later. Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, beyond the comments above, the editor has actually engaged in some discussion at Talk:Airbus A320neo family, but their comments there don't seem to provide sufficient support for their changes and they are also simulataneously reverting and have now reached 7R I think without anyone else breaking the 3, and that's not counting the IP. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and I just noticed is also including some pure vandalism in their most recent edits, calling editors facist pigs in the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Airbus_A320neo_family&diff=647584589&oldid=647584324]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked at WP:AIV for 36 hours by User:MilborneOne. Amortias (T)(C) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bloom6132 reported by User:70.196.131.82 (Result: Semi, warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried to discuss this problem with User:Bloom6132 here and here  and here  but User:Bloom6132 reverted my talk page comments. I asked that the discussion be taken to the articles talk page but User:Bloom6132 did not do that. After User:Bloom6132 reverted my initial edits I added valid references but my edits were still reverted. User:Bloom6132 has frequently edited this article and I feel that there may be some ownership issue here. I just want the information that I added to the article using valid references to be included in the article so that people reading it will get accutate information, something that is not happening with the current article.70.196.131.82 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a complete pack of lies by this stuck–up IP. He reverted my edits here without even adding an edit summary explaining why, then reverts me again claiming that I "have a problem".  When I try to compromise and incorporate his edits while removing the incorrect formatting of the lead and an unsourced section in the main article which he took from the original lead, he reverts me yet again, this time resorting to personal attacks, claiming that I "do not know what [I am] talking about".  Furthermore, he reverted me on my own talk page, assumes bad faith by lecturing me about article ownership (I claim no such right and never have), and again attacks me personally with a confrontational "What is your problem exactly".  Clear case of WP:BOOMERANG here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bloom6132, editors do not claim ownership, they show it through their actions, I added references which you said were lacking, and you reverted again, the article is completely one sided, it totaly fails to mention the Indo-Persian forms of the dagger known as a khanjar, this is not what wikipedia is about, I added completely relevant information and when you mentioned that my information was not referenced I added two references, I could add more but you showed by your actions that you do not intend to allow ANY additional information to be added to this article. I tried to reach you through your talk page but you reverted that instead of engaging in some sort of conversation, I mentioned going to the articles talk page but you did not respond, I added a comment on the talk page and you still have not responded. You reverted the warring warning I put on your talk page along with the link to this discussion and you left a very uncivil comment (Reverting hypocritical bullshit warnings by 70.196.131.82.).. I did not removed referenced information from the article, I moved it further down the article to a more appropriate section. Your comments when reverting other editors edits are not appropriate>(Removing problematic additions. All info added is unsourced, and using the phrase "is a word used" is completely redundant – just state what it is.) (No reason given for unexplained and unjustified reversion. Stop edit warring.) (Fixing badly butchered lead. This article is a GA; writing style should reflect that.) (Removed unsourced section. There's only one main type of khanjar – the one from Oman. Any other supposed versions of it are minor and should be placed elsewhere in the GA.) (I'm bringing up legitimate points, while you lie and claim I'm WP:OWNing this article. I even compromised and allowed your edits to stand, but it looks like YOU have ownership issues by insisting that YOUR version is final. Grow up.) these are not the comments of someone who is open minded and capable of compromise.70.196.134.123 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected, both editors warned. Conducting a revert war with a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK. User:Bloom6132 broke 3RR and was risking a block. Neither party has so far used the talk page to discuss these issues. Consider opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter Isotalo reported by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen (Result: Article 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: Talk page is active and there are various threads on the issues.

Comments:

Note that all 4 reverts are clearly marked as reverts, and that the user chose to revert despite getting the 3RR warning. The "previous" version is not relevant here, since the article is fluid, but they represent edits that undid previous editors contributions.

Last comment from the user after i asked him to self-revert at reaching 4RR: : ":No, I'm not. Mostly because you simply keep making shit up and ignoring my arguments. Serge certainly is. Take it Serge's AN/I-thread if you don't like it."

Clear breach of bright-line rule, and not giving a damn!

Kim D. Petersen 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that these reverts are mostly of different content or merely partial reverts. Kim is also an involved party in an extremely prolonged and frustrating debate relating to Danish pastry. There have been incivilities and personal attacks, and now there's also an AN/I-thread filed by SergeWoodzing.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter... 3RR is a bright-line rule. It doesn't matter if it is different content, what matters is that they are seperate reverts of other editors on the same article within 24 hours. Please read up upon WP:3RR. This wasn't my preferred route, but your comment clearly stated that you didn't give a damn. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IF it is not the same content then it is not a revert. Separate reverts of different content doesnt count for 3rr purposes. If that were the case someone who reverts three different vandalistic edits by three different users would be editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Page protected for 3 days, multiple editors reverting each other. 3RR technically was violated (Maunus, it can technically be 3 different things, per some section of the WP:3RR page I can't bring myself to hunt down), but really quite innocuously (in 2 cases, very clear inarguable corrections of English usage, with no real change in meaning). Hopefully protection will calm the waters on both sides. I'd recommend not blocking, but after a couple of rouge page protections I'm probably considered "involved" by somebody so I won't close it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is news to me, the policy must have been changed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Has been that way ever since my first edit on WP - which was sometime in 2006 iirc. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why was the page protected? Despite the above 3RR violation, it doesn't really seem as if there is editwarring going on. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ie. was any other editor close to the bright-line? And what do you think that the "i don't give a damn!" attitude towards our 3RR rule merits? I wouldn't have put this up, if Peter hadn't stated that he didn't give a flying ... about editwarring and other editors. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And as an addendum: Why have you protected the talk page??? How are people supposed to resolve the disputes now? --Kim D. Petersen 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you put this up because you didn't feel you got enough respect, you're not exactly making your 3RR case stronger. The rule exists solely for the protection of articles, not to enforce respect between disputing parties.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What on earth does this have to do with "respect"? This isn't a game. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Appeal to the closing admin: Please unprotect the page, or at the very least the talk-page after examining this case. Despite the reverts the article is actually pretty stable, and there are ongoing discussions at the talk page. It seems rather contrary to our WP:Page protection policy to do it this way. As far as i can tell, Peter is the only one who edit-warred in any serious consideration of the word, and not even that was very serious... it was the "i don't give a damn about editwarring" attitude that made me report this case. --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I must say that full protection was a bit drastic, but I'm actually starting to like it. If anything, it might cool down things and focus them on actual article improvement. Overall, discussion has been focused on how to accommodate the personal opinions of Kim, RhinoMind and Serge.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Its rather unfortunate to state this, but it seems that User:Peter Isotalo is treating this (and Wikipedia) as a game (see ). --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's called "fun", Kim. Try it some time.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not "fun" when it results in disrupting wikipedia Peter. --Kim D. Petersen 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that's some serious shit, this disruption business. You better report me right away. I'm sure AN/I will take note.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Peter baiting is not civil... --Kim D. Petersen 21:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kim D. Petersen about a very cavalier attitude and would like to add that it only takes Peter about 3 seconds to revert things he doesn't like in an article he's guarding. Obviously that gives him no time to use talk pages before reverting. It can't give any normal human being, especially one who is conscientious about any kind of work, time even to think a bit before taking constructive action. It just gives one time to do exactly as one pleases. As far as I know, most of us are trying to create and maintain a reasonably respectable encyclopedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm not a normal human being. I'm a Wikipedia Terrorist.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Could i ask you politely to stop having "fun", and take this issue seriously? --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we can rest our case now and let other neutral people chime in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to add som diffs, though. Gonna be hard for them neutral folk to get a handle on this otherwise.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to WP:AGF Peter, and not assume that you are bragging about how good you are at disguising your behavior, as your comment would indicate. And instead assume that you simply couldn't desist baiting, because you are having "fun". Please don't. --Kim D. Petersen 21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bishonen's talkpage is a moot issue. It's user talk space. Many users, and sometimes myself, use it to let off steam. No names are named, no accusations are made, but we sometimes make facetious comments about our activities as Wikipedians, including disputes we are involved with. If you can't see the comedy in a heated dispute about a type of pastry, you've developed an awfully high opinion of yourself.
 * And I'm not going to feel bad about making tart comments about anyone who calls me "terrorist", or anyone who takes advantage of such spiteful nonsense by accusing me of trolling. For crying out loud, I apologized to Rhino and even attempted an appeal that get back on track. Rhino's response to this was to engage in personal attacks and high-handed accusations against me in a section heading. A section heading, damnit! And then you call me a troll. You even openly accuse me in this thread of disruptive editing.
 * And after all that spite, you extending me the courtesy of saying you're doing all this in good faith. While griping about baiting of course. How do you expect me to respond? You're in chin flick territory by now.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected three days by User:Floquenbeam. There was a related complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Some very experienced people got surprisingly angry about this. I hope this doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Walter Sobchak0 reported by User:Altenmann (Result:2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

The user persists restoring text unreferenced since 2012. The article talk page already sontaind extensive discussion that wikipedia policies about referncing should not be violated, but this editor ignores it. -M.Altenmann >t 16:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Also very interesting form of discussion: "I'll look for references for this in the future but I must say people like you are to Wikipedia what the Ebola virus is to the human immune system. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)" Please intervene. -M.Altenmann >t 16:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) diff
 * 2) Go to the talk page and take your bipolar episodes somewhere else
 * 3) Go to talk page and stop bickering

Bottom line is I said "I'll look for references for this in the future " but this whining idiot felt the need to "report" me anyway rather than confront me in the talk page.

You can guess from my prose I don't mind being blocked, I'll survive the trauma. M.Altenmann is an idiot and should be treated as such. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to ask an uninvolved admin to enforce wikipedia policies and undo the restoration of a huge original research unreferenced since 2012. -M.Altenmann >t 17:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah let's not forget that head-on affront to the wiki Gestalt. This is important. Walter Sobchak0 (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I already removed the additions again, as a non-admin. I noticed that the user had been blocked, but didn't find this discussion until after I'd restored and replied on Talk:Spanish profanity. --Closeapple (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:A862678110 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff1 01:49, February 17, 2015
 * 2) Diff2 17:37, February 17, 2015
 * 3) Diff3 00:12, February 18, 2015
 * 4) Diff4 00:53, February 18, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Based on their edit histories, A862678110 appears to be an SPA dedicated to replacing Taiwan with the term "Republic of China" on various articles on English-language Wikipedia (e.g. see also: List of countries and dependencies by area, where this same editor is also engaging in edit-warring), and it seems like a more severe action like a Block is the only thing that might get their attention on this.

(Sidenote – I believe there is a sockmaster account that shares this same M.O., but I can't remember the details on that, or I might have gone the WP:SPI route. If anyone knows the sockmaster account to which I'm referring, please comment here!...) --IJBall (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I warned the user about about edit warring on the users talk page but they again reverted on List of countries and dependencies by area again, but did at least go to the talk page and comment on the discussion I started. Consensus was not built and I warned against edit warring there as after talk page warning was ignored and then the user reverted yet again on List of countries and dependencies by area. XFEM Skier (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Looks like this one's just been blocked by Ymblanter. --IJBall (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * – by User:Ymblanter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebelrick123 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647620806 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 647501678 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646126382 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Stop trolling */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Stop trolling */"


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


 * Comments:

The user was given ample opportunity to discuss the edits he was repeatedly making, even after making more than three reverts, but instead chose to continue to revert again and again and resorted to insulting me on both his and my talk pages. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. I blocked for the personal attack at User talk:RealDealBillMcNeal. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Germanbrother reported by User:Doc James (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Additional concern is that some of the edits are kind of spammy. And then are making them across multiple articles. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours. Edit warring at Major depressive disorder; spamming at multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Aspire987 reported by User:Meters (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * by User:Meters
 * by User:C.Fred

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

SPA edit warring to create Wirt Artna on a reenactment group (first one nominated for speedy as copyvio and promo, second one as no claim of notability, both deleted after author finally blanked article) and include poorly sourced promotional mention of the group in the list of reenactment groups. No response to edit summary comments, user talk page posts, or article talk page post. Meters (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - complete revision
 * 2)  - reinserted material removed in an earler edit
 * 3)  - removed my addition to the lede of who uses the term
 * 4)  - removed material added here
 * 5)  - self evident revision

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Lightbreather is on a bit of a rampage here. WP:ACDS apply to this article and considering how bad this behavior is, I am surprised no one has stepped in yet. WeldNeck (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am reviewing WN's diffs and will return after. Lightbreather (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:WeldNeck I have no opinion of whether the edits were or were not problematic so I am not endorsing your version of events here, however you may need this [] if you are asking for Discretionary Sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not asking for sanctions (wouldn't even know how to). I just assumed an article under this level of scrutiny would be policed harder. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * FWIW to any admin-types scrolling through: Voluntary Iban. Lightbreather (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has been undergoing a major, collaborative revision since the beginning of the year. It started out as this pro-gun WP:POV mess. (Note that version's pro-gun editor is now indefinitely topic banned from gun control articles. Note "term-of-art" and "pejorative" in the lead, as well as not one, not two, but three "controversies" sections.) On January 15, I announced on the discussion page that I was going to try to get the article in shape for a GA nomination. It's been slow going, and heated at times, but the article is 10 times better now than it was at the beginning of the year. Although there has been some friction, we've all managed to stay civil with each other and more importantly, improved the article so much that I took the next step on the way toward GA and request a peer review on February 10.

Yesterday, however, two new pro-gun players showed up.
 * One made two edits, without edit summaries, and one brief opinion statement on the talk page.
 * WeldNeck made four edits: three (note reintroduction of "pejorative" and putting loophole in scare quotes) without edit summaries, and one with the edit summary "only hoplophobes use this phrase."

I warned another editor that she was being baited, but apparently fell for the tag-teaming myself. Therefore, I am self-imposing a 24-hour ban on gun control articles. If that is deemed insufficient and I am to be punished, I would like the opportunity to open one or two other 3RR cases related to this article. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I dont care if you are banned or blocked but when you revert an edit of mine and say "see talk page" there should kinda sort of be something on the talk page to go along with that. WeldNeck (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I meant to address that - your "attempt to resolve the dispute" was to add this remark:
 * Your edit summary says to look at the talk page and I am looking but aint seeing much. Does anyone aside from hoplophobes use the phrase "gun show loophole"?
 * to this discussion - - which was about another dispute. If you had simply done a search, you would have found a conversation about use of the word "pejorative" as a (undue) descriptor for "gun show loophole." As for whether or not "anyone aside from hoplophobes" use the term, the talk page and the article itself are chock full of all sides using the term.
 * Looking at your editing history and disregard for consensus building, I'd day you've been lucky dodging a block yourself. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * See Gun control. On 14 July 2014, Lightbreather was banned for six months from  editing on the topic of gun control. And see Teahouse/Questions under Possible WP:UNCIVIL where today it was suggested to another Gun show loophole editor regarding complains about   that she WP:DISENGAGE EChastain (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected two days. User:WeldNeck gets a special mention for inserting partisan language into the article text. Please be aware that tendentious editing is one of the obvious reasons to use discretionary sanctions. All editors are encouraged to continue talk page discussion, which seems to be going well. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Taospark reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning by User:bobrayner Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Second warning by myself

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Taospark has been engaged in a prolonged slow motion edit war against multiple users for at least a month. Longer, if - as is quite possible - User:Crossswords is their sockpuppet (or vice versa). Recently this edit warring accelerated so that Taospark broke 3RR today. This was AFTER multiple warnings about it from several users. Specifically, Taospark was warned on the talk page about edit warring by myself, bobrayner, Staberinde and Vanamonde93. These warnings have been ignored and/or met with belligerence. In fact, even getting Taospark to the talk page was quite a task. And once there, they began accusing everyone who disagreed with them of "proxying" for each other. In other words, they took WP:CONSENSUS and decided it was a conspiracy. This is pretty much standard disruptive behavior.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User Volunteer Marek has been engaging in blanket deletions of this article for several months since before my involvement Current dispute is regarding 3 sections which are properly sourced and relevant to the article's subject matter for which I're requested mediation here - Taospark (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you've continued to edit war even after you filed the request for mediation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * marek stop your accusation of me being a sock puppet you have no proof whats so ever, just because i originally didnt agree on staberindes edits removing sourced text. I could also accusse you being a sockepuppet of bobbyrainer and staberinde and vis versa just because i see you agreeing on something, the editing history shows.--Crossswords (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I don't have time to pursue it anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would add that talkpage reasoning for my edits was provided already at 21 January and repeatedly referred to in edit summaries  but Taospark has blatantly ignored it for a month.--Staberinde (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC) – 48 hours. As one of the participants noted on Talk, Taospark has been "reverting multiple editors on a regular basis essentially without discussion". One of his talk comments was, "I've yet to see any proof this is a consensus and not a proxy edit war". Viewing his opponents as a conspiracy doesn't improve his credibility. EdJohnston (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to notice that Taospark has very few edits in the project and does nothing but reverts on this page during several last months. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:BeyonderGod reported by User:65.126.152.254 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.152.254 (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The above are more recent examples, but this user has been on-and-off edit-waring with User:David A for months. User talk:BeyonderGod

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Beyonder and two threads following that.

Comments:

I already debunked whatever David A stated and gave resources and SCANS i can surely give Admin many examples to where i have debunked whatever he has given and people around forums are even stating he shouldn't be editing as he IGNORES fact from his OWN opinion. 15:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeyonderGod (talk • contribs)
 * In my opinion, Beyondergod seems to have trouble with understanding WP:TRUTH. In addition, his changes to the wording and capitalization make it much less understandable. He is at the fourth revert for the day. Origamiteⓣⓒ 15:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing further to add, beyond that I have repeatedly tried to compromise according to his wishes as best that I can, and that I thought that we had agreed to leave this matter behind us and to leave each other alone, as I thought that he was satisfied with me allowing the Beyonder character to repeatedly be called omnipotent on the page, as this is the entire goal of his Wikipedia presence.
 * I do not remotely have the energy to deal with this user any more, as we have had a thankful two-month break in our previous 5-month conflict outside of Wikipedia, and do not wish to have any further confrontations, so if this matter is not dealt with by others, I will probably just give a big sigh and let him do whatever he wants with the page of his namesake. The grammar simply seems to be of inappropriate Wikipedia standard. David A (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 23:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:31.178.31.187 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Comments by
My thanks to for the report. This is one of several IP edits attempting to restore a redirected article to its talk page; if my understanding of policy is correct, this is less a WP:3RR issue than a WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT issue, so someone please clarify for me. Also, I have a request in to protect the page which, as I type this, has received no response. (Edit: now protected.) &mdash; ATinySliver &#47; ATalkPage  01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected the talk page, to keep an IP editor from restoring the original article there, contrary to common sense (since it's a talk page, not an article) and contrary to the [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MaxTV_-_Telling_It_Like_It_Is result of the AfD], which wanted MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is to be merged to Max Kolonko. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Succession controversy */ repeatative"
 * 2)  "/* Succession controversy */ the reference given do not support the paragraph. the details are already given in the article - 53rd syedna succession controversy."
 * 3)  "/* See also */ repeated link is someone trying to prove something here?"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 647763413 by Rukn950 (talk): Your reference is wrongly stated please talk before reverting. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated  March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated  March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=647683012&oldid=647668188
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=647825563&oldid=647823737
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&diff=647857524&oldid=647856609

Old case:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Warning:

User talk:Summichum

User talk:Summichum

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive_35

User user:Summichum has been persistent in establishing his POV,WP:POINT,reinserting with self publish report on personal website,where no press or media has reported it. Any attempt to reason with him has proved useless.
 * Comments:

This user is blaming me for COI it when infact he is doing so himself,violating BLP. He is so hasty in bringing me to this edit war while I have been trying to resolve through talk page.

The user was also blocked earlier for sockpuppetry and Editwar.Rukn950 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have kept my revert 647857524 because it explains the misrepresentation of summichum.


 * The diffs presented above are just copy pasted from my edit war application above, these diffs only prove that this user has gone beyond 3RR.This user is constantly on lookout to remove any information which goes against his view point , whereas I try to get all the points , this user as can be seen has removed cited content and notable references only because his POV is not satisfied.The user has indeed crossed 3RR rule and this user was blocked for real sock puppetry and got me blocked using sockpuppets , and I created a new account and stated upfront on user page that its my second account and was created to only reply for his sock investigation case.Summichum (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The diffs are copypaste true. but that is because summichum doesnt seem to understand that the edits were not POV but were poorly sourced and not relevant to this article. cherry picking and misrepresenting has become habit of summichum.Also Blowing out of proportion any negative information regarding the Mufaddal Saifuddin and related to Dawoodi Bohra, and blaming others for POV(sic)Rukn950 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"This Summichum disruptive edits has been going on for too long and request editors to topic ban Summichum from all Dawoodi bohra Articles. I dont Mind if Admin Ban me too. At least the articles be neutral and other genuine editors would do justification."

This user have strong COI against the sect. Please ref his creation pages all are negative aimed at either deletion or complain. This fellow is in spree of removing historical information on the plea of third party sourcing. :This is not explainable why he chose DB article only amongst lacks of Wiki articles. Please analyze and desist this user using Wiki for partisan activities.

Rukn950(talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See other report above, filed by summichum against Rukn950. Bjelleklang  -  talk 15:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 reported by User:Personman (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Personman (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Personman is trying to WP:Game the system. Like I noted on the talk page, Personman was adding in content that is not supported by the WP:Reliable sources. I reverted Personman a third time to inform Personman of WP:Edit warring, and, while I was typing up a talk page rebuttal intending to address WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD, Personman was reporting me here. It is only after I pointed out Personman's WP:Edit warring that Personman brought the matter here to this noticeboard, obviously in an effort to stop the discussion and reinsert the unsupported edits. Personman did not give me a WP:Edit warring warning (and I would not have violated WP:3RR anyway); as noted, I gave Personman a WP:Edit warring warning via an edit summary. If I am WP:Edit warring, then so is Personman. '''I will not revert again, and I ask WP:Administrators to disregard this report and let the discussion run its course. WP:Blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive.''' Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to game the system, your edits are the ones unsupported by reliable sources, your "edit warring warning" was in the edit message of your third revert in 24 hours in blatant contravention of policy, and I was not edit warring - in fact, I responded to the criticism in your first revert and significantly improved the sentence as a result. In accordance with policy about disagreements I brought the discussion to the talk page, where you argued against some entirely unrelated assertion made by neither myself nor my edit, inserted a long and unrelated quotation, and failed to respond to my very specific and sourced criticisms of your preferred wording, instead choosing to just revert the page a third time. I think my report here is entirely and exactly justified by policy, though I welcome any suggestions by an administrator as to how I could have handled this better. Personman (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I consider bringing this matter straight to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard after I pointed out WP:Edit warring to you, and including a "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" link when you gave me no such warning, to indeed be WP:Gaming the system. Discussion was going on at the talk page, and you should not at all have been reverting to your unsourced, POV content. I am not some WP:Vandal or WP:Disruptive editor blindly reverting, nor am I an editor who crosses WP:3RR. I am an editor who was making a case based on what WP:Reliable sources in the article state; those sources, including the Julia Serano source, do not define the matter the way that you have defined it. I responded regarding your very specific criticisms and your preferred wording. This is a content dispute that you are looking to shut down by reporting me here. Your report here would only serve to get you WP:Blocked as well since we were reverting each other and neither of us crossed the WP:3RR line. There is nothing at all that makes your reverting better in this case. I stated that I will not revert again, however. If you will not revert again, you should go ahead and make that clear now. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that my edit had an egregious typo in it - I had omitted the 'not'! I still can't make total sense out of your arguments, but if this is why you were reverting it, then of course I understand, and I'm really sorry for the confusion! I put it back in. Personman (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your comments in this discussion show that you have a deeply flawed understanding of what WP:Edit warring is. This is not surprising since it seems that you do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and have not interacted much with editors via talk pages. To be clearer on WP:Edit warring, it does not mean reverting more than three times; you are confusing that with WP:3RR. You reverted yet again, after I stated that I would not revert again. That equals WP:Gaming the system. But I suppose that, with your level of inexperience with editing Wikipedia, I cannot blame you for not knowing that it is WP:Gaming the system. Your edit still has no WP:Reliable source supporting it in its entirety. I will soon be listing WP:Reliable sources at that talk page showing exactly what I mean since I am, so far, the only one going by them in that discussion. I will then seek wider input. You had better be ready to bring your WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. Both parties have walked right up to the 3RR line. Any further reverts may put them over. It's good that Flyer22 opened an RfC. More reverts (before consensus is reached) will be risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Mthomas12 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Not 3RR, a slow-motion edit war. No reasons posted on the edits, no response to requests on user's talk page, article's talk page, and via edit summary. Warring at question is over the removal of the former name of the subject, which is vital to the article as all the references before her marriage are in her former name. Editor is an SPA, and the username suggests that editor may actually be the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned User:Mthomas12. Further reverts of this kind are risking an indefinite block from Wikipedia. See your user talk page for details. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.167.228 and User:Huldra reported by User:Brad Dyer (Result: IP blocked, no action against Huldra)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: IP reverting to, other user reverting to

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

As I was posting the 3RR notice on the users' talk pages, I noticed that (a) the IP was already warned by Huldra, and subsequently blocked, and that (b) Huldra waited until they were blocked and then proceeded to violate 3RR himself 2 minutes after the block, knowing they are now in a 'position to win' with their opponent blocked. To me, that's disgusting behavior that should not be condoned.

Comment by Huldra: I am pretty sure that (now blocked) IP was as I reported here, namely Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. His threath to me on his user-page sound very much like him: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A124.180.167.228&diff=647871762&oldid=647871011 :Go fuck yourself you mother fucking cunt. == To Huldra == I sincerely hope you die]. I note that  Brad Dyer  apparently does not find anything objectionable with the IP`s edits. Huldra (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course I find his edits objectionable, I reported him here. But he's already been blocked, and you seem to be taking advantage of that to continue your little edit war, and broke 3RR in the process. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I undid the edits of a vandal. So you object to that. Now I see you have reinstated the edit of the same vandal. Noted. And what you reinstated is factually wrong: Ariel (city) is not in Israel, not even the Israeli government  claims that. It is on the occupied West Bank. Huldra (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There was no vandalism there - there was a content dispute between you and an IP editor. You both violated 3RR, and you both should be sanctioned. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you actually claiming that  Ariel (city) is  in Israel? That is a position that not a single authority inside or outside Israel supports. So you (and the vandal) inserts something into the article that no  authority agrees with you on....and then you claim it is "a content dispute"? Huldra (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000. Huldra was clearly doing her best to minimise the damage caused by this IP lunatic in multiple articles. The fact that the IP was up to no good and would soon be blocked was obvious from its first edit, and confirmed by its 6 reverts in a row at 2015 Chapel Hill shooting (starting Feb 16, 5:05). After that it seems to be following Huldra around, blindly reverting  even on admin pages. I'm 99% sure that this is the same user (permanently blocked under many names) that sent vicious death-threats by email to both Huldra and myself. In that case it comes under the rule "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." Zerotalk 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: The IP has been blocked by another admin. No action against User:Huldra. As noted by User:Zero0000, reverts of edits by banned or blocked users are exempt from 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:83.23.202.187 reported by User:J.K Nakkila (Result: Page semied)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Resolve attempt not by me but by User:Amakuha, who also undid number of IP's reverts. I did undo Ip's revert once. I don't actually know who's right there but the situation is worth looking at. J.K Nakkila (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bjelleklang -  talk 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:80.111.174.103 reported by User:IPadPerson (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Supporting acts */"
 * 2)  "/* Setlist */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 647957432 by Morhange (talk) They also covered a Dodgy song on the tour."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647957432 by Morhange (talk) They also covered a Dodgy song on the tour."


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


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


 * Comments:

This user is edit warring on the article by repeatedly inserting incorrect information after being reverted constantly by myself and one other user. A warning was given despite this, but the user likely ignored it. IPadPerson (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 18:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Unbuttered Parsnip (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  note that this editor had in place an under construction since 16:25, 17 February 2015 until 22:52, 19 February 2015.  In that time he made approximately 64 revisions to the live page, even though I told him he should be using his sandbox.
 * 2)  additions I made 07:34, 19 February 2015‎. Note I am in UTC+8, and I spent about 4 hours researching these changes. My edit summary was (correct errors (names, dates); futureproof inflation figures; improve (Hansard) cites; add converts: ce (sp, grammar, general lexis))
 * 3)  1st reversion with edit summary (Partial rv. Numerous MoS errors sported (punct, non-standard formatting on inflation), correct Hansard cites (its not an encyclopaedia, and caps are a no-no). relinked useful links etc)
 * 4)  my second attempt at 03:28, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary ((1) go read WP:OWNER, and WP:OVERLINK; (2) MOS doesn't talk about inflation; (3) of course Hansard is an encyclopedia – a collection of varied topics from many contributors, it certainly isn't a web, and capitals are theirs) NB this was quite a change from my first attempt, overcoming some of the earlier objections
 * 5)  reversion by another editor Curly Turkey at 05:04, 20 February 2015 with edit comment (Undid revision 647984163 by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk) wow, that was horrible—and you don't just go around changing reference styles without consensus) NB sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT
 * 6)  Another attempt at 05:37, 20 February 2015 with edit summary  (Undid revision 647993269 by Curly Turkey (talk) Horrible? How? - because it's not written by you? What reference style did I change? I corrected some, provided more info.)
 * 7)  2nd reversion by this editor at 06:37, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary (Reverted to revision 647969664 by Crisco 1492 (talk): Not an improveme. (TW))
 * 8)  my final attempt, at 08:08, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary (Reverted 2 edits by SchroCat (talk): Go read WP:OWNER, and when you've read it, go read it again.)
 * 9)  editor's 3rd reversion at 08:19, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary (Undid revision 648009576 by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk)You are edit warring with two other editors, neither of whom claim ownership. You are also at 3RR. Time to use the talk page)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Discussion on talk page was partly removed

I also received quite a lot of abuse, on the Talk:Great Stink page as you can see, and also on my own talk page, both times from User:Curly Turkey

Oops, forgot to sign just now -- Unbuttered parsnip  (talk) mytime= Fri 23:31, wikitime=  15:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Good grief: an editor with something grudge because his largely poor edit was partially reverted? Life is too short for this. Are you complaining because you spent 4 hours researching some changes that you think lost, or because I made 64 revisions to a live page after you told me to use a sandbox (it's a flaming encyclopaedia: additions are supposed to be made in the article space!) you have made no effort to discuss the changes, despite me outlining where your edit breached various parts of the guidelines. Learn to use the talk page to discuss your changes and try and gain a consensus, rather than edit war against the MoS recommendations. I will only say that there is no breach of 3RR here, which is what this page is for, and if you had started using the talk page a lot earlier (as per WP:BRD you wouldn't have wasted so much time and patience for people having to explain where you are going wrong. You can count yourself lucky that neither Curly Turkey nor I dropped you into ANI for uncivil manner and accusations you have levelled against us. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * please read the second section of WP:OWN. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:184.153.132.54 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: IP blocked per another report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please do not engage in edit wars and false accusations, and non productive threats. The talk page is encouraged for settling disputes. A claim has been filed against you."
 * 2)  "Again: Edit-warring disruption started right on schedule by user Dr.K who has continued to make disruptive and sloppy edits to the page, in addition to disruptive false accusations."
 * 3)  "Edit-warring disruption started right on schedule by user Dr.K who has continued to make disruptive and sloppy edits to the page, in addition to disruptive false accusations."
 * 4)  "Edit-warring disruption started right on schedule by user Dr.K who has continued to make disruptive and sloppy edits to the page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on AA (band). (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring sock IP restoring unsourced BLP-violating members' birthday tables against consensus in a concerted and long-term effort with other edit-warring IPs to defeat established consensus after long talks between K-pop editors including, ,  and others. Please see this and this for related longterm IP disruption at the article. Disruptive editing leaving tit-for-tat warnings on my talk. Please see also Sockpuppet investigations/108.183.129.131. Started edit-warring soon after article protection expired. Will not stop edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr.K. reported by User:184.153.132.54 (Result: Nominating editor blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AA_(band)&diff=648079425&oldid=648074913] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AA_(band)&diff=648074406&oldid=648073141] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AA_(band)&diff=648072648&oldid=648072466] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AA_(band)&diff=647998438&oldid=647998098] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AA_(band)&diff=647826681&oldid=647826294]
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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

User has been edit warring against attempts at civil discussion in the talk page and instead resorting to false accusations of the use of socks. User has been making extremely hostile, threatening, and non productive edits to both the page on AA and my personal talk page. Started edit warring soon after article protection expired. Will not stop edit warring. 184.153.132.54 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * You seem to be adding unsourced birthdays. Reverts are exempted from WP:3RR. --Neil N  talk to me 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been going on for a while now, and while this is not the most serious WP:BLP violation, it still violates the policy by being completely uncited, and you edit-war in order to push your preferred version onto the page. I'm also a bit worried about your allegations that he is threatening you, without ever showing any evidence of a threat. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]—could instruction please be added to clarify what should be put here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

Comments:

This is a clear-cut case of POV-pushing. Andiar.rohnds has repeatedly added the Muslim ethnicity of a victim of the shooting to the lead of the article, despite the fact that nowhere in the article is this detail made a relevant fact. The user has a history of such contentious edits, at one point deleting almost the entire lead with the edit comment "various minor corrections at lead section". Attempts to get him to find a consensus before making such efforts have resulted in comments such as this, laden with personal attacks such as "asinine", "vandalizing this article", "You actually have no clue", and implying I may be considering sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting. His comments and edit comments in general have been aggressive or condescending, and he doesn't appear to be interested in even making the attempt to find a consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Update

Andiar.rohnds contentious edit has since been reverted by WWGB, which Andiar.rohnds has followed up with further unexplained reverts: Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Further update

After going through the motions of using the talk page, where he failed to find any support for his changes, Andiar.rohnds has returned to (reverting WWGB)  (reverting myself) to push his contentious edits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours. If either side was hoping to avoid sanctions, it wasn't smart to continue to revert while this report was open. Both editors have been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Redheylin reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: Editor will leave the category alone )
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 only other time I have initiated a report here, the reportee hadn't made 4 reverts, but I have hopefully learned to count since then. Redheylin is a very long term editor, with an excellent history (only one block) who should need no reminding not to edit war, but really needs an admonishment to stoppit. I shall now advise him of this on his Talk. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a pre-emptive complaint following some rather bad behaviour. I looked at a page that I had edited some time ago and found it had been categorised as "pseudo-science" by another editor, who makes many similar edits, and was immediately reverted when I reomved it. I looked at the history and found the same editor had very recently reverted another editor. The editor's comments were rude. I pointed out there was one editor reverting and more than one who objected. The editor said the other editor was "misguided" and I was "raising a red herring".


 * He then posted an alert on the "Fringe" page, and this brought two like-minded editors with no previous knowledge of the page, one of whom immediately issued an edit war warning to me. These two then began to edit the page. I engaged them on the talk page and explained the issues, along with two other editors who thought their editing was controversial. As far as I know, I offered a full explanation of the subject and the situation, and pointed out that WP:CAT controversial categorisations are to be avoided, but the two editors continued to make edits and did not respond adequately to the matter. Today I found that the complainant had made a mocking answer to my last, full explanation of the matter, and concluded that these editors aimed to get their way by working in a pack disruptively, without any attempt to respond to matters of policy. Hence I returned the categorisation to its former state. And so, since the complainant has no consensus and no interest in policy guidelines or the actualities of the case, but appears only to be pushing this shared "pseudo-skeptical" point of view at any cost, he has lodged the present complaint. Redheylin (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This edit warring complaint is legitimate. Redheylin has claimed ownership as the one who created the article, even though other editors have significantly edited it. His ownership behavior has been noted. The PS category has been there for a very long time because content and RS justify it, so it belongs there. Redheylin continues to attack a straw man by claiming that the historical aspects of the subject are being labeled as pseudoscientific. No, they are categorized as Obsolete scientific theories. The PS category applies to the current uses of vitalism as the basis for various New Age and alternative medicine practices. Our sources are clear about that. Therefore we use both categories.
 * We use categories as an aid for readers, and this subject contains significant elements which are covered by several categories. The objections to the use of the label pseudoscience are nothing more than the allergic reactions of believers in pseudoscience who feel struck. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Redheylin's edit warring must stop. Both categories apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not asked for a block above, but if Redheylin cannot see his own edit-warring behaviour, per his comments, then I may reconsider. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You both need something better to do. Redheylin (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As this is Redheylin's second edit warring offence, I don't think a 24 hour block would be adequate in this case. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The four removals of the category by User:Redheylin since 18 February seem to meet the definition of edit warring, though others have not been blameless. In my opinion, the case can be closed with no block if Redheylin will agree to wait for a talk page consensus before removing the category again. Others have also joined in this war, so further admin action is not ruled out. It is in everyone's interest to resolve this through discussion on Talk:Vitalism. An RfC is one option to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The difficulty is that there seems no possibility of consensus. The only editor who has been watching the page in question is User:BullRangifer, and he has not participated in the discussion on the talk-page. Instead he reported the incident on the "Fringe theories" page and obtained two editors, including Roxy, who "tag-teamed" the page, and introduced misleading edits during the discussion. It is very common in these cases to use this "Fringe theories" page to canvas "pseudoscience" POV advocates with no previous connection with a given page, who open discussions on several fronts simultaneously and introduce contentious edits while the talk-page discussion is going on. I believe the discussion clearly shows an unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and to reach consensus.


 * The removal is supported by myself, User:Solomonfromfinland and User:Maunus. WP:CAT clearly says that categorisation should not be controversial. There is no majority in favour of the continued addition of this category, flagrant misrepresentations of authors remain upon the page. Therefore I believe that Wikipedia policy in no way supports the continued addition of the category by User:Bullrangifer, and that his conduct intentionally provokes edit-war, ignoring consensus, the talk-page and Wikipedia policy. Redheylin (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may ask one more thing: the last revert was carried out by anonymous user 216.9.110.3 - I do not know if this is a proxy edit. Like many bona-fide Wikipedia editors I concentrate upon the constructive editing of articles, spending the minimum of time on administrative pages and talk pages. It just happens that, some years ago, I put a lot of time into articles on the history of developmental biology. I have been sad to see the damage that has been inflicted upon such articles by polemical editors. This is not the only source of contentious editing I have encountered - I have seen trouble from hard-line nationalist and sectarian editors too - but the "pseudoskeptical" cadre is a particularly egregious example who, in my opinion, set out to game the system and to work in packs to slant articles, on subjects in which they have little expertise, to a single issue dictated by a small number of "authoritative" canonical texts such as "The Skeptic' Dictionary". I work hard to produce neutral POVs but it seems to me that a few editors in this field work hard to damage articles, to make them appear incoherent and to apply undue weight to one side. The only good thing is that, knowing so little of the subject in hand, only a few key pages become battlegrounds. Since bona fide editors do not wish to engage in endless adminsitrative discussions, I think a great many experienced and dedicated editors simply give up and are lost to Wikipedia. This is my concern, and I am not sure what can be done about it. Therefore I have offered the above comments, not as an argument against the decision reached upon this page, but out of a long-standing and legitimate concern as to how to deal with this matter, and not to have hours of painstaking and fair-minded work ruined in minutes by gangs of POV-pushers and single-issue editors whose delight is not in the addition of relevant material but in its destruction, masked by endless, fruitless discussion, complaint and lawyering. Administrative suggestions on this will be welcome, please msg me on my page if possible. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , I offered to close this with no block if you would agree not to remove the pseudoscience category again without prior talk page consensus. Will you agree to this? EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, I haven't changed it have I? but I am asking how to achieve consensus when the reverter will not participate in the discussion. If you think the best way forward is to ignore WP:CAT policy, leave misrepresentative quotes on the page and reward canvassed POV-pushing, that's up to you, but the situation is not good, to me, it does not lead to a better Wikipedia as I say. As far as I am concerned, the breach is in the first place to ignore policy and the majority and the discussion and to keep reverting, that's the only reason we are all here, the only reason I have ever been suckered into any kind of altercation of this type in many years of service. I could contact all the editors who agree with me - but you're not supposed to, are you? So please advise.Redheylin (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: The complaint about Redheylin is closed with no block per his agreement to leave the pseudoscience category alone, until such time as a talk page consensus agrees to its removal. This action may or may not be enough to stop the war. If you notice others continuing to add or remove the category prior to consensus, you can bring new complaints to admins as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where do I go to complain about the nonsense written by Redheylin? A tirade of personal attacks and IDHT and not even a hint of an apology for deliberate edit warring? Not particularly good behaviour. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Rukn950 reported by User:Summichum (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Succession controversy */ repeatative"
 * 2)  "/* Succession controversy */ the reference given do not support the paragraph. the details are already given in the article - 53rd syedna succession controversy."
 * 3)  "/* See also */ repeated link is someone trying to prove something here?"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 647763413 by Rukn950 (talk): Your reference is wrongly stated please talk before reverting. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated  March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated  March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user is removing well refrenced information along with citation, the user wants to remove well cited information that Burhanuddin did not declare any successor as late as 2011 which is clearly mentioned in the last line of the cited article:http://www.rediff.com/news/special/special-bohra-dissenters-challenge-oppressive-priesthood/20110304.htm , the user has a strong COI. The user was warned amply in the past and was blocked earlier for sockpuppetry and COI noticeboard. Summichum (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The time when he managed to block me for suckpuppet. he himself was engaging in sockpuppetry and was blocked. please take time to study this guys behavior before getting to any conclusion.
 * I have done no recent edit that shows any conflict of interest and POV which the Diff given by summichum is proof in itself. but That cannot be said about summichum.Rukn950 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not done 3 revert as you can see.and my reverts I have explained. summichum is cherrypicking and misrepresenting facts to prove his POVRukn950 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * his argument for not appointing successor in 2011 is not relevant to this article and reference he is citing is overkill.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This user is constantly on lookout to remove any information which goes against his view point, whereas I try to get all the points , this user as can be seen has removed cited content and notable references only because his POV is not satisfied.The user has indeed crossed 3RR rule and this user was blocked for real sock puppetry and got me blocked using sockpuppets , and I created a new account and stated upfront on user page that its my second account and was created to only reply for his sock investigation case.Summichum (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This user summichum blames anyone but himself. your above statement proves you were indulged in sock puppet intentionally(sic).Rukn950 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please use WP:DR instead. Also a quick reminder to everyone about WP:AGF; please do not accuse anyone if being a sock unless you can document it. ; not everyone disagreeing with you is a sock of Md iet, so please discuss changes instead of reverting at first sight. Bjelleklang -  talk 15:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bjelleklang, I have not accused him of being a sock of md iet , I know they are not sock but meat , you can check his prior log, Md iet is another league of its own, anyways, user ruqn has clearly violated 3RR, so may I know why he was not blocked, I have waited for the 24 hr period and reverted his edit which had removed well cited content without giving any concrete relevant reason, I have explained this on talk page too. Hence I request to block this user for 3RR as per the case.Summichum (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking you were both past 3RR if I'm not much mistaken. I decided not to block either of you to give you a chance to resolve the issue. As I've also mentioned on the article talkpage, responded to your initial post three days ago, but you still have not responded to him. Please do so instead of reverting; reverting instead of discussing is usually looked upon as disruptive, so by doing so you risk being blocked. Bjelleklang  -  talk 10:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Rswallis10 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 648139822 by Favre1fan93 (talk) content DOES NOT fall under the reasonings of S/IMDB"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 648114362 by Drovethrughosts (talk) I do not believe this is a violation of WP:CITINGIMDB after reading the article. These titles are not user-generated"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 648113009 by Drovethrughosts (talk) show me an official Wikipedia document stating that IMDb is not a reliable sourc. Then I'll stop."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 648112676 by Drovethrughosts (talk) do you want an edit war? This is really STUPID!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 648112778 by Drovethrughosts (talk) please stop."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 648112492 by Drovethrughosts (talk see previous thought. This is borderline ridiculous. Find better things to do please. You're obviously bored."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 648112436 by Drovethrughosts (talk) There are people who cite using tweets from Twitter. Please stop with the bureaucracy."
 * 8)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 648108362 by Favre1fan93 (talk) it's not on Wikipedia's blacklist, so its ok. Edits shouldn't be undone  just because of your personal opinion of whats reliable, and what's not"
 * 10)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 648108362 by Favre1fan93 (talk) it's not on Wikipedia's blacklist, so its ok. Edits shouldn't be undone  just because of your personal opinion of whats reliable, and what's not"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */"


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


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

This user is in blatant violation of 3RR and simply does not care. I fail to see how the editor is of any good to this encyclopedia, and believe all would benefit from Rswallis10's being banned or blocked. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * I'm not as positive that a block is called for. I'd advise a closer look at the article's edit history; the reporter reverted thrice as well. Take special note of the utter lack of discussion by any of the participants of this lame revert war. If discussion had taken place in the article, then a 3RR report would have had some traction here. This seems retaliatory, especially since Favre1fan93 simply templated Rswallis10, and the latter went to Favre's user talk page to explain their actions. I am not saying Rswallis is right; I am suggesting that both of them handled this wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There appears to be three people edit warring. Protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Uniquark9 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Warned, article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This edit war has been on-going since Feb 12th. When anyone has reverted, then started a discussion, Uniquark9, IPs or Alicewond(1 edit) have arrived to revert back to Uniquarks version.

Uniquark9's snide remark after reverting me, "An edit war? Please, discuss". And yet, Uniquark9 has not engaged on the talk page, unless user:Khorichar is Uniquark9(sockpuppetry?), despite Richard Keatinge and Ergative rlt's attempt to start a discussion. Along with a block for edit warring(Uniquark9), the Xiongnu article needs to be protected and let a consensus on the talk page be established. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Article has been protected, please resolve issues on the talkpage and request edits to be made using the template Edit protected. Bjelleklang  -  talk 01:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that edit wars have been a pattern of behavior for Uniquark9. A complaint was recently lodged here, yet despite every editor who contributed to the discussion supporting sanction against him, no action was taken. No admin even engaged in the discussion, to my knowledge. So here one page is protected and he is free to carry on his disruption elsewhere. Filing a complaint is a long process -- I've twice reported him for socks, and participated in other complaints -- yet disregarding WP norms and guidelines and causing endless disruption means merely blanking one's talk page and continuing without so much as a response. How easy it is to frustrate the good faith efforts of editors working within the system. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought that the continued actions by Uniquark9 would have given them enough rope to hang themselves - however, this doesn't seem to be the case. They so far have been able to continue to disrupt this project despite at least two previous reports. Even more frustrating, the protection of the Xiongnu article benefited Uniqark9, as they restored the contentious material shortly before the protection went up. So, basically, they've been warned about edit warring and disruption, but their action was allowed to stand and now can only be undone by an administrator. They've essentially "won" this war, and have received no sanctions for their continued disruption on this and other articles.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 18:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:66.192.216.66 reported by User:K scheik (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: It was the above revert repeatedly undone and redone.
 * 1)

I attempted to reason with the editor, who has had her edits undone by two different editors, both times she undid the edits manually, to avoid notifying us that our edits had been undone.  Comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by K scheik (talk • contribs) 20:38, February 21, 2015‎


 * Bjelleklang -  talk 20:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "per actual source - we would not wish to mislead readers, I trust" (repeats component of edit at 12:46)
 * 2)  "/* Career */ radio shows without transcripts do not meet WP:RS and the source you give says she supports civil unions - which should therefore be mentioned" (removes reference added earlier today by other editor, after it was restored by a third editor)
 * 3)  "first source says civil partnerships are ok, second lacks a transcript so is not much use at all" (removes reference added earlier today by other editor)
 * 4)  "/* Career */ and your specific source other than the fact she generally supports that Church?" (reverts immediately preceding edit)
 * 5)  "/* top */ we already have supports church teachings - how many should we enumerate?" (reverts immediately preceding edit)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breda_O%27Brien#Radio_interview_reference (no participation from Collect)


 * Comments:

Am I missing something? It seems that is 100% correct in applying WP:BLP. Do I detect a WP:Boomerang headed somewhere else? WCM email 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh please -- no edit summary here tries to claim that there was a BLP violation that needed dealing with (thus reverts exempt from 3RR) -- and it's a good thing that no such claim was made, because there were no BLP violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Collect seems to have been correctly applying BLP policy and have come to consensus on the page. Removing an IP's innacurate material at a BLP does not constitute 3RR violation. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's "inaccurate" that O'Brien opposes gay marriage? You're wrong about that -- see the article and the source it gives.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, not as simple as that. Collect removed the IP's comment about opposing same-sex marriage, but that was then restored and sourced by two other editors (including a checkuser and oversighter!). He then switched to accepting that comment (so the IP was right) and adding other material to tone down the part he had to accept .  Whilst I've no particular wish to see him blocked, this isn't a BLP issue in any shape or form. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Um -- "unsourced" does not mean "well it was sourced later" -- WP:BLP requires removal of such unsourced material - and note that the actual claim substantiated by the source stated that she approves of civil partnerships. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm saying really, the first edit wasn't a problem but I think it's stretching BLP to say it's a requirement to add material to dampen a sourced criticism. But anyway, I don't think this is actionable on that basis. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree this isn't actionable. Someone please sentence this.  WCM email 23:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Last diff was a correction of a hit-and-run IP edit made to the lead with an unsourced claim. As such, it was removable. Same with the 15 Feb edit -  unsourced IP edit of a BLP.     made a specific claim which was unsourced. Again unsourced claims in a BLP are not protected last I looked.

Claims made in a BLP which are actually totally unsourced are removable, as the OP here knows. Bastun and I reached an accord on adding "and supports civil unions" as being what the source provided states. Which is how editing is supposed to occur on BLPs - not drive-by claims with not even a fig-leaf of a source provided.

Two of the edits were reverts or modifications of IP edits which were unsourced or poorly sourced. Three were in the proper goal of reaching proper claims properly supported. The OP did not post to my UT page until he made the complaint here, else I would have explained that WP:BLP requires removal of unsourced claims in the first place. Collect (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the first edit removes something added by an IP (something which in any event was eminently verifiable, as per a source subsequently added). The others either remove a source (with a bogus rationale) or add your own material.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the first was specifically required by policy. The last did not remove anything - it added what the source said - I find it amazing that you seem to appear on a great many articles I have edited.   Failure to accurately use a source for a claim is, IMO, pernicious.     By the way, you appear to think a source which is a radio program sans transcript is a valid source for a contentious claim.     I demur,  and saying my position is "bogus" ill suits you here.   Collect (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Only two of these can be called BLP support in any conceivable way. The rest are adding uncited material or removing obviously reliable sources (the RTÉ interview is doubly reliable as it's an interview with the person used in their bio, from a source that's also reputable in itself). Collect has been told time and again that "BLP" is not a catch-all for any edit he wishes to make. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No. There is no transcript. It is a problematic source. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What policy says that? It's policy that reliable sources that not all users can access (eg. paywalled) are still reliable. If a user can't or doesn't want to listen to the interview, the source is not disqualified - and I say this as someone who hates using audio or video sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect acted appropriately. The problem is with the OP who has demonstrated an inability to fully grasp the meaning of strict adherence as it relates to WP:BLP. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if one discounts the first revert, there is still a violation of 3RR here. Removing a source is not correction of a BLP violation.  Nor is adding the text (in reverts 4 and 5) correction of a BLP violation -- even if one considers inclusion of that text desirable, there was no need for Collect to edit-war it into the article.  The correct action here was for Collect to make his case on the talk page and gain consensus from other editors.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There is absolutely no requirement for a transcript, - what WP:RS actually states is: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

Nor does BLP arise here. What is contentious, in any way, about a well-known Roman Catholic columnist being opposed to same-sex marriage? Collect does not refer to BLP at all in the 2015 removals, and admits in edit summary: "we already have supports church teachings - how many should we enumerate?" It's actually quite ironic; O'Brien complains (in that radio interview and elsewhere) that being opposed to same-sex marriage is a perfectly reasonable view to hold and promote, but that anyone espousing that view is instead now branded as a homophobe; then Collect - who seems to feel the need to "defend" O'Brien's good name from what they're perceiving as an attack - removes the statement that O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage...

All of that said - minor 3RR violation, no longer ongoing. A warning would be sufficient. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not "defend" anything except WP:BLP and I suggest you look at my Johann Hari edits and try to reconcile that with your implicit accusation of bias on my part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not familiar with that article, or the issue it addresses, and I fail to see how your editing of an entirely different article relates to this one. This is an entirely different topic, where you seem to be claiming that it is somehow a breach of BLP and/or contentious for an article on a noted Catholic columnist to state that she is opposed to same-sex marriage. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not edit any BLP on the basis of any POV about who they are. Period.   That you seem to wish to assert bias where none exists is very sad.  O'Brien is on record as supporting civil partnerships - and why anyone would wish to elide that clear statement I find odd.  What is odd also is that the following commenter is upset that I follow WP:BLP o on Sam Harris  (author) who is an atheist!   I guess I am a Popish atheist?   BTW, read WP:OIECE please.  Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is clear and not negotiable. I would draw everyone's attention to Talk:Sam_Harris_(author) where I suggest you are in the minority -- not even deigning to defend your edit which you sought so diligently to place in that BLP.   If I am "wikilawyering" there, I have  four accomplices including Xenophrenic! Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And again, BLP does not apply to this case. You seem to not be capable of recognising that, or even of admitting you might possibly have erred. Finding it harder to justify my comment that a warning is sufficient... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When did O'Brien die?  That is the only basis on which the claim "'BLP does not apply"  could make sense. Cheers.  Collect (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For BLP to be involved, something contentious or untrue needs to have been stated. Stop wikilawyering. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [Edit to add:] Also - you did not claim your recent edits were due to BLP, in any case. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually any claim not properly supported by the source used is against WP:BLP thus "She opposes same-sex marriage" where the source then specifically states "O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples" and the second half is elided, then the source has been misused.   Misuse of any source is violative of many policies including WP:BLP. Cheers (unless you wish to assert the quote is not found in  in plain text?   Collect (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are continuing to wikilawyer. It was back in August of last year that you removed the reference to SSM with the explicit (but still erroneous) claim that it was contentious. None of your edits in 2015 - which led to this report - refer at all to BLP.  As it stands, leaving aside SSM issue, the first sentence to be referenced in that article to be referenced is one about getting a diploma from a video school in Texas.  By your argument, all of the preceding sentences should be removed as BLP violations. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

NB: Collect maintains at the article and above that the subject of the article "supports civil partnership" and has added this to the article several times. In fact, the reference he is using for this says that she "does not oppose" civil partnership, and she has written to that effect in her Irish Times column, also. (Behind a paywall but quote available here. "Supporting" something is very different to "not opposing" something. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What should be clear by now is that the edits by Collect were not corrections of BLP violations -- instead, this is a content dispute, and instead of edit-warring Collect should have been trying to gain consensus on the talk page. The posts by Collect above show that this lesson still has not been learned.  Indeed, the reverts have now resumed on this article:, , with Collect still not using the talk page to discuss what he wants to add.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The time has come to end the bullshit. The body of the article had  and to same-sex marriage, but supports civil partnership.[6][7] in it per the sources. This was then placed verbatim in the lead - which seems rather logical.  Then an editor  changed the wording already used in the article to "does not now oppose civil partnership." I guess the editor figures inserting a double negative is a logical improvement -- but then, not satisfied with that change, the editor   decided that what was proper in the body should not even be mentioned in the lead at all.  After apparently feeling that using double negatives did not fully convey disdain for O'Brien's presumably moderate stance.    If a statement is made in the body of a BLP it is irrational to remove it from the lead of the same BLP.   Sorry, Nomoskesticity -- you are incredibly far off-base if you find that a sentence already in the body of the article should have one half of the sentence removed when covered in the lead.   The source supported the full sentence, and saying "I only will use the words I want in a claim and toss away the rest" violates WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV  By the way, the source used states O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples and the last edit summary Reference for opposition to SSM (which, as Collect is now aware, does not also support the contention that she "supports civil partnership) is clearly grossly misleading.  Collect (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This really does need to be closed. The OP actually implied, Even if one discounts the first revert... the other diffs should count. Really? When you look at the other diffs, there is clearly no basis for a 3RR. Where is the boomerang? <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect's long response today reinforces the view that this is a content dispute. Collect thinks he's right.  Great -- but so do the other editors.  Again: go to the talk page and work it out.  But instead what we see here is demonstration of Collect's view that he's exempt from that -- complete with resumption of reversions today.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Collect, please advise what is "grossly misleading" in what I wrote? You have been using a reference where O'Brien states she is "not opposed" to civil partnerships as support for the insertion of "supports civil partnership" into the article. These two statements are clearly not interchangeable and one does not imply the other.  If "does not oppose", as a double negative, is causing trouble, blame O'Brien - it's her sourced, verifiable, wording: "O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples"  (She did oppose civil partnerships in the past, however).


 * You have still not demonstrated how this is a BLP issue. O'Brien herself would hardly regard it as contentious that she opposes same-sex marriage, full stop, no qualification needed. , ,  and I all seem happy with that.  You seem to be the only one who disagrees. <span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The somewhat backhanded attempt to assert priority of Jr. High grammar over the statements of a notable adult is, at best, a content dispute. The statement of the subject should not be subjected to a reductionistic application of grammar, which is probably a form of WP:OR. There is a substantial difference between "actively" supporting something or "passively" not opposing it. And trying to half-way apply BLP (for exemption) to that would be twisted logic, especially if it were seen to serve as the rationale for engaging in an edit war.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not inclined to let this one simply get archived. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * In principle, I do not have to evaluate consensus here, since every administrator is authorised to take decisions at this board. However, I did read the discussion, and I think all relevant points have been made there. WP:3RR lists BLP violations as one of the exemptions, however, it also says that it is often not clear what is an unambiguous BLP violations and advises to user WP:BLPN to determine that (which I personally would not advise since that noticeboard is almost disfunctional, but this is irrelevant for the discussion here). I agree with the others that the first two reverts were clear reverts of BLP violations since at the time of the reverts the strong statements were not properly referenced. Concerning the other three reverts, it is less clear to me whether they were reverts of obvious (or at all) BLP violations. I see from the discussion that there is no consensus on this part: Some users think they were, and others think they were not, but in any case I believe these are not edits of the type listed in WP:3RR as exemptions. Collect did engage at the discussion at the talk page, and the reverts were not really necessary. It is also unfortunate that Collect later was engaged in an edit warring with Alison and Bastun over similar issues in the same article. My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith. However, this instance of edit warring was still not necessary. Collect should have gone to the talk page instead of edit-warring after the third revert, and also it is very advisable to state in the edit summaries that they believe they revert blatant BLP violations; this has not been done for some of the reverts, and it would help other users to understand what is going on. I will now draw the attention of Collect at their talk page to this closure, which will serve as a formal warning. Please try to discuss more and revert less, certainly in the situations which are not black and white.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Kindly note my talk page edits:  and my involvement in 2014 on basically the same type of issue. Pray tell -- what are the exact words'' in the radio programme which support the claims you wish to use it for? Collect (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive148 where one of those now involved stated:  I'm not involved on that article, but allow me to correct a misimpression: the source is not "unverifiable" (anyway it's content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) , Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive194 with one person saying  Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) '' I trust this goves some salient background about the source of the persistent OP here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

EW in ARBPIA (1RR) (Result: Malformed)
Edit warring at Largest cities of Israel. Please restore pre-situation. Will notify. -DePiep (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported this at WT:IPCOLL, which seems like the appropriate place for discussing this particular edit war. &mdash; Sebastian 04:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:124.148.252.225 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Changed "does not believe that God exists" to "believes that God does not exist" for more accurate grammar. A Agnostic also does not believe that God exists offhand, but an atheist has made a firm decision that they believe in the non-existence of God."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 648279334 by Mann jess (talk) exactly, those two are NOT the same thing, and the distinction IS important."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 648284435 by Mann jess (talk) An Agnostic also does not believe that God exists offhand. The distinction is VERY important. reviewing your previous posts. This is an English site."
 * 4)  "Changed "does not believe that God exists" to "believes that God does not exist" for more accurate grammar. An Agnostic does not believe offhand that God exists, but an atheist has made a firm decision that they believe in the non-existence of God."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Atheism includes more than "belief in no gods" */ new section"


 * Comments:

Cannot get the user to go to the talk page, or engage in any other behavior than reverting. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 05:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . IP has not breached 3RR as two of the "reverts" you list are consecutive edits and count only as one. If the IP continues, please comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was no breach of 3rr, just general edit warring. In any case, I came back to retract the report, as the ip has now posted to the talk page. Thanks for your input.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:RobinHood70 (Result: Page protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Age disparity in sexual relationships

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  February 21, 2015 (most recent reversion)
 * 2)  February 21, 2015
 * 3)  February 20, 2015
 * 4)  January 5, 2015 (start of slow edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Age disparity in sexual relationships

Comments:

There has been a slow edit war occurring at the above-mentioned page since January 4. The image used as a lead image was objected to by an anonymous user. In discussion on the talk page, some people agreed, some did not, and there were numerous attempts to find a better replacement. Whenever any edits were made to the page (sometimes with an apparent consensus, sometimes not; sometimes to remove/alter the image, sometimes to reinstate it), each such attempt was reverted by one of three users. Behaviour by most involved has been less than exemplary, as noted by SebastianHelm in the "Sweeping, dusting, and weeding may be in order" section, and all three of those reverting in favour of one version or the other have been blocked for edit warring in the past.

Ultimately, a neutral admin was called in (same section as Sebastian's comment) and she made a ruling on the dispute, stating that there had been several good reasons for removal cited by several users, but no reasons other than "last stable version" cited by those in favour of keeping the image. Since no suitable replacement had been found, she proposed simple removal of the image. That proposal met with no objections. After the ruling, when there were no objections to the decision, I removed the image as decided. It was then reverted. Since then, each attempt to follow the neutral admin's ruling has been reverted by RAN.

I would like to see the image removed, per the discussion that took place, and either Richard should be blocked for edit warring, or the page should be fully protected. (Update: Per RAN's request at RfPP, the page has now been fully protected for three days. At this time, the image remains in place.) – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not followed this, but Richard is making good contributions about polo players; it'd be a shame if he were blocked. Hope it's OK to butt in.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hooray for RobinHood for stealing edits from the rich to give to the poor anonymous IPs. That anonymous IP has been blocked previously for editing the same article, and is most likely a sockpuppet evading sanctions by using a VPN in Amsterdam. 99.9% of their edits are to this single article. The IP wrote: "You can block me all you want. Game the system all you want, I will return. I can change my IP within 24 to 48 hours. Go take your prude conservative morals somewhere else. I will not let you kill free speech without a fight. ... 143.176.62.228." There has been a discussion about what images to use, paintings that depict fictional people, or real people which may violate their personality rights by implying they have a sexual relationship, when they may not have one. See Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships, for instance, the government image of two people at a table with one taking notes. See Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships where the art photos have a clear consensus. The only voice opposing the current two images was the IP wanting the painting of Nelson and his mistress, who were 7 years apart in age. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Richard's statement, there have been at least four people throughout the last month who have supported removal of the "Unequal Marriage" image: myself, the 146.* IP, a 161.* IP, and Anna Frodesiak as part of her ruling. The 146.* IP is not the only one. The IP may be evading a block, but has consistently used a 146.* IP address, so is reasonably recognizable. If there are any other addresses they've been using, I'm unaware of them. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I've protected the article for three days. In the meantime, perhaps someone could start an RfC to decide the issue. Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sarah (SV): There have already been two RfCs with no resolution until Anna's decision. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Your confusing "consensus" with "consensus + 1 opposing editor with admin rights". People with admin rights don't get super !votes. A third opinion is when only two people are locked in a dispute and are in opposition to each other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. There have been four people in support of removing the image and two opposed whose reasons have been deemed insufficient to warrant keeping it. There is absolutely no consensus in favour of keeping the image, despite your repeated assertions that there is. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  23:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement of uninvolved editor: This article has been one of the longest standing issues on AN:RFC, which is how I became aware of it (now archived here). I made two attempts to close it out at § Summary of !votes and § Is an uninvolved editor needed to resolve this?; both were met only with uncooperative reactions. The problem in my view therefore is not one single user, but everyone who participated in the quarrel, and who refused to seek out or support cooperative solutions. &mdash; Sebastian 01:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The trouble with your "attempts to close it out" was that you didn't include the very image that was being discussed as a viable option, nor did you take into account the discussions regarding it on any of the other threads in that page - as I stated in my edit to your post. Don't think that I don't appreciate the effort, but it rather missed the point.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Railway56 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Services */  better detail regarding  Reading service"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 648249335 by Charlesdrakew (talk) I have seen detail like that on many station articles."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 648250690 by Redrose64 (talk) I feel this is information is valid due to the fact this station is a station for an Airport. I agree wiki is not a travel guide"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 648253242 by Charlesdrakew (talk) That information is not excessive"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user was warned before the latest revert and has been similarly warned before. Charles (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:AHLM13 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Ravensfire (talk) to last revision by AHLM13. (TW)"
 * 2)  "he is it."
 * 3)  "they are"
 * 4)  "No reason for removing them. Those are good sources. Changed to "most i."."
 * 1)  "No reason for removing them. Those are good sources. Changed to "most i."."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* 3RR and talk page notice */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Poor sources (yet again) */ new section"


 * Comments:

AHLM13 and I are in an edit war on several page (see East London Mosque and London Central Mosque. The issue I'm having is AHLM13 is adding claims with poor or not sources and isn't willing to discuss on the article talk page or on their talk page.  On their page, they have declared everything fine and haven't shown any willingness to address the issues being raised.  I have breached 3RR on some of the articles and where AHLM13 hasn't reverted my last edit I have self-reverted.  I won't be touching the articles again today, and probably not tomorrow but will participate in the talk page if AHLM13 is willing to revert to the original version and discuss their changes.  I have asked AHLM13 on their talk page to self-revert and discuss but they declined. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:AHLM13 is warned that WP:Verifiability is a policy that all editors are expected to follow. Any further warring about 'citation needed' tags or any more criticism of people trying to draw that policy to his attention may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:75.108.122.74 reported by User:MrX (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
 * 2)  "/* Early life */ Re-added George Soros' 60 MInutes statement. Matter of public record."
 * 3)  "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
 * 4)  "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
 * 5)  "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
 * 6)  "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
 * 7)  "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* "Confiscate the valuables of the Jews" */ no, on further inspection, it was 5"


 * Comments:


 * . Obviously edit warring; was warned. Kuru   (talk)  15:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in Roman army by Cplakidas (Result: Picture Master warned)
Edit warring at Roman army. User Cplakidas is removing images I added for the article Roman army. He says they are "worthless". I do not agree. Is he the ownert of the truth? Does he owns Wikipedia? I do not think so! Sorry for the bad English, but I'm brazilian. Best Reguards! Picture Master (talk)
 * Well, I guess Im not involved but I have the feeling that I will be soon. This user insert sketches to articles that serve no purpose. In Wikipedia, we add pics that are relevant. However in this edit 1, he added a sketch of the Temple of Bel although the article already have two real pics for that temple. and he added this pic at a section that is NOT about this temple. The result was bad for the style and the content.
 * When I reverted him, he accused me of Vandalism. and the article is nominated (by me) for a GA. I spent 40 days writing it and I know that when the time for the GA review will come, I would be asked to remove the pic that this user added. yet he doesn't care and reverted me and its really bad for the review to have Edit war in the article. We (editors) in Wikipedia don't expect a thank for our contributions, but its not fair for someone like me and Cplakidas to spend hours everyday and read hundreds of books in order to deliver a good information for the readers and then be accused of Vandalism.
 * A quick look at Cplakidas contributions will show you that he is no Vandal. However, this user contributions says other thing and he was already blocked before for edit warring cause he insists on adding sketches that serve no purpose to articles 2.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are that calling other editors' edits vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism but just a disagreement with your edits constitutes a personal attack. If you persist in attacking other editors or edit-warring over images you are promoting in multiple articles, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I did not know tha Cplakidas's personal opinions were the truht here in English Wikipedia. I did not know he owned the article about Roman army. I thought it was public, that anyone could colaborate. I added a picture of a Roman Soldier and of the Soldiers of Julius Caesar. I did not know that if user Cplakidas did not like the pictures he could remove them without asking the opinion of other people, as he is the owner of the truth. Picture Master (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Elevatorrailfan reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User involved in controversial editing in WP:ARBEE territory and most recently at Articles for deletion/Republic of Poland (1944–1952), reverting long-established editors to keep his POV. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> <span style="font-size:7.0pt;color:#FFFFFF;font-weight:bold;background:#FF88AF;border:1px solid #DF2929;padding:0.0em 0.2em;">talk 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bjelleklang -  talk 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding another editor
[] I am a good stewart of Wikipedia and ask anyone with influence to please stop the undoing of the edits I and countless others have made to St. Peter's Basilica [] by Alessandro57 ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you., an editor seems fit to start an edit and undo war with me for no reason. I have made efforts to add facts of the size, dimentions and add citations to the page, all of which were arbitrarily reversed by Alessandro57. Please intervene on my behalf. I am relativly new, but have a lot to offer to the Wikipedia family. It seems that no matter what I do, I am railroaded by this editor. He does not even wish to discuss or cooperate with others in forming a concensus. Please help. Thank you-}} Cpetty9979 Cpetty9979 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Koala15 reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result:Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A few months ago I redirected the article for Monkey Kingdom because the film had not yet released in theaters and it had yet to receive any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The majority of the coverage consisted of mentions that the film was going to release, but there wasn't anything that was ultimately more than an announcement of an eventual release and passing, trivial mentions. Recently Koala15 has been coming to the page and reverting the edits, stating that because the film will release it would pass notability guidelines. I've tried contacting her on the article talk page and she never responded in any way but to keep reverting my edits. I eventually tried contacting her on her talk page since she was not going to discuss this on the article talk page and I tried explaining that the film does not currently pass WP:NFILM or WP:NFF due to the lack of coverage. I've asked her to discuss this before reverting, but she insists that the film is already notable, despite a lack of reviews, news coverage, and the like. I'm open to the article getting un-redirected once the film receives more coverage and I don't want to nominate this for AfD just to make a WP:POINT (it'd almost certainly just get deleted and redirected). I tried going through 3O, but it was declined since Koala15 did not try to discuss things on the article talk page. I don't know if there's been enough reverts to take it here- there have been three already and I'm not sure if she's the IP that did the same thing back in January (which makes it four attempts to revert if it was), but there have been a number of attempts to re-create the article before notability was established. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, saying that there's a release date doesn't really mean anything since there have been cases where films - even big ticket films- have been held back at the last minute. Until the film releases and gets more coverage in reliable sources, saying that the film is notable in the here and now because of a release date violates WP:CRYSTAL. We can't guarantee notability until the subject (in this case a film) actually has the coverage to back this up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)