Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive274

User:Drovethrughosts reported by User:24.79.36.94 (Result: Both warned)
Page: User being reported:

A block quote was added to a plot section of a TV show. An editor removed it saying there was no good reason to have it in the edit summary. Despite attempts to have this editor discuss this on the talkpage, they continue to edit war and refrain from using the talkpage.

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Remember_(The_Walking_Dead)&action=history

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is nothing wrong with having a little style in the plot summary section. This editor is unwilling to use the talkpage to discuss changes because there is no other way but his way. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just posted on your talk page, before you made this edit. Also, just because you report the other editor does not exempt you from the 3RR rule; you also made over three reverts. Lets take it to the talk page, no need to be so overdramatic. You've blanked my comment on your talk page twice now without responding, it seems you're one the one who doesn't want to have a discussion.. I linked you to the Wikipedia guideline WP:QUOTE, which you seem to be ignoring. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, now that there's a report you become civil. You're are false, and I won't be deceived. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I have been civil. Please give an example where I said something to insult you somehow, I'd be surprise. After I posted on your talk page, I got the notification of a talk page message as I hadn't loaded the page yet since I was making a comment to you. Again, you're being overdramatic and taking this too personal. I've linked you to the Wikipedia guideline, but you don't seem to be concerned with that. I've replied on the talk page for the episode article after several attempts (there were edit conflicts), and again, please respect that editors cannot always replies within seconds. I take time in what I have to say and will reread and rewrite it several times. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The diffs of your reverts prove your statements false. It is also false that you know what I have read and considered. It is completely in appropriate and false for you to be trying to change the venue of the discussion to my talkpage so that no one else would see it. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are being paranoid and confrontational and it's making it impossible to converse with you. What do you not understand, I went to your talk page to make a comment, after I finished and posted it, I received the notification (via my talk page) regarding this. I did not "change the venue" as I was not aware of it at the time I was writing the comment on your talk page. Please understand and accept that. Jeez. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm stating the facts as I see them: you're telling me what I think, you're telling me what I have and haven't read (on and on with falsehoods), you deliberately avoided having any discussion on the talkpage until there was a warring report here. There isn't anything paranoid about my reaction to your falsehoods. And I consider your using the term to apply to me to be bullying and personal attack. 24.79.36.94 (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "you deliberately avoided having any discussion on the talkpage until there was a warring report here", no you are wrong...why do I have to keep repeating myself...what do you not understand that I didn't complete my comment to your talk page before I saw this? Stop your accusations. You do not get notifications in real-time, I didn't reload the page until I posted my comment (obviously) so I did not see this until after I posted on your talk page. "Bullying and personal attacks", are you serious? I'm sorry if pointing to Wikipedia guidelines hurts your feelings. As for "you're telling me what I think", so what about when you told me "you would use the same lack of reasoning" and "You would rather it was a plain template cookie cutter version of the last episode article". You're putting words in my mouth and accusing me of things I have not done. You're taking this too personal, and it's making it hard to try and reason with you. Talk about bullying, I see you left a message on a user's talk page whom I had a disagreement with before to try and gang-up on me, how mature of you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Both of you need to realize that you are way beyond 3RR now. The only thing stopping me from blocking both of you right now is the fact that you've started to discuss the issue. However, if I see any further reverts I will block you. I'd like you to consider another thing as well; adding the quote implies that it has a special significance, but there is no source that can verify this present in the article, which to me suggests that this might be original research. Bjelleklang  -  talk 19:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Drovethrughosts and User:24.79.36.94 were both warned by User:Bjelleklang. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Jbenjos reported by User:58.7.138.46 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: As already expressed here before the user started edit warring, Jbenjos is a POV-pusher who has proclaimed he would "like to see this article read a little more like Adolf Hitler or Stalin". 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jbenjos does not appear to understand WP:Consensus and WP:Burden, please block them. Two potential sockpuppets, as noted here. 58.7.138.46 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP also accused me of being a sock of the said editor that they reported. If you look at my contributions and run a check, it is not likely that I will be identified as a sock of the editor. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Harald Forkbeard and user:CorporateM (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported: and

Reporting myself and Herald. The edit-war is regarding this edit, where Harald Forkbeard is insisting that court records are admissible sources. Since this is not a BLP, technically I need to report myself, but I don't see any reason not to follow the same procedure as we would for BLPs and protect the page. After which point someone (perhaps me, perhaps someone else) can explain on the Talk page the whole bit about secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 09:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * The request for a layman historian interpretation of a court case appears nonsensical to me. I would request an explanation of this requirement on the article talk page. Besides, the source reporting the court case is secondary in nature, as indicated by the URL of the reporting website, used as the reference in the article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Fully protected three days due to edit warring. I reverted the article to a previous version which lacks the phrase "without the explicit permission being obtained from the business owners." This amounts to stating in Wikipedia's voice that Sageworks misuses information that has been confided to them. The source does *not* make this statement. The edits of User:Harald Forkbeard don't seem to fully comply with Wikipedia policy, for instance wanting to mention a copyright lawsuit sourced only to court records, and whose significance to the world is unknown. He appears to think that Sageworks' data protection policies are ethically lacking. Does he think the CFOs who submit the information are misbehaving, or that they don't know how the data they submit is going to be used? If this were a BLP article, the unsourced negative information would have to come straight out, and I think this is a similar case. Please use the talk page to negotiate the wording, and use WP:RSN if the quality of sources is an issue. EdJohnston (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was just commenting at User talk:CorporateM where these two have been discussing, and requesting discussion instead at Talk:Sageworks that I opened. I would rather the article not be protected so that I and others could make other edits, leaving the contended section about lawsuits alone.  I hope/expect the two editors can discuss there, and that no admin action here is needed.  If both discuss there, this might be closed "Result: negotiating" or the like.  (Otherwise, by my count CorporateM is one revert ahead in the back-and-forth editing, because HF added material and CorporateM began the revert sequence by removing it.) -- do  ncr  am  11:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is that Sageworks collects data without explicit consent from the business owners. Instead, it gathers the data from the professional advisers, who are not the actual owners. At a guess, this is teetering on the brink of a law suit at the best of times. I believe this should be spelled out in the article.


 * As to the law suit, it seems reasonable that a copyright dispute is a noteworthy challenge that should be mentioned in the article. This company is unlikely to attract the attention of secondary sources, as you seem to demand.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Business owner hires an accounting firm, and provides their confidential data. (2) Accountant then gives the data to Sageworks *without the owner's permission?* Do you have a reference for that?  EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do - the reference already provided (and deleted) for the article:.


 * Software vendors must obtain explicit consent from the owners of the data, not their professional advisers. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Business owners hire accountants to help with tax returns and financial advice. Not to disclose their private data to third parties such as Sageworks.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Please review the Sageworks Talk Page Talk:Sageworks for excerpts from the referenced paper detailing the lack of business owner consent to disclosure of private company data by Sageworks. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Au77ie reported by User:Aronzak (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 649495971 by Dr.K. (talk) only adding it as happened event without details.Seems some armenians are sensitive. So,not putting any reference to azerbaijan.I found they had war - thats why."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 649493691 by AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) Why are you reverting my edition? What is wrong? She is not in the list?Just check the list -available on FM site."
 * 3)  "Fixed revision 649473217 by Aronzak (talk), put more authoritative source which is wikipedia.  User Aronzak - paid contributor - attempts to "modify" information about some figures."
 * 4)  "/* Representative history */"
 * 5)  "/* Representative history */ Fixed reference. Added more authoritative source. This edition is made after an Armenian paid contributor attempted to distort factual information."
 * 1)  "/* Representative history */ Fixed reference. Added more authoritative source. This edition is made after an Armenian paid contributor attempted to distort factual information."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Fred Nile. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* March 2015 */"
 * 3)   "/* March 2015 */"
 * 4)   "/* ANI notice */"


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


 * Comments:

See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876. Redlink editor continuously adds material that is unreferenced or uses self-published material on BLP pages, only on one particular controversial issue. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Similar disruption is occurring at Fred Nile. was at 3RR on 2 March 2015 at Marie Ficarra, created sock  to avoid detection for the edit-warring, then when the sock got tagged, waited until today to rekindle the edit-war adding attacking edit-summaries about "Armenians feeling uneasy". Overall typical nationalist POV-pushing disruption. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  13:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term edit warring, from March 2 through March 4. The editor is trying to force their material in both at Marie Ficarra and Fred Nile. Since these edits mention Nagorno-Karabakh I'm also notifying the editor of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA2. The references to 'an Armenian paid contributor' also cause concern. Is Au77ie trying to say that User:Aronzak is an Armenian paid contributor? A related complaint was filed at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876. If User:A rewriter continues to post in these areas an SPI may be warranted. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:عمرو بن كلثوم reported by User:BZero (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

Looking at user's contribution history, he seems to have an anti-Kurdistan agenda with his edits. BZero (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * for edit warring. Leave me a message on my talk page explaining the anti-Kurdistan agenda if you think it warrants further action.  S warm    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Helmboy reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Previously a problematic editor on Ascension (miniseries), disagreed with multiple editors and has a very edit-war-like personality. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Please post diffs, not links. In any event, the reported user hasn't come close to breaching WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Links changed to diffs. I'm reporting for Edit Warring, not specifically breaching 3RR. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for changing the links to diffs, but I'm still declining it. You've been edit-warring as much as Helmboy, and I'm not keen on blocking you both. I suggest dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. Dispute resolution with one who refuses to listen to and reverts reasoning given through edit summaries as to why his edits are going against the very guidelines of editing Wikipedia articles, because of the fact that we've had disputes before. Gonna need luck for that! AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:67.80.218.118 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 649988702 by NeilN (talk) so I can fix some NPOV problems."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 649989286 by NeilN (talk) Over WP:NPOV and the fact that naturopathy works."
 * 15:44, 5 March 2015 dif (no edit note)
 * 15:44, 5 March 2015 dif (no edit note)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:34, 5 March 2015 dif


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk discussion is here
 * also discussion on other editors' Talk pages here and here


 * Comments:

Edit warring warning. Discussion. Basically, a fringe theory advocate. Neil N  talk to me 15:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting this edit summary from the ip: "Fixing naturopathy article, don't revert changes, or you will end up having your edit reverted." Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And that the lead paragraph has been discussed many times on the talk page. --Neil N  talk to me 15:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And, adding a new revert to the report:   &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * added additional dif above, added 3RR warning, and links to article talk page discussion and 2 user Talk discussions above. They should be in main case. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by an IP who does not wait to get consensus on Talk. This article is covered by WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The editor is still engaged in battlefield behavior and comments. They also edited with another IP: Now they have finally created an account: They may need some heavy handed warnings from an admin. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The named accounts has not used the IPs since creating an account, and the new account announced who they were on the article Talk page. At this point I don't see the need for warnings.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's good they created an account, but the behavior hasn't changed. We need to keep an eye on them. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I am no longer in an edit war, and I am trying to fix this problem because there have been NPOV problems on the Naturopathy article. --Young Naturopath 01 (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:49.151.124.167 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  (4th revert in a day)
 * 8)  (5th)
 * 9)  (6th)
 * 10)  (7th)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts at Charlie Hebdo shooting:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

And at Arpanet:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: in every revert's edit comment, and on Tracktuer's talk page.

Comments: These are the exact same edits Trackteur persistently made for which he was slapped with a two-week block—immediately after getting off the block he went back to making the same edits with broken English, repeatedly restoring "print run of 60,000 in French language" no matter how many times he has been told that it is incorrect English—I can't imagine why he would think such wording is acceptable. He tries to hide what he's doing with edit comments like "répétition, space", which have nothing to do with what he's doing to the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the blocking admin the last time, and having looked through his edits to this article from the end of January up until today I'm not so sure he should be blocked. He has quite a lot of good contribs to it, both before and after the block, and I frankly don't see the issue with the last diff; he removed a duplicated or redundant part of the lead, and that's a good thing in my opinion. I'd like to hear from others on this; as an alternative to blocking some kind of restriction (1RR) might be a better solution for the encyclopedia. I'd also like a comment from on this if possible. Bjelleklang  -  talk 21:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please look more closely—he replaced "print run of 60,000 in only French" with "print run of 60,000 in French language", which he has done repeatedly, despite being told over and over that this is broken English. I assume it's okay to fix it?  Or am I now to be blocked again?  Let's remember that Competence is required, and when an editor's English skills are not up to the task, they should step aside and let those of us who know what they're doing handle things. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, English is not my native language, and if it is the only topic to discuss, there is no problem criticizing me for that; but when I see the diff ; like that I make sure to remove this completely unnecessary redundancy. I just think it might be better cooperation between contributors and Curly Turkey could just rectify my language mistakes instead of proceeding to simple cancellations. Moreover, I note that he gave up his version, which contains some more errors, without any discussion on the page provided for this purpose --> (1RR).
 * Bjelleklang, thank you for your understanding, especially for your solution on Arpanet to first focus on the readers, not the contributors. Trackteur (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is now being discussed on the article talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . The problem seems to have been resolved for the time being.Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:ZinedineZidane98 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 649872640 by Pinkbeast (talk) stop editing against consensus!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 649996835 by Charlesdrakew (talk) edit warring against consensus, sources, and Wiki policy"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650060304 by Charlesdrakew (talk) vandalism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Renewed edit warring against clear talk page consensus on the same topic after previous blocks. Seems only an indef block or topic ban will stop this disruption. Charles (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * A quick look at the talk page will show who is edit warring against consensus on this article. Countless users have tried to insert a "result" into this article - in keeping with all other Wikipedia articles - but Charles keeps monitoring the page and threatening anyone who disagrees with him with "bans" for "edit-warring" "against consensus". Clearly, "consensus" in his mind, does not equal a majority of users on the talk page, nor ALL the sources presented on the talk page, but merely his and one other user's own personal opinions. Charles has repeatedly deleted sources, harassed me on my talk page, and followed me around Wikipedia to "undo" whatever edits I attempt to make. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A read of the talk page will show that the above is tendentious nonsense. I have followed clear consensus and I have not deleted sources or harassed this editor.Charles (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=624458356&oldid=624438253 here, Charles deleted an eminent scholarly source which states that the battle was a Pyrrhic Victory. He subsequently reported me here, and had me banned. If you work up from this edit, you'll see he has repeatedly deleted the sources I have added, reverting by claiming a completely non-existent "consensus" (the majority on the Talk page are in fact AGAINST him and Pink.beast). Most unforgivable of all, he simply refuses to engage with the sources I've provided him on the Talk Page. He just screams "CONSENSUS!", reverts, and runs. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (full) for one week. I've also left a clear warning on the article talk page about reverting after the lock expires. Blocks may be handed out if that occurs. As for the report here, what the two editors say here is not completely accurate on either side. Zinedine has been blocked once, not multiple times. Zinedine has labeled other editors' reverts as vandalism, and Charles left a vandalism warning on Zinedine's talk page. None of the reverts constitutes vandalism, so both parties are advised to drop the word. Such accusations may be construed as personal attacks, which are blockable. I also urge Zinedine to make their points without strident language. If nothing else, it doesn't help you. As for consensus, I don't see a clear consensus on the infobox issue. At the article Talk page, I suggested an RfC to establish one.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mansourblake11 reported by User:Nick Number (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:11, March 2, 2015‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:26, March 4, 2015
 * 2) 10:35 - 10:38, March 5, 2015
 * 3) 14:09, March 5, 2015‎
 * 4) 15:27, March 5, 2015‎
 * 5) 10:15, March 6, 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

This user is persistently removing a reference and adding an unsourced fact in its place. It is accompanied by a wikilink to List of Arabs by net worth, but that list is out of date and its only source (the Forbes list) does not list the name Juffali.

No explanation has been offered (the edit summaries are all blank) and there has been no response to attempts at discussion. Nick Number (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . This is a troubling report as I believe the reported user may be a sock puppet. I also think the edits come very close to vandalism (deliberate insertion of incorrect material). I also think that the article itself is poorly written and virtually unsourced. Finally, List of Arabs by net worth, where the family is listed (added by the probable master), is in horrible shape as well. Based on all that, I am not blocking Nick Number for edit warring, applying a blend of exemptions.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:86.169.42.101 reported by User:Hibrido Mutante (Result: Semiprotected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Anonymous editor adds depreciative notes without further explanations and ignores appeals to discuss the issues on the talk page.

Hibrido Mutante (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. The three 86.* IPs who have been reverting since 17 February are presumably the same person. Using a fluctuating IP to edit war violates WP:SOCK. Hibrido Mutante, you were edit warring as well and you could have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:GabbyisEbola69 reported by User:Snowager (Result:Indefinitely blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Factual statements"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Gabby. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

He/she did personal attacks on certain users, including me. Snowager -Talk to Me!  00:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They're all clear vandalisms, looks like a vandalism-only account to me. Think this should be an indef block for vandalism-only account, rather than a ban for edit warring. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Indeffed by Kudpung as vandalism-only account. Ymblanter (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Mormography (Result: Filer warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Link to version from before edits took place. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gordon_B._Hinckley&oldid=634159662#Member_of_First_Presidency

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Somewhere around mid November the section 'Member of The First Presidency' had editing concerns raised, particularly regarding the word 'implicating'. An edit war was determined to have occurred and the section was protected. Discussion occurred on the talk page without resolution. Dispute resolution was requested without anyone volunteering. The reported user AndyTheGrump participated in these events. Under BRD on the current talk page the POV concerns have been formalized. Another editor [user:Trödel] joined the discussion further pushing for their own POV, summed up by the editor declaring the matter a "simple issue". Under the BRD on the talk page Trodel was challenged to defend the assessment "simple issue". Trodel did not do this, what rather removed long standing, secondary-source-cited items that contradicted his POV on the talk page. For example, that several books describe the situation and that an Mormon defender had confessed in publication that the "the whole episode achieved epic proportions." Removal of these cited items served only to help Trodel POV of "simple issue".

The section has been heavily debated on the talk page. Editors have been blocked for the simplest of edits to the section and consensus has been deemed necessary. Trodel has obviously acknowledge the existence of the talk page discussion and the current formalization of POV dispute, but made his edits without discussion on the talk page. Most importantly his edits only served to push his POV and did nothing to address the concerns "implicating" or "on behalf of the church". However, after making his edits Trodel sarcastically wrote "Proposed edit made to resolve issue."

Obviously edit warring, I reverted to the original. AndyTheGrump, having had a contentious back forth with me on the talk page, insisted I play dumb with him or else he would continue the edit war. I refused.

Mormography (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This so-called 'edit-warring' report is utter nonsense (and incidentally, intentionally misleading, given that only one of the diffs provided is to an edit I made). Trödel made an edit. Mormography reverted it without providing any explanation as to what was wrong with it, instead describing this single edit as 'edit-warring I repeatedly asked Mormography what was wrong with the edit - no explanation was given. Given that the edit removed a lot of confused quote-farming and general poor writing that Mormography had recently added (without the consensus he seems now to be claiming is necessary to edit the article), I restored Trödel's edit. Sadly, Mormography seems to combine his WP:OWN issues concerning the page with an almost complete inability to actually explain in simple English what he wants the page to say - and he seems intent on inflicting his confused wording on our readers too. He is apparently still insisting that the article should assert that we should refer to a "forgery implicating Joseph Smith in gold digging", despite repeated objections to a phrase which simply defies logic. The forgery was intended to implicate Smith, certainly, by all accounts. It was however a forgery - and once we have told the reader it was a forgery, simple common sense says that we cannot then assert that its contents actually implicated Smith. This has nothing to do with the details of the case, and everything to do with writing articles in comprehensible English, for the benefit of readers who don't already know the story. Evidently Mormography cares more about getting his own confused wording into the article than he does about our readers actually being able to understand it, and it seems he is willing to file entirely bogus complaints about imaginary 'edit-warring' to get his way. I have to suggest that the appropriate response is at minimum to close this discussion with a warning to Mormography not to waste people's time in future - though I would suggest that a more appropriate response might be to block Mormography for a while for misuse of this noticeboard with the intention of edit-warring his own content (added without consensus) back into the article by abuse of process. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Correction to the above - the confused quote-farming was already in the article - there was however a clear consensus on the talk page that the phrase about the forgery 'implicating' anything was unacceptable - and it should be noted, Mormography had earlier appeared to accept this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a frivolous report., you're reporting Andy for reverting once at an article where you appear to revert more than anyone else and have an extensive block log for edit-warring, the most recent of which was for doing so in this article. You list two "diffs" (they're links), only one of which belongs to Andy. You are that if you persist in reverting at the article or you file another bogus report in this forum, you may be blocked without notice. You're lucky I'm not blocking you now, although any other administrator is free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Serioiusly? I am not allow to revert at the page but AndyTheGrump is? You have in essence banned me from the page.  How do I appeal your unjustified ban?  This is not at all a frivolous reportMormography (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidently Mormography has failed to get the message - he is now arguing the toss about this on Talk:Gordon B. Hinckley, reposting the content from here to there, minus Bbb23's statement, making further accusations of edit-warring against Trödel (who it should be noted had made one edit to the article). Since it seems self-evident that Mormography has failed to take note of what Bbb23 said, I formally request that Mormography be blocked from editing for a substantial period - the last block (regarding the same article) was for a week, and that seems to have had little effect. Maybe a month might get the message across? AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And on it goes - see User talk:Bbb23. We are clearly facing a basic competence issue here, and I suggest we give this time-waster the boot. Permanently... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Darwin1986 reported by User:TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is obviously a continuation of the IPs who can no longer edit because the page is protected. How and how much of the books content to present has been discussed multiple times on the talk page with the enduring consensus being "very little" because of the poor scholastic quality, in particular no eyecandy tables/graphs that would give the wrong impression about the validity of the claims of the book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ., why must you edit-war yourself before bringing this report here? Other editors who reverted Darwin1986 exercised restraint. The only reason I didn't block you was because Darwin1986 did far more than just violate 3RR in disrupting the article. However, if I see you do this again without a policy justification, you risk being blocked regardless of whether I agree with your analysis of the material at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:24.236.138.19 reported by User:Doc James (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The difficulty is not one of the refs mentioned dementia among others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just about to come and report this. Clear edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * – You made a report here after just one revert. This is not a case of edit warring. Please make some effort to discuss your concern with User:Omar-toons. For example, at Talk:Languages of Morocco. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Nehemiah Narzary reported by User:George8211 (Result: Indefinitely Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Nehemiah Narzary. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Nehemiah Narzary. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Indefinitely blocked by as a "Spam / advertising-only account:". -  220  of  Borg 03:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:71.62.102.142 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Que te perdone Dios. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Leave you a notice and ignored him. When got rid its Edition for the first time allow in my summary of Edition that the information did not have reliable sources. Back and did the same. Now continue and does not seem to stop. Now I am going to leave a last message to see if it answers.  Philip J Fry   Talk    19:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. IPs making unsourced changes with no discussion on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:24.130.172.5 reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

One of the links is now gone due to it not being a revert. I linked to the wrong thing. However, another revert just happened, and the last link is that revert. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This anonymous editor claimed that the article that I am talking about in this report is a copyright violation. However, your vandal fighting bot, Cluebot NG, doesn't think so, and so two times, he has reverted the anonymous editor's edits. Another editor came in on this matter too. The article could be copied from somewhere else, but this individual is definitely violating the three revert rule, which is why I have brought him to your attention. Thanks. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The copyvio is valid and listed on Copyright problems/2015 March 6. Both users and  are in the wrong removing the banner as it specifically states "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent.". As for  reverting my edits, it's being I'm editing anonymously and effectively blanking the page (normal procedure for a copyright investigation). I've reported the revert as a false positive in both cases. I've contacted both McDonald of Kindness and Joaquin008 on their talk page.
 * Related:
 * WP:ANI
 * WP:CCI
 * 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I am not in violation of the 3RR rule as I have not reverted more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voicing your side of the issue. You probably didn't mean it, but you still violated the three revert rule by reverting more than three times on the same page. This situation would not have taken place if you had started an Articles for Deletion discussion about the article. I believe, that, to resolve this issue, an Articles for Deletion discussion would have done good. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article itself (via the edit history) and the sourced website, there is certainly a word-for-word copy of text on the "Damages" section. But the rest of the article doesn't seem to have any copyvio issues. The article topic itself is something I am not familiar with. However, if it will resolve peace between all editors involved in this dispute; then I don't mind offering my help to completely re-write that entire section into original words, so that it is in compliance with copyright regulations.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment happened to spawn the same time as mine. Anyways, yeah, a rewrite of that section could also do some good. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've followed all rules for a copyright investigation and not violated the 3RR rule (per "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." WP:3RR). However I'm not going to touch this article anymore until somebody cleans it. I must say that it's a little bit frustrating having regular users revert copyright investigation banners without any kind of explanation and in contradiction with the rules. 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

With that in mind then, I am assuming that all editors here have no objection to restoring the article to its status prior to this banner being added; so that I have something to work on and improve. Is that OK with everyone?  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this if you're "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." 24.130.172.5 (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. I don't object to this. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 24.130.172.5; the "administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent" would be the ones to investigate whether the content is copied from a website. I've intervened as non-admin. Any editor can vastly modify content within an article, if they discover it is a copy/paste of text from a website.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed the copyright banner, and making a start on the violating copied content.  Wes Mouse &#124; T@lk 20:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * and I have taken the proverbial axe to the copied material, and have re-written the damages section. Please check Royal Palaces of Abomey to see if this is sufficient enough.  Wes Mouse  &#124; T@lk 20:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is better, as far as I can tell. Apparently, the copied content was written in terms of the past, but it did still need to be changed. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since the IP made a good faith claim of a copyright violation. Removal of the copyviocore banner by others is questionable, unless you are fixing the article at the same time. It looks that this is resolved. If anyone still has copyright concerns, please explain them at Copyright problems/2015 March 6. If the IP is planning to be active in copyright enforcement in the future, be aware that ClueBot may be undoing your work from time to time. For this kind of activity it may be more convenient for you to use a registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Dustylappss (Result:blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650265633 by Cleatword (talk)The contentious content has not been added. There is no discussion about the content I added. I removed content which is being discussed."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650264281 by Cleatword (talk)Why dont people TALK before reverting me lol? PLEASE talk talk talk"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650262748 by Dustylappss (talk) talk first edit later. Talk is ongoing."


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


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


 * Comments:

Keeps editwarring and making massive changes even after warnings of edit-war and violation of 3 revert rule Dustylappss (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments from freeatlastchitchat
 * I have done three things to the article. 1)There was some content regarding slavery in the section of family life. The content was causing constant pain, some wanted it removed, some wanted it there. I removed the content from family life and created a new section called slavery. The content in this section was taken from the article on slavery from wikipedia. As this content has already been agreed upon no one will be removing it, and I thought (incorrectly I guess) that everyone will be happy. 2)The second thing I have done is removed "Quran and science" subsection from the section of jurisprudence. The section had no relation whatsoever to Jurisprudence. I put a link to the article Islam and science at the end of the article. 3)The third thing I did was to remove any mention of "wife beating" from the article because it was from biased sources aka an Israeli writer and an online newspaper which itself claims that it is biased. I then started a discussion on the talk page so that the content regarding wife beating can be discussed before we add it.


 * And out of nowhere three editors who have done almost no editing started to revert me. All three accounts want to revert all of my changes. I repeatedly, again and again asked them to at least discuss on the talk page before reverting my changes, two of which seems to be IN THEIR FAVOR as they want to include slavery in the article, but they still revert me. I would like an admin to please take a look at the history of the page and perhaps help with the discussion. Also I would like to request that someone protects the page with heavy protection allowing only reviewers and admins to add/remove content. When we have reached consensus on the talk page we can just ask the concerned admin to add the content.ThanksFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC).


 * I only reported FreeatlastChitchat's today's editwarring. This editor has been removing chunk of material & reliables sources from the article for quite a long time (for example here) and justifying it by replacing it with irrelevant information and unreliable sources (such as here). Even after being told not to do so on talkpage (such as here).--Dustylappss (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FreeatlastChitchat is not here to build an encyclopedia. He/she wishes to remove content that he/she thinks are unfavourable to Islam.  He/she attacks other users, even though he/she has been asked not to do this. He/she marks controversial edits as minor. During this edit war he felt free to revert other editors' contributions, whilst issuing stern warnings not to revert him whilst the discussion on the talk page is ongoing.  This looks like an attempt to game the system.  It is hard to have discussion with an editor who reverts edits whose main sources are newspaper articles, but who claims to be reverting original research based on primary sources such as the Koran and hadiths.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC) updated--  Toddy1 (talk) 10:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 04:55, 5 March 2015  (Undid revision 649944255 by Cleatword (talk))
 * 2) 06:24, 5 March 2015 m (→‎Family life: Removed biased sources and added text to create neutrality. One source was an Isreali newspaper hence biased and the other was a tabloid just reporting an incident not giving any interpretation.)
 * 3) 09:41, 5 March 2015 m (Undid revision 649963520 by Toddy1 (talk)Talk on the talkpage about sources if you wish. Do not revert sourced material discuss before reverting)
 * 4) 08:36, 6 March 2015 (→‎Family life: Removed POV discussion is ongoing on talk page. DO not revert this or add text untill discussion reaches an end.)
 * 5) 03:46, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650212967 by Dustylappss (talk)Do not edit before the talk page discussion reaches an end. discussion is ongoing. please do not start edit war)
 * 6) 07:27, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650262748 by Dustylappss (talk) talk first edit later. Talk is ongoing.)
 * 7) 7:42, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650264281 by Cleatword (talk)Why dont people TALK before reverting me lol? PLEASE talk talk talk)
 * 8) 07:55, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650265633 by Cleatword (talk)The contentious content has not been added. There is no discussion about the content I added. I removed content which is being discussed.)
 * 9) 09:06, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650270898 by LalaResne (talk)no consensus reached, this content is from wikipedia and already agreed upon.)
 * 10) 09:17, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650271991 by LalaResne (talk)The material from BBC is in science which has no connection to jurisprudence hence removed. Slavery has been mentioned in a new section, not removed .)
 * 11) 09:28, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650273126 by LalaResne (talk)this source is mentioned in the slavery article which is linked here. therefore not needed here)
 * 12) 09:37, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650274028 by LalaResne (talk)slavery has this so not needed in family. talk had no consensus. this is the best way to stop wars. What is wrong with new section btw? it covers sex)
 * 13) 09:55, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650275064 by LalaResne (talk) giving content without context is bias. Slavery has this with context. therefore this is in slavery . I can copy paste to family if you wish)
 * 14) 10:06, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650276429 by LalaResne (talk)that was BEFORE slavery article being added. Now that slavery is here, we have context. without context bias is created)
 * 15) 10:16, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650277122 by LalaResne (talk)There was no consensus. The last thing I am reading on talk page is you being pointed out as an agenda pushing single purpose account user.)
 * 16) 10:22, 7 March 2015 (Undid revision 650277702 by Toddy1 (talk) stop biased editing plZ)


 * Why are my "EDITS"(Where I add content and create neutral POV) included in my "reverts" ? just asking not complaining. I already explained myself and anyone can see that I have done nothing wrong as soon as they look at the articles history. Three editors with nill history of edits gang up and create content which is from biased sources, what am I supposed to do? To be honest an admin should just heavy protect the page and no one should edit till we get a consensus. This holds especially true when these three aforementioned editors use abusive language like saying "I know that most Muslims are taught from a very young age to never question their religion, and be blindfolded bigots" . I have never attacked another user. If you look at my talkpage you will see that I called someone an imbecile once for he wanted to brand terrorists as fundamentalists, and in the heat of the moment i called him that. Even then his edit was reverted by another user who changed the word to insurgent as that is the case. newspaper articles from fringe newspapers which themselves claim to be biased are biased. This is why i wanted a discussion on the talk page about sources FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above comment appears to refer to edit No 2 (06:24, 5 March 2015), where you partially reverted another editor, and added some content. If you read Reverting, it says that "Reverting means reversing a prior edit, which typically results in the article being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. A partial reversion involves reversing only part of a prior edit, while retaining other parts of it."--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, not complaining here. All of the sources presented about domestic violence are biased and will not stand any test. they do not give neutral POV and are therefore revertable. Three users show agenda and are single purpose accounts, one of them is biased as per his own admission and comments. You yourself admit that you do not understand English. Surrounded by all this what am I supposed to do? I created a section on slavery, it is linked to slavery article, highly sourced, why would anyone want to put contentious text inside family life when slavery can exist as a separate section and is sourced? Same with Domestic Violence, why are you pushing for fringe theories and mis interpretations from biased sources? I repeatedly requested that sources be discussed before putting in text? Why dont you guys just discuss sources?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for sources to be neutral POV. The requirement is for the article to be edited to a neutral POV.  See Neutrality of Sources and Neutral point of view.--  Toddy1 (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

You create ALL content from biased sources and the content is biased. why cant we discuss this on the talk page instead of here? Slavery is there. science and Quran has no connection with Shariah. only thing left is wife beating. Lets discuss it on talk page then add it. Why are you being so unreasonable that you have to add biased content? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Two warriors who surpassed three reverts were blocked for 24 hours. Please stop reverting and start discussing.Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment, for your information, too had exceeded 3RR:[1][2][3] -- Fauzan ✆  talk ✉ mail  04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry, my ignorance. -- Fauzan ✆ talk ✉ mail  05:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Olonia reported by User:Parsecboy (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Parsecboy

Comments: Olonia has had problems following basic Wikipedia policy, most relevant to this board is an inability to solve problems without edit-warring. We had an earlier run in on the article Italian cruiser Fiume a few weeks ago which can be seen in the edit history there. He has also begun using personal attacks, as can be seen here. I'd appreciate it if an admin could take care of this, as I am obviously involved. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by the reported guy: Surely I lost temper, but I believe I had some reason to. I suggested Parsecboy to 1) look for more info instead of keeping reverting my edits without bothering to see if they are correct; 2) sourced my edit with a link to the Italian navy website that stated the correctness of what I had written, which Parsecboy ignored, stating that the linked page did not state what I said (and I invite you to personally check that link so that you can verify who was right there); 3) twice proposed to move the discussion to a talk page (for example the Battleship Portal talk, but also any other of his preference) so that others might join, and he completely ignored my suggestion, instead unilaterally reverting the edit. So I tried everything that was in my power to "solve problems without edit-warring", and honestly Parsecboy seems to me the one not able and not wanting to solve the problem without edit-warring. --Olonia (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I did consult other sources - to include the definitive work on the topic, which disagree with your sources, which are primarily WP:SPS self published or from vanity presses (again, I'm not linking these for my health - you really ought to read them). 2) I skimmed the marina.difesa link initially and missed the figures - big deal. 3) It's your responsibility to initiate discussion elsewhere if you think it needs to take place elsewhere, not mine. Parsecboy (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor: The last edit on the talk page of this article was on 01:26, 27 August 2014. Edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion on the talk page. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . I don't see this as being anything other than a good-faith content dispute. Olonia's obviously frustrated, but he's provided at least one reliable source and made an effort to explain how his edits are accurate and verifiable&mdash;this isn't much of a constructive response for a dispute resolution, particularly from an admin, someone who's supposed to remain cool-headed when things start to get heated and collegially explain the proper way of doing things around here. Both users are reminded that Jsharpminor is absolutely correct and that reverting multiple times is not an acceptable course of action&mdash;don't get me wrong Olonia, I don't think the severity warrants a block as of now, but you can get blocked for edit warring, even if you're right in a content dispute. However this report seems premature and unnecessary as of now.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  05:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:RefHistory reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This has been ongoing.

Comments:

Repeated addition of promotional content. Jim1138 (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  05:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:49.151.124.167 reported by User:MONGO (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is ongoing from this IP...see link above..its the same material and same argument. Now three more reverts right after coming off a 24 hour block.--MONGO 07:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC) -->

hey kid im just wondering will the world end if mockingjay gets squash by american sniper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.151.124.167 (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , the IP just was out of the previous block and decided to continue edit warring. Next time, a long duration block may be warranted. Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:LunarPhyla reported by User:PhantomTech (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "1. That is incorrect. 2. Another strawman. I changed it. 3. I have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia regarding neutrality? This entire article is utterly biased against the topic it is about! You are vandals, not me"
 * 2)  "Once again someone is attacking a strawman. Yes, age is dependant on evolution (biological, planetary, cosmological). You know exactly whwhafdtat"
 * 3)  "Correct. This is about science, but who's interpretation of it are we talking about? The mainstream evolution and old universe concept (not a theory) is untrue. I removed popular, done attacking a strawman? Even then it doesn't matter, the ARTICLE is crap"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Young Earth creationism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)" by User:McSly


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


 * Comments:

User was told multiple times to discuss the edit on the talk page by each of my reverts and a warning another user placed on their talk page. User's edit summaries indicate a WP:COI. User's edit summaries also seem to be violations of WP:ESDONTS. Phantom Tech (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This IP is very likely the same user, so this would add to the numbers above:
 * BullRangifer (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding my two-bits here, this definitely appears to be the same user. Not optimistic about this. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding my two-bits here, this definitely appears to be the same user. Not optimistic about this. Dougweller (talk) 12:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * and the same for the IP. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not too familiar with how things work after an edit war. I'm wondering if I should revert the content to before the edit war, requiring the edit to be discussed on the talk page, or if the content should stay as is with the reverting it discussed on the talk page? Phantom Tech  (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh... I hadn't thought in those terms either. Reverting it is fine, but you reverting it wouldn't have been a good idea. Things don't return to scratch just because one editor has been blocked. I see it's moot now, so all's well (Just Plain Bill has reverted). Bishonen &#124; talk 08:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

User:Alfiobaldini 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: Editor has repeatedly used misleading edit summaries. Looks like a SPA judging by similar disruptive POV editing on South Ossetia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 10:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Spearmind reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24 hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: dif - that was status when EdJohnston protected the page per my last 3RR report per Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive273. and as soon as it was lifted, Spearmind was back at it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 01:32, 8 March 2015‎ diff initial series of edits removing most instances of "conspiracy theory"
 * 13:55, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by
 * 14:09, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by
 * 14:18, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by
 * 14:28, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by
 * 14:34, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by me
 * 14:49, 8 March 2015 diff after revert by me, with edit note "it is not about consensus here; its about unsourced use of term "conpiracy theorist""

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

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

Comments:

Back here again. There is no consensus for these changes on the Talk page, and Spearmind isn't even waiting for conversation to develop. He really doesn't understand WP:CONSENSUS. Please at least restore to last protected version and protect the page again. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * continued to edit war even after I posted notice of this discussion. just wow.  new dif added above.  I left the article there.  He will surely come here and write about how his content was correct.  He doesn't understand the behavioral issues here.  Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Im going to remove term "conspiracy theorist" wherever it pops up as long the claim not covered by a cite and I use all my reverts on it. Its not about consensus its about good faith and common sense and to protect wikipedia from ideology. Just recently we did speak about the use of such term at DRN.To make it clear Im citing DRN Volunteer Bejnar: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)" See also his talk page on that: "Indeed. When neutral reliable sources consistently agree that a person is a "conspiracy theorist" it is not inappropriate to use the label; however, in most instances that is not the case and "conspiracy theorist" is used disparagingly, and hence should be avoided in accordance with the logic expressed in the WP:Tone essay. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)" --- Global warming conspiracy theorists typically... -  this was claimed to be from Latours article (see pdf in refs) but it was totally wrong cite, misused by whoever was editor here, possible in bad faith. I explained on articles talk too Spearmind (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * as predicted. no understanding at all of the behavioral issues here. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * just blocked by here. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And ec... blocked 24 hrs. Vsmith (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan reported by AcidSnow (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 07:14, 8 March 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 07:33, 8 March 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 07:36, 8 March 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 07:45, 8 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User's Talk Page

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

Comments:

Despite being warned the user continued to revert in an attempt to push his change. The same can be said about the Harari people page. Though, he has yet to break 3rr. AcidSnow (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This user told me to head to the talk page and when I did he reported me. I believe he has nothing to discuss and wants to edit warr. Zekenyan (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported you since you have reverted 4 times despite being asked to stop. Anyway, I had asked you to provide a source for your claim regarding the Argobba. You, on the other hand, demanded that I prove a source despite it already being present. AcidSnow (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have provided a source. The current source says nothing about Somali. You just added it in. Zekenyan (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * *sigh*, it seems you haven't read the article at all. AcidSnow (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

we are discussing the matter here. Zekenyan (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dissucimg now doesn't mean much. You still violated the policy despite being well aware of the consequences. You didn't even bother to read the page but rather blindly reverted. AcidSnow (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have ceased reverting and am discussing the matter. Isnt that the whole point? Zekenyan (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Let's see what an admin has to say. Although, you do seem to already know a lot of how Wikipedia works. Nonetheless, bye for now. AcidSnow (talk)

I was not aware of the tools on how to provide sources into the article but I have done it in the talk page. It is you who has failed to provide any. Zekenyan (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You must be joking since the article is rich in sources. Nonetheless, good bye. AcidSnow (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary shows clearly words have been added into sources which say otherwise. Zekenyan (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . User broke 3rr after a warning was given and has had plenty of time to rectify this (i.e. self-revert after breaching 3rr, it doesn't matter if you "ceased reverting" if you have the last word).  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Gojira4eva reported by User:JzG (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:


 * First revert
 * Second revert
 * Third revert
 * Notice re WP:3RR
 * Fourth revert
 * "IT'S NOT OVER DETAILED, IT'S JUST RIGHT , AND IT'S NOT PREFERRED , ITS CORRECT , AND IT DOES NOT LACK SOURCES , AND THERE'S NO "REFLECTING" ANYWHERE , AND I'M NOT "VIOLATING" ANYTHING , AND IT'S NOT ESSAY STYLED"

User Gojira4eva is apparently terribly stressed out by the assertion that xyr 2,500 word "synopsis" of the film is in any way less than a perfect addition to Wikipedia. IPs have also been used (e.g., ) and there doesn't seem to be any other editor of the article who thinks it's appropriate (removed by Nederlandse Leeuw, Materialscientist, me).

Seems like the user needs some careful tutoring in what is appropriate both in content and in ownership of articles. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

if it wasn't correct i wouldn't have it that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gojira4eva (talk • contribs) 18:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Four different people have removed it in recent weeks. It sounds like your belief that it is correct, does not translate into any acceptance that it is appropriate for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Came here to report the same user - now on 5RR despite 3RR warnings by Guy and myself, and an explanation of the problem on the talk page - last revert with an abusive edit summary - Arjayay (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * John (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Augustremulous reported by User:Avono (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650375934 by Strongjam (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650375015 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

page is under WP:1RR of which the user was warned on. Avono (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  22:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

This article has an unclear section in it. RAF Tornado pilots' opinions are cited. Yes, Tornado, in an article on Typhoons. Reading the several refs provided makes this simply clear: a mixed-force exercise took place involving RAF Tornados, Typhoons and Indian Sukhois. This comment is from the Tornado contingent.

This much is obvious to anyone who bothers to read the refs.

This lack of clarity though has confused an IP editor who has repeatedly (5) changed "Tornado" to "Typhoon". Understandable, but wrong. This has been reverted by four separate editors, myself included.

Rewording to clarify this would be useful - but that needs a moment to work on the article, without ongoing edit-warring. There's also the risk that GF editors fixing this properly will be blocked for edit-warring.

One of the great untouchables of the aircraft project has now showed up, BilCat. A long-term problem with aircraft articles is with WP:OWN problems from a handful of editors there, BilCat being one of them. In this case BilCat has chosen to disbelieve the cited "Tornado" source and to tag it with sic as if (like the anon IP) it should correctly be Typhoon. This is equally incorrect.

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

Their last revert is a simple edit-warring rollback with the message " I'm not the one who reverted you first here, Andy", which makes no sense whatsoever - he's the only one who has reverted me (twice).

The situation is further complicated by an event yesterday, for which I suspect BilCat is seeking revenge and any excuse to revert me. During a page move discussion, started by another editor, he changed the suggested page move target by editing their talk: comments (strike 1) to make existing comments supporting the first move now appear to be supporting a different move (strike 2). When warned for this, he responded by banning me from his talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Andy, the sic template is intended to mark things which should not be changed, even if they appear to be wrong. Yes, the IP was wrong, and I added the sic to show editors it is correct as written. It didn't need to be reverted. At first, I assumed it was an edit conflict,and restored the sic template. That was my first revert, but second edit, as I had edited before you. My second revert/third edit was simply to state that I had edited the article before you, and you were the one who reverted first. Your second revert was highly uncivil and uncalled for, especially since we had a run in yesterday. I'm willing to assume you just had a knee jerk reaction to seeing me edit the page, and that you didn't understand the purpose of the sic tag. I'm sorry I lost my cool with you yesterday - I don't understand why you didn't assume good faith, and chose to template a regular. The issue on the V-2 page could have been settled without all the drama. If you apologize for not assuming good faith, both today and yesterday, I'm willing to forgive and forget. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your sic tag here makes it look like the newspaper reporter has got it wrong but the omniscient Aircraft Wikiproject Knows Better. It does not mean, "No, we're really right here, as literally stated" – it means the opposite of that.
 * You self-reverted a 3RR because you "didn't realize it was my third edit" (with a nice little side-swipe that I'm too dumb to know what sic means).
 * Yesterday " some things got confused in an edit conflict. Arado made some subsequent changes" is a nice way to put the blame for changing the meaning of a page move discussion onto another editor.
 * Your edits are hardly being careful here. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * From Template:Sic: "This template simplifies insertion of the "[sic]" notation, which is used where a textual error, or unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error, has been faithfully reproduced from the original source." (Emphasis mine) As the text is "unexpected but intended text that may appear to be an error", I added the Sic tag to show it's correct. This is a completely acceptable and normal use of the tag, as I understood it. - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I believe you added the sic template in good faith. However, it is usually used like:
 * The Washington Post quoted from his twitter feed, "I don't like Obaama [sic].", showing that the error was in the original and not theirs.
 * Using it here is probably unclear, despite your good intentions. I would leave the sic template out. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Further comment from uninvolved editor: I think this report has gone stale already. BilCat has, in a show of good faith,. Absent other evidence of bad faith editing, there's nothing to see here. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as he self-reverted; but of course we can revisit this again if needed. FWIW though I agree with Jsharp, you may technically be able to argue for the use of the sic there but it's not really a common way of using it, as original text can be worded in a clear manner and thus not require that device. Would suggest a reword at the most. As Andy says, if someone's changing that wording because they didn't even bother to check the source, that's pretty much just disruptive editing.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  06:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but who are you claiming was being disruptive? Me or the IP? Andy assumed - incorrectly - I didn't check the sources, but I did. I read the instructions on the Sic template before I use it, and I followed its instructions. No one has pointed out where I misread the instructions on how to use, you just say I used it wrong anyway. If the template is wrong, then change the instructions, please, before some other sucker makes the same mistake you claim I made. - BilCat (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your side of it, BilCat. I just meant the IP was being disruptive for changing the text without actually checking to see whether it was correct. As Andy said, I can understand it, but it's simply wrong. If it's really that confusing, it should be reworded. And I'm not saying you're using "sic" wrong outright, just saying it's most commonly used in the context of a quotation. Since this isn't a quote we're dealing with, we can word it any way we want to avoid potential confusion, thus rendering the use of sic unnecessary. It may be correct the way you're using it, but it's not common thus may not alleviate confusion the way you think it will.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  06:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the clarifications. - BilCat (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC) And forgive me for being a bit over-sensitive tonight. :) - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Pjstar35 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - User cites WP:3rr against everyone else (indicating some prior awareness, if misconception), and was given a warning about it after this point.
 * 2)  - User was notified about this report.
 * 3)  - Made several minutes after being notified about this report.
 * 1)  - User cites WP:3rr against everyone else (indicating some prior awareness, if misconception), and was given a warning about it after this point.
 * 2)  - User was notified about this report.
 * 3)  - Made several minutes after being notified about this report.
 * 1)  - Made several minutes after being notified about this report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Constantine_(TV_series)

Comments:

I really don't get why some users get it in their head that "you should not revert more than 3 times in 24 hours" means "you should not be reverted more than 3 times." This isn't the first time I've seen this complete misunderstanding of 3rr. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will note that Pjstar35 appears to be paying attention to the talk page, so far as it suits him. He has not actually engaged in any discussion, however, despite telling everyone else to do so.  Ian.thomson (talk) 18:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He finally has responded on the talk page, showing some . OWN issues and admitting that he's "not going to just give up" (whatever that means). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:86.46.186.77 reported by User:Rider ranger47 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650659050 by Drovethrughosts (talk) no i prefer my way"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650658758 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650657923 by Rider ranger47 (talk) NOPE!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 650657327 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 650487477 by JohnGormleyJG (talk) This is a better way. Chloe is the second main character not Terry"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 650495861 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 650495370 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650495861 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650495370 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* March 2015 */"
 * 3)   "/* March 2015 */"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:86.46.186.77 reported by User:NickW557 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650659050 by Drovethrughosts (talk) no i prefer my way"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650658758 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650657923 by Rider ranger47 (talk) NOPE!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 650657327 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 650487477 by JohnGormleyJG (talk) This is a better way. Chloe is the second main character not Terry"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 650495861 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 650495370 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650495861 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650495370 by Drovethrughosts (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

3rr warning given prior to most recent revert Nick—Contact/Contribs 20:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 21:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rukn950 reported by User:Summichum (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added  tag to article (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Summichum (talk): Do not revert without discussion it may be not COI in your eyes, let other editors comment. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 2 edits by Summichum (talk) to last revision by Rukn950. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user was earlier reported at COI noticeboard, has a strong COI for bohra articles. And accuses others of COI although not associated with it. The user has himself claimed he is DB and has studied from some major propaganda institute of DB. The article does not have COI as was discussed by many, no 3rd party editors put the COI tag , this article has been also graded as CLASS C and the reviewer did not find any COI. The user has been suffciently warned against this in past. Summichum (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I will NOT defend myself against this User summichum, It has become habit of user summichum to bring any user who does'nt agree with him to editwar and COI. any attempt to discuss with him is vain Talk:53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy_(Dawoodi_Bohra)Rukn950 (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 





Is it a good practice of an editor?--Royalmaster1 (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: ; how is this a problem? You accuse of having a COI and protest when he flags the article with a template saying that a major contributor has a COI? Can you please elaborate on this? Bjelleklang  -  talk 15:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * talk He himself has claimed earlier to be a DB and also affliated with a major propaganda institute of DB in Surat, India, so he is clearly having a COI , I neither belong to the community and got interest only after media started flooding these succession controversy on frontpages on a frequent basis. Also the other 3rd party editors invested in this article like qwertus, anupmehra etc should decide whether the article deserves a COI tag. This user has previously also tried to remove well cited information only because it supports \ does not support one of the claimants. In my earlier report too he had done a clear 3RR case like this one Summichum (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * there are two issues here; first of all, the template says that a user has a COI, not necessarily the article itself. You are accusing Rukn950 of having a strong COI, but you don't want the template to be shown to let others know? To me that seems kind of inconsistent. The second issue is a bit more serious. You are accusing Rukn950 of having a COI and of being unbiased, and also of being associated with DB. Yet I haven't seen you show any evidence of it here or on the talkpage. Please provide diffs showing both. Also; I'd like to ask both of you to take more care when posting; please indent your posts properly so others have a better chance to follow the discussion. Bjelleklang -  talk 19:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How do you know who I am, where I stay and where I studied? and why are you straying from the issue at hand and getting personal? Rukn950 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not your say who deserves to edit and who does not. All editors have equal rights in their own limits, even you summichum, that is why it is Wikipedia.Rukn950 (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . The proper course of action when someone adds something you disagree with is not to edit war over it, but to discuss it on the talk page. Since you've already jumped to the conclusion that the tag is referring to you, whether you like it or not, it's not appropriate for you to be removing it. If no consensus forms to support the tag being there, it can be removed. However you're both accusing each other of having a COI, so I certainly don't see the tag as being inappropriate.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  23:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Spearmind (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Spearmind (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Oh this is rich. Spearmind was blocked for edit warring. My last revert there, was just restoring to the pre-Spearmind version after he reverted something like 7 times - see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and please see Talk:Conspiracy_theory - now that conversation has had some time to unfold, it is clear that the version that Spearmind was edit warring for, has no support on the Talk page. None. This 3RR report is just retaliation/game playing. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * as expected. no understanding at all of the behavioral issues here. admin may check that he reverted the lies where West and Latours were misused as source, if its really a matter here, they reverted simply everything I edited the whole day. Spearmind (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, my apologies to ; I just blocked them, having misread the history and date. Second, I think we should close this: the edit warrior may not have an advantage, so reverting to the status quo was proper. Having said that, it probably would have been a good idea for Jytdog to let someone else look at the matter. Again, Spearmind, I am sorry for my mistake. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no 3RR violation (one of the reverts was well outside the 24 hour window by several days). Talk page discussion appears to be ongoing. And the most recent edit by User:Jytdog is more than 24 hours old, so any block at this point would be punitive rather than preventative.
 * More worrying to me is that this report appears to be an attempt at retaliation by Spearmind for a 24 hour block they received on this same linked article for the same series of edits yesterday. I'm also not blocking Spearmind; but per WP:BOOMERANG, I was very close to blocking Spearmind for attempting to game the system by intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to try to make a point. All users need to go to the article talk page and resolve any concerns via consensus and, if necessary, using the dispute resolution tools. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you real? All 4 reverts were within 24 hours on March 4th european time. Its of course still my opinion, that the use of term "conspiracy theorist " is wrong in any case not covered by a source. Its meant to discredit real people and the opinions. Its not about term "conspiracy theory" here at all. Actually the cites of West and Latour were in baid faith and they are misused as source. Read the source. But who cares. Both users reverted in advantage of the lies.Spearmind (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct on the dates, I misread them. Had the user been properly warned on March 4th and this report made after another revert following being warned could have resulted in a black a few days ago. Regardless, it's still a stale report. Blocks are meant to prevent ongoing disruption, not to be punitive.
 * As I said, all parties need to discuss disputed content on the article talk page to establish community consensus. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Its not a question of consensus. See DRN Volunteer Bejnar saying: "Conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" can be used in a pejorative way. Any contested use should be supported by a reliable source, and pejoritive uses should be avoided per Wikipedia's guideline at WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch: There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)"---Spearmind (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As has been explained to you before: That's a DRN about a completely different article, that does not say that we cannot call adherents of conspiracy theories in general conspiracy theorists. It only says we cannot call advocates of specific ideas general conspiracy theorists, not that we cannot call the general adherents to conspiracy theorism "conspiracy theorists."
 * As has been explained to you before, that DRN is not policy, it does not trump consensus, it is merely an additional voice to the consensus for a completely different article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is off-topic from the scope of WP:AN3, this board is simply not an appropriate forum for that debate. Feel free to discuss your concerns on the article talk page; from what I can see, current consensus at Talk:Conspiracy theory appears to be that you are mis-interpreting a DRN statement. If you disagree with that, you should follow WP:DR guidance for a next level in dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:56, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea to encourage someone railing against consensus to waste everyone's time with DR. If there is a dispute, basic processes like RfCs can be used, they don't present as much of a time sink to everyone. But the consensus on the article is pretty clear. Further, DRN volunteers have no special weight in their opinions than anyone else, Second Quantization (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . (For archiving purposes)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  23:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Second Quantization reported by User:Spearmind (Result: also not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: Spearmind (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * See above. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and please see Talk:Conspiracy_theory - now that conversation has had some time to unfold, it is clear that the version that Spearmind was edit warring for, has no support on the Talk page. None. This 3RR report is just retaliation/game playing. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the below non-block, I'm guessing this is also a non-block? Report was not filed in good faith.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this filing for stale diffs is problematic since it is a clearly tit for tat after being blocked. Note that the editor spearmind was blocked for trying to edit war in clearly problematic content. It's also probably worth reading their attempt at an unblock request. I find it problematic that a block was allowed to expire when there are clear issues. If you look at the edit history, this is not the first time Spreamind has edit warred on this article (and clearly from a conspiracy theorist angle), Second Quantization (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (for archiving purposes).  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  00:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Esc2003 reported by User:Steverci (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: First removed Armenian origin, then added poorly sourced Iranian origin

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:30, 2 March 2015
 * 2) 18:36, 2 March 2015 (also calls user a troll)
 * 3) 19:14, 2 March 2015 (warring an admin)
 * 4) 20:06, 2 March 2015
 * 5) 13:20, 5 March 2015
 * 6) 18:55, 6 March 2015 (also calls user a vandal)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

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

Comments:

Clearly a very aggressive user who's personall attacks and edit warring are harmful to Wikipedia. Just by glancing his talk page, it seems he has a very long history of edit warring. --Steverci (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this person is talking about himself. 1, 2 & 3. His edit wars are similar. And, his contributions are destructive 4. I think should be careful for this status. --Esc2003 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In case you missed it, Esc2003 has has already been warned not once, but twice. However, the user still continued to edit-war several times even after the first warning on March 5. The warning was deleted from his talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he has not only continued edit warring lavash but khash as well. He clearly completely ignored the warning a needs to be given sanctions now. --Steverci (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Esc2003 is warned for edit warring. If this continues a block may be issued. Calling people trolls or vandals in your edit summaries could lead to a block for personal attacks. This article is subject to the WP:ARBAA2 arbitration case. EdJohnston (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

User:184.153.42.6 reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I demand more respect than that."
 * 2)  "I wish to make the minor adjustments to phraseology I've just proposed. Please permit me to do so. I believe my edits are rational, permissible, and conducive to the reading experience and don't appreciate my views' being soft-pedaled by a pedantic admin"
 * 3)  "You're not being very "tolerant of my viewpoints," Sir!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 650692620 by FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk)"
 * 5)  "Axiomatic locutionary alteration"
 * 6)  "Redressing glaring grammatical, pronominal, and stylistic errata and solecisms"
 * 1)  "Axiomatic locutionary alteration"
 * 2)  "Redressing glaring grammatical, pronominal, and stylistic errata and solecisms"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Critique of Pure Reason. (TW)"
 * 2)   "3RR: new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* IP edits */"


 * Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 03:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:George Al-Shami (Result: 24h)
Page:

Beyond My Ken

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Syria%2C_Manhattan&diff=650539084&oldid=650492819>

Previous version reverted to:

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

<Beyond My Ken> Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

The editor in question has broken the WP:3RR rule by reverting my edit 4 times. I made a very simple and small edit to one of the sentences in the article. My edit substituted "Christian" with "Syrian", in the following sentence "The Christians lived on Washington Street to the south of the site of the World Trade Center, where they established three churches, including St. George Chapel of the Melkite Rite, which as of 2010 survives as Moran's Ale House and Grill,[2] and which was designated a New York City landmark in 2009.[5]". The editor in question reverted my edit by vaguely stating "The article is saying what the source says". So I thought there was a misunderstanding and that there was no need to discuss it and so I reverted to my edit and I source what the article says in my edit explanation, however the editor in question reverts again, and again until he reached 4 reverts. In his second revert he accuses me of being a "pov editor" and then in his third revert he employs the f-word. I start the discussion on his page, and then unbeknownst to me he had started a discussion on the talk page (we were online at the same time)and so I start discussing it there. I respond to his baseless accusations by stating the logic of my edit and that my intentions were to prevent readers from assuming that all Christians lived on Washington Street and all Muslims lived on another street. I then changed my original edit for a possible compromise by keeping the original sentence and adding the word "most", but that was not enough for the editor in question. He wants me to get a consensus for trying to clarify the sentence by adding the word "most" to it.
 * Comments:

I believe the editor in question is trying to intimidate me, as he has reverted my edits on another article ; moreover he quickly assumed that I had bad faith, without even discussing it. I don't believe the editor in question is sincere in arriving at a consensus, because he quickly reverted my suggestion, without coming up with a suggestion himself.George Al-Shami (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite my having started a discussion at Talk:Little Syria, Manhattan regarding the dispute between us, the reporting editor continued to press his preferred version, against the standing version -- which has been in the article for years and which accurately reflects the source -- without waiting for a consensus to form, or, indeed, any response from other editors at all. In fact, his last edit came a mere 4 minutes after his response on the talk page, indicating that this editor has no intention of following normal procedures and is simply intent on pushing his POV, whatever that is. BMK (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit referred to in the second paragraph above, to the article St. George's Syrian Catholic Church, was to remove the category "Landmarks in New York City" because the article already had the category "Landmarks in Manhattan", a child cat. (In fact, another editor had replaced the "New York" category with the "Manhattan" category, and the reporting editor simply replaced the "New York" cat, before I came along and removed it.) Obviously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the current dispute, especially since that article is on my watchlist and I'm the second largest contributor to it (the reporting editor is the first).  But the primary problem is that the edit he's reporting as indicative of my trying to "intimidate" him took place in March 2012 . BMK (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing to do here--at least not in terms of blocks. User:George Al-Shami should have sought the talk page given that BMK made a claim of inaccurate representation of the source in his edit summary. I could conceivably block George Al-Shami for edit warring, I suppose--but I'd rather George continue this on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Drmies (talk The editor in question continues to argue that I have a POV or agenda to push, even though he has yet to explain what this agenda is. My initial edit was concerned with helping clarify the sentence/paragraph and to keep it as NPOV as possible. The editor argues that I have no regard for Wiki procedures, when in fact he is the one to have violated the 3RR rule.


 * BMK, I'm astonished by your brazenness. You undeniably broke 3rr, and you were blatantly let off the hook for it by Drmies. Fine. But within an hour of being let off, you reverted on the same article, breaching 3rr yet again. I'm all for being reasonable and giving people a break, but there's a fine line between an honest slip-up and completely disregarding rules. Perhaps you need to brush up on WP:3RR, or maybe WP:NVC would be more appropriate. .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  07:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Again, a previous editor told me to discuss on the talk page for a reason. Vocal, Vocal Jazz, and Jazz is redundant, just like Country pop, Country, and pop."
 * 2)  "I understand that they are referenced, but having those genres are redundant, and you typically do not place a genre that an artist has done on only, like, one album and it not part of their typical musical style."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650689398 by 5 albert square (talk) You told me to discuss on the talk. You haven't said a word. Vocal, jazz and vocal jazz are redundant sub-genres."
 * 4)  "Moving to what genre source proves. And no one has answered on talk yet."
 * 5)  "I didn't change them. They are unsourced, that is Original research, which cannot be used. Plus, a lot of these are redundant overkill. Too many genres."
 * 6)  "Sources?"
 * 1)  "Sources?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Leonard Nimoy. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Leonard Nimoy. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Leonard Nimoy. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Seth MacFarlane. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk page discussion at Seth MacFarlane


 * Comments:

Editor has been edit warring at several articles over the last couple of days. Most recently at Seth MacFarlane. Yesterday repeatedly at Leonard Nimoy -- even after receiving several warnings on his talk page and an AN/I report filed about his behavior and disruptive editing at the latter article (see here: ). Editor has been talked to, advised, given warnings by numerous other editors. Nothing is sinking in and his disruptive editing behavior is escalating. I have included diffs to the warnings at the Nimoy article to give evidence of a current disruptive edit warring behavior that is not just isolated to one article and that he has been given several chances. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 02:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm only gonna say one thing. Note the reporter has violated 3RR as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, not one thing. This editor constantly insults me, especially on my age, which is a personal attack, for example, or "too young to vote or drive", yet I can drive, this editor doesn't help me any by angering me to the point where I can't edit calmly anymore, to the point where I have slight emotional breakdowns, which causes him to call me things such as a diva, and doing it when I "don't get my way", again, not helping me in any fashion, I can understand when I'm wrong, which he doesn't seem to recall. He claims to understand Wikipedia policy when he can't understand redundancy and such. And one of the main reasons I am removing on the MacFarlane page is because the editor who reverted me told me to take it to the talk page, along with the reporter, the reverter, not the reporter, barely said anything, and just kept editing regardless. The reporter seems to be out to get me blocked any chance he gets. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . User should be aware of 3rr by now, considering he's been blocked for violating it in the past.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  07:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Afterwriting for repeated edit warring on Order of St. John (Result:Fully protected)
User:Mabelina is constantly edit warring on the Order of St. John disambiguation page by changing the link to the Venerable Order of Saint John article to the piped page of Most Venerable Order of Saint John even though (1) this is contrary to WP:MOSDAB and (2) the fact that there is currently a proposal for changing the article name. I am aware that I am also possibly contravening the edit war guidelines but believe my repeated reverting is justified in this instance.Afterwriting (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there - you will undoubtedly note that Afterwriting is using any means possible to escalate this situation & quite successfully so far, so I implore you to take action soonest. The essence of the problem is over the Order of St John and its style. This is a discussion which I was much obliged to receive help to set up as a Talk page, yet Afterwriting seems to think it is more productive to engage in a set to, rather than add anything substantive to the matter. I don't know whether this type of behavior is viewed favourably by Wikipedia, because from my point of view it is most unproductive, unsavoury and lacking in any purpose whatsoever (unless that is Afterwriting wishes to associate my name with arguments). Please give your view as soon as possible & I am more than willing to assist in your enquiries as necessary. Many thanks indeed. Best wishes M Mabelina (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, User:Mabelina's repeated disruptive editing which has escalted things. That is the actual "essence of the problem". Afterwriting (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop it M Mabelina (talk) 10:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. As you've said, "Please stop it M". Afterwriting (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . I could have blocked both of you for edit-warrring and reverts in two-digit number, without any traces of talk page discusssions, but I hope this time 3 days full protection would be sufficient. Next time, blocks may be given around. Ymblanter (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. There was, however, attempted discussion about this issue on my talk page but it was like talking to a brick wall. Mabelina kept asking for explanations even when I had already provided them. I eventually removed the "discussion" from my talk page due to Mabelina making increasingly absurd comments and then refusing to stop when formally asked. Afterwriting (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that I consider my reverts after attempted discussion were fully justified on the basis of WP:DABPIPE. When an editor deliberately keeps ignoring the Manual of Style on such things once it has been explained then this becomes a form of disruptive vandalism and not merely a content dispute. Afterwriting (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a valid exemption of WP:3RR. Valid exemptions are vandalism and obvious BLP violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Gouncbeatduke reported by User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" (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:

Comments:

The page in question, like all articles in the topic area of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.

The edit in question, repeated twice, is arguably also a case of vandalism - it removes the entire article content, including material sourced to reliable sources like Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post,  and The Forward - using a false edit summary that says  they  are not reliable sources, but then ADDS back a single  source which  has been removed several times - which is clearly not a reliable source- a self -published activists' blog.


 * User:Gouncbeatduke has blanked a large part of the article content twice, which violates the WP:ARBPIA 1RR. In my opinion he might be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to take a break from the article and its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a Wikipedia article about an anonymous blog full of illegal Hate speech, Anti-Arabism, and Islamophobia. I was surprised to learn Wikipedia is protecting it with a 1rr rule, I see no mention of it on the article or the article talk page. When I started checking the sources given in the article, they were mostly citing information only on the anonymous blog and had no WP:RS. Sometime a WP:RS would be given, but there was no mention of the anonymous blog in the WP:RS, and the statement in the article was just original research created by combining information on the anonymous blog with information on a WP:RS that never mentioned the blog. The article should be considered very far below Wikipedia standards, and I cannot imagine why it is protected with a 1rr rule. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like an article doesn't mean that it is not subject to Arbcom sanctions, including, as in this case, WP:1RR. I agree that it would be better to have a notice of the sanctions on the talk page and, just to make it absolutely clear, an editnotice warning you about 1RR when you edit the article. However, like it or not, now you know about the sanctions, and Ed's question is still unanswered. I suggest you respond to it rather than discussing tangential issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not "protected" by a 1rr, it's simply part of a larger topic that has been determined to be an "area of conflict". To control this long term and widespread conflict, administrators are authorized to impose sanctions problematic editors at their discretion, and all editors are restricted to one revert per day in this topic area. It's not a protection for any article in particular, it's a remedy for a problem that has proven to be necessary in an entire topic area.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  21:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for 1RR violation. Now that he is aware that 1RR applies, Gouncbeatduke could have backed away from the issue by agreeing to take a break from the article. He chose not to do so. He merely complained that this article is under 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also note that User:I invented "it's not you, it's me", who created this complaint, has been blocked for using sock puppets.
 * I still think it is a mistake to include this article under Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement. It is a anonymous, racist, anti-Arab, hate-speech blog that has nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. To give this anonymous hate-speech blogger credit for being part of the Arab-Israeli conflict promotes anonymous hate-speech bloggers to a far higher level of credibility than they deserve. The Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement tag was only added to the article after the blocked sock puppet User:I invented "it's not you, it's me" requested it. It appears sock puppets are becoming the most effective way to get admin action in Wikipedia. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Harald Forkbeard reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by Amaury)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There was a previous report of this user on this noticeboard on March 4th after CorporateM and him both started reverting, regarding this edit, where he insisted that court records were admissible sources. He is back on here for a second time since the edit warring started reoccuring after the full protection of the page for 3 days, which was placed due to the edit warring. I think it might be time for a block of this user if he doesn't stop. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Users CorporateM, McDonald of Kindness have been involved in multiple reverts. CorporateM has violated the 3RR rule. Are you going to block these users as well? How about protecting the Sageworks article, as it is a subject of ongoing edit war. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I only made one revert, and that is it. I have not engaged in any more reverts. McDonald of Kindness (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM made three reverts already. He's in violation.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious boomerang. Harald has been reverted by McDonald, and  (who reverted before adding article-protection). Keeps insisting there is some WP:TRUTH that absolutely must, must, must be included in the article, but has not provided any secondary sources that directly support the claims without requiring interpretation and extrapolation. Continues editing against consensus, alleging other editors are a part of a COI conspiracy and adding unsourced contentious material to a page on an extant organization. I don't see any reason not to treat it the same way we would for a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I did provide the secondary sources to support the collection and sale of data argument. There is a lengthy discussion on the Sageworks talk page regarding this. There is no consensus on this issue. I believe user CorporateM is engaged in an edit war with me regarding this, and thus has no say in this dispute here.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * CorporateM misrepresents the situation. Please see previous report and Sageworks Talk page for the background on this ongoing dispute. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Please note that it takes four reverts to trigger 3RR, not three. The first edit re-introduced much the same material that was contested in the previous edit war. Since page protection was used last time, there's little choice but to block. Four reverts, only real discussion was accusations on the talk page. Kuru   (talk)  01:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Harari234 reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 23:29, 10 March 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 00:03, 11 March 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 00:17, 11 March 2015
 * 4) Latest revision as of 00:42, 11 March 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on 04:12, 8 March 2015

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

Comments:

Harari234 has been edit warring on the Harar article since 6 March 2015 despite being advised to stop and come to the talk page. AcidSnow (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . First edit in series was to repeat material removed in the last edit war. Other three were clear reverts. Kuru   (talk)  02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wikiisawesome reported by User:Collegeisreallycool (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

This is Israel Palestine related so 1RR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegeisreallycool (talk • contribs)

I was under the impression that it takes at least 3 edits to create an edit war? I was doing some anti-vandalism work when I made the first edit. The added content seemed like vandalism to me for two reasons: After my second reversion, I posted a message on the user's talk page the following message: "I've reverted your edit in compliance with WP:BRD. No hard feelings though; let's talk about the issue in detail on the talk page and then try to reach consensus." I don't think this is indicative of the intent behind an edit war. I also posted a message on the article talk page in an effort to forge consensus after my second reversion.
 * the added content was a reversion of someone else's (Qwer1ty's) edit; and
 * the sources cited didn't (to my knowledge anyway) meet the criteria set out in WP:NEWSORG. This is also why I made the second reversion.

I realize now that I did not put an edit summary on my second reversion, which is my fault. But I do not think that is sufficient to make out an edit war. Thanks, wia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Reverts of IPs are exempt; it's also a good idea to engage in discussion and let people know that you feel the 1RR applies when dealing with an article in the "broadly construed" category. While most articles in this domain are explicitly marked, this one is not. Kuru   (talk)  02:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR (Result: Both blocked)
MehrdadFR has been edit warring on Irreligion in Iran by removed sources and adding irrelevant information with errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation. Possible sock puppet.--AnarchistFakest (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Problem with AnarchistFakest is persistent removing of reliable sources like official Iranian census and Encyclopædia Iranica, and replacing it with blogs and third-rated activist sites. If he WP:DONTLIKE something, he simply remove it without further explanation. Another example is this blanking - five reliable international sources have been removed just because data doesn't fits in his political views. --MehrdadFR (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Blanking was justified with WP:DISPUTED and then added in-line with the talk page. I've added MehrdadFR's relevant sources to the Irreligion in Iran article though user keeps removing mine.--AnarchistFakest (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . It's been a while since I've seen so many reverts done so quickly (literally minutes apart). Both editors were accusing the other of vandalism, and both editors were accusing the other of bias. I don't see an egregious policy violation in its present state (MehrdadFR's version), but it is true that grammatically it's fairly messy. MehrdadFR's idea that a bot will clean up the grammar is amusing. I didn't know we had grammar bots. Someone with more knowledge than I should probably take a look at the article if they have the time and inclination. I believe the sock puppetry accusation comes from the fact that before reverting as a newly registered account, MehrdadFR was reverting as an IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:NebY (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650891041 by Jc3s5h (talk)rep lk and so..."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650891616 by Jc3s5h (talk)"
 * 3)  "rep lk"
 * 4)  "/* List of SI prefixes */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 650895316 by NebY (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 650895316 by NebY (talk)"

"Erroneous edit to Metric prefix:  DO NOT EDIT WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

In recent days, has become exceptionally tenacious on articles relating to metric systems (for example, International System of Units); if corrected, they not only edit-war but make further edits on the same lines as if wishing to make some point. I've come to despair of ever correcting the erroneous, misleading and even downright surreal ("Retail grocery store for the most part is weighed in SI units") results. NebY (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts at 11:57, 12:03, 12:06, 12:41. Warned, and blocked twice before for same cause. Kuru   (talk)  15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:206.253.146.131/User:Scdawg14 (same user) reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported: (a.k.a. )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  and  - As IP
 * 2)  - As IP
 * 3)  - As IP
 * 4)  - Logs into account, uses exact same edit summary as here.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP and account are super obvious WP:DUCKs, being (poorly) used to avoid WP:SCRUTINY. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both accounts .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  16:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Admen1 reported by User:Nick Number (Result: Blocked 24 hours, trout to reporter)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 12:57, March 11, 2015
 * 2) 12:49, March 11, 2015
 * 3) 12:44, March 11, 2015‎
 * 4) 12:16, March 11, 2015‎
 * 5) 11:54, March 11, 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (subsequently blanked by Admen1)

Comments:

This new user is persistently adding a period to the end of a disambiguation page entry. Per MOS:DABENTRY, "Use sentence fragments, with no closing punctuation unless it is part of the description (e.g., a description that ends in 'etc.' would end with the period)". I've attempted to initiate a discussion about this, but he or she just deletes my Talk page entries and continues. I'm not sure of the person's rationale, but the result is not productive. Nick Number (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I note that (a) no-one warned Admen1 about 3RR until you said you were bringing him here; (b) after being warned, Admen1 stopped adding terminal punctuation, but switching to blanking article talk pages, and removing this 3RR report; (c) both of you were in breach of 3RR, and you should have known better than to carry on as you did, Nick Number; (d) edit-warring about a "." is a real waste of everyone's time. A block for disruptive editing for Admen1 is justified, with a trout to for letting it get this far. (And, while typing this, I see that  has blocked Admen1 for 24 hours for edit-warring. BencherliteTalk 21:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) . Nick Number, please next time do not overstep three reverts yourself, WP:MOS is not a valid exemption to WP:3RR. The user should be speifically made aware of WP:3RR. If the user is not responsive, they may be reported after three reverts, that should have been sufficient.Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User: ‎Ihye1 reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: 1 week)
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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gegard Mousasi, plus user's talk page

Comments: The user registered today and started to introduce false info to the article. Mousasi has a Dutch nationality, he is naturalized Iranian, and never had Armenian nationality. (Note for the record that by Dutch law he may not have Armenian nationality if he is Dutch). The article sees its share of pro-Armenian PoV pushers, and this is why pending changes have been configured, however, when after the second revert I approached this pusher at their talk page, they implicated me and said that "I should get my fact straight". After that, they proceeded with reverts and overstepped four reverts. The user has no contributions outside the article. Since this is not obvious vandalism (at least if someone takes me to ANI I would not feel comfortable defending myself), someone else has to apply a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . A WP:NOTHERE indef would arguably be acceptable here but I've opted to give the user one chance to get their act together...after a week off.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Chealer reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Wikiprojects, and assessment of importance and quality */ challenge OR (see Talk:Wikipedia/Archive_22)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 650605543 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) "verification" does not exempt from sourcing and I do not edit against anyone. see Talk"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650523542 by GliderMaven (talk) faulty; please re-apply the change you intended to perform"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 650555455 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) see Talk:Wikipedia/Archive_22"
 * 5)  "(Undid revision 650164563 by Engineering Guy (talk) already done)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit-warring at Wikipedia */ new section"
 * 1)   "/* Edit-warring at Wikipedia */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Chealer has been edit-warring since 7 March on Wikipedia. Almost immediately after I left this user a polite warning yesterday that s/he was at three reverts on Wikipedia and that the three reverts were a limit that should not be crossed, he goes to revert a fourth time. Although two of these reverts were consecutive and the fourth was from the 7th of March, I don't think that this is acceptable and it shows intent to edit-war without discussing on the talkpage. The other party to the dispute has apparently stopped edit-warring after I warned him/her yesterday and has left a message on my talk reporting Chealer's recent revert history. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This appears to be part of a larger pattern of behavior by User:Chealer which Dr.K has identified. Other editors affected by User:Chealer reverts w/o Talk have included    and . In my own edits there, my attempts to ask User:Chealer to start Talk seemed to fall on deaf ears. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It feels surreal to see you decry deaf ears (perhaps that's because I lack blind eyes). As you were already told several times, this debate was done (many months) before your first "attempt to ask". --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Which "reverts w/o Talk" would have "affected" these editors? And what are you opposing with when referring to them as "other editors"? --Chealer (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no limit of three reverts on Wikipedia.
 * Diff 1 is not a reversion. Diff 3.1 fixes a bizarre edit, and its edit summary specifically asks its author to restore whatever part of it was intentional. The 3 real reversions you list all relate to a problem reported on the talk page months ago. If you accuse me of intending "to edit-war without discussing on the talkpage", I will accuse you of intending to attack others without attempting discussion. But I consider your report in good faith and will not, in particular since you added a message on my User talk. To clarify, I was surprised by your message to the point where I looked up your recent contributions and noticed that your message followed the 3RR violation notice you sent to LawrencePrincipe. I then assumed you had contacted me to show neutrality and proceeded to ignore your message. FWIW, while LawrencePrincipe certainly edit-warred and did technically violate the 3RR, he did not "violate the 3RR in spirit" (if that makes any sense), since some of his edits were reverting trivial edits performed by a bot. --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a limit on reverts. See WP:3RR. To quote, 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. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. It is a bright-line rule.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The 3RR only limits the number of reverts performed during a day. An editor reverting 1000 times in a certain article does not violate the 3RR, unless more than 3 of these happened during a period of 1 day. --Chealer (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. I was addressing your claim that there's no limits on reverts. But you are edit warring. To quote WP:EW, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 21:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is a subjective concept. You may opine that my actions constitute edit warring even though I did not violate the 3RR, but you already wrote that below. By the way, while that opinion may have value, it would be more helpful if you could substantiate it with specific actions, and even better if you would say how you would have acted instead in the same situation. --Chealer (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Chealer is not helping with his/her edits. This user is removing a table, a pie-chart and a graph that show quality- and importance-wise distribution of Wikipedia articles, at both "Wikipedia" and "English Wikipedia". The reasons given by this user (long back in September 2014, at Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 22) is that "the data used is highly misleading" and that this content does not seem useful or valid, which is all false. This user has been edit-warring in the past, too, as can be seen in the following archived discussions.

Archived talk-page sections (of the Wikipedia article) concerning User:Chealer


 * Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21
 * Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21
 * Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21
 * Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21
 * Talk:Wikipedia/Archive 21

Archived ANI regarding User:Chealer

User:LawrencePrincipe, User:Forbidden User, User:Carrite, User:Ɱ, User:EvergreenFir are some users appearing in the above.
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852

--EngineeringGuy (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are not the only reasons I gave, but in any case, if you think this is false, this is not the place to have that discussion. And if you think you are right on that issue, then you should not need to resort to misleading edit summaries. --Chealer (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly I'd recommend this user be topic banned from articles relating to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. For a year now they've focused specifically on this topic and have had difficulty not edit warring. But this is just AN3, not ANI. I'd say it's a clear case of edit warring though.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In response to the 4 editors here, User:Chealer has apparently decided to continue his edit warring on the "Wikipedia" page today with this edit after repeat requests to stop from    and . Again, with no explanation on Talk. The suggestion of  above concerning User:Chealer appears to have experienced merit. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As you were told at least 3 times already, this was already explained on Talk. Which "repeat requests" from GliderMaven, Engineering Guy, Ɱ and Smuckola are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * New to the topic here about Chealer edit behavior. Here (as linked above by Chealer )  from long ago there was a post on the topic...but no effort at all to  start a new conversation since then. I have started a tlak at  Talk:Wikipedia as I had no clue about the old talk that is archived and should not be edited . I am also  a bit concerned with edits of this nature were a lack of understanding by the editor resulted in the  removal of sourced material over an effort to clarify as had be requested. I am hoping this deletion of material because of lack of understanding is not the norm.  -- Moxy (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Continuation of edit warring by Chealer on Wikipedia picking up from the last edit reported by Dr.K. above:
 * 18:22, 11 March 2015 - reinserted OR tags
 * 18:59, 11 March 2015‎ - reverted and reinserted OR tags
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that these edits constitute edit warring? By the way, considering that an edit constitutes edit warring is not a sufficient reason to revert it. --Chealer (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are continuing your dispute through reversions. That's edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . This thread has been open awhile, but if I wasn't convinced a block is needed initially, I am now. Chealer's edits are clearly disruptive in that they've raised multiple good faith objections from several editors, and rather than handling this dispute properly (i.e. through consensus-based dispute resolution), he's been fanning the flames by continuing to edit war on the page. And, even as a complaint for edit warring against him remained open, he continued to revert on that article multiple times. Regardless of the merits of your actual arguments (which are obviously contested by several people), when a situation heats up like this, sometimes the correct course of action is to take a step back for a minute and let things cool down. There is no deadline on Wikipedia, after all. Sometimes, if it's a borderline case and you can just step on the breaks, these reports might just go stale with no action. However it appears you've just propagated the dispute you're in while taking no responsibility for edit warring at all, and even showing either an ignorance or a disregard for the policy. Since it doesn't appear you're willing to make a show of good faith and stop voluntarily, sorry, but you're going to get blocked.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Myrmusp reported by User:Poltair (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Looking for guidance regarding a possible edit war as to whether Jihadi John and Mohammed Emwazi are one and the same person on the page List of University of Westminster alumni and deserves some reason for his notability. User:Myrmusp has reverted edits that wikilink Mohammed Emwazi and provide that "Jihadi John" is an Islamic State member/executioner. I and others have reverted his change and have asked him to discuss this at the talk page but the edit is just reverted to Myrmusp's preferred form. Hope someone can help. I have notified Myrmusp of this report. Poltair (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I corrected spelling of the editor's name: it is Myrmusp, not Myrmysp. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I share Poltair's concerns about Myrmusp's edit warring. Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  02:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by User:Champaign Supernova (Result: No action)
Page: Donors Trust

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 is repeatedly adding the description "political advocacy group" for the organization "Americans for Prosperity Foundation" with the rationale that the organization is so described in its Wikipedia article. However, the organization doesn't have it own Wikipedia article. It redirects to Americans for Prosperity. Three separate editors, myself included, have reverted this description, but editor has reverted all three of us. Champaign Supernova (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Hugh has received administrator warnings in the past for edit warring . He has also exhibited some disruptive behavior lately, e.g. insults, misrepresentation of consensus, and canvassing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from reported user: I apology for edit warring. I understand 3rr and recognize I violated it. Not an excuse at all but by way of perhaps explaining how an experienced editor might find himself in this situation, may I please mention that in comparing the 1st to the 2nd diff above, you can see that I responded to a fellow editors objection in an edit summary to wikilinking by removing the wikilinking. Again not an excuse at all but in comparing the 2nd and 3rd diffs above you can see that a fellow editor objected in an edit summary to wikilinking a term to an article, a term that was not the subject of that article, but was related, and defined in that article, and I responded to that concern. Again not an excuse but just to say this was not just a revert/restore of the same text over & over but rather a good faith effort to incrementally improve the encyclopedia and respond to the concerns of editors expressed in the edit summaries of their deletions. I would like to thank the reporting editor for not reverting my last contribution, the 4th diff above, which I take as a sign of good faith going forward. Hugh (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to thank the reporting editor for the above link to "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page," which is useful because it is an example of an on-going content issue between us. The reporting editor seems to believe that a wikilink is sufficient, and tends to delete brief definitions of new terms on first mention for wikilinked terms. I tend to embrace the charge "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links" of WP:LINKSTYLE and try to write good articles that can be read and understood by a wide variety of English language readers on multiple continents. particularly in articles that are no where near maximum page size guidelines. Including brief in-text definitions must needs force consensus on those few words. On the other hand, introducing a new term without any definition can lead to bad writing and can interfere with neutrality in that it can lead to lists of items that don't mean much to many/most readers. This difference tends to aggravate us both when collaborating. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Your apology is accepted; I'm taking this as an implication that you'll be closely watching your own behavior in the near future to ensure you don't slip up again. I do acknowledge the previous reports and warnings you've received for edit warring in the past, but as those were quite awhile ago so I won't hold them against you. Take care,  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wowee Zowee public reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (4th revert in 24 hours)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Three editors oppose the insertion of the content on the talk page and Wowee Zowee public has failed to address any of the concerns raised. User:Wowee Zowee public has violated 3RR but still continues reinserting the material despite the fact nobody else supports inclusion. The editor is also edit-warring at NBC Nightly News too over the inclusion of content. He has already been warned by admin for edit-warring on both articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

COMMENT AND THE TRUTH Betty Logan is very aggressive and not very nice. First of all, there is no 3RR. Every time, she/he didn't like something, I tried to modify it. I never posted the same thing. I explained stuff in the talk page. In contrast, she/he doesn't discuss things in the talk page much or at all and misquotes 3RR.

I can understand if Betty Logan wants to sanitize the article and wants everything to be perfect and happy. However, that is not life. The film had multiple sources about how critics and industry people thought the film was rubbish, lightweight, or similar but the public loved it. We cannot, in fairness, have an article that the film was lovable. It must be neutral and honest. Not slamming it but neutral.

If you look at the depth of my discussion compared to Betty Logan, she/he is the one that is not acting very kindly. In contrast, I think of many ways and do not re-insert the same edit. Instead, I try to compromise and try different re-wording but Betty Logan will have none of that. If you look at the talk page it was ME that discussed it, Betty Logan just revert stuff with no discussion until she/he added a little after I did. She/he is the one that needs a lesson though I am nice and will sit with him/her to listen.

One basic issue is "Should Wikipedia be an ad and a mouthpiece of someone or should it have articles that are honest and neutral, but are not always 100% positive and whitewashed". Answer: No, Wikipedia must be neutral and neither slam or whitewash stuff. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with the user above. Don't see a violation of WP:3RR. I've requested the article to be fully protected in order to force discussion at the article's talk.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 18:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does discussion need to be "forced" when there already has been a discussion? There is no requirement to keep discussing something until everyone agrees, just until it is apparent what the consensus is, which seems to be clear in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FURTHER INFO

Betty Logan falsely claims 3RR Diffs of the user's reverts:

[82]..March 7 (that is 1R) [83]..March 8 (that is 1R) and different from March 7 so not a RR   [84]..March 9 (that is 1R) and different from March 8 so not a RR    [85]..March 10 (that is 1R and different from March 9 so not a RR    [86]..different edit, not a R but a re-write    [87] (4th revert in 24 hours)    [88]..March 11 (that is 1R) and different from before so not a RR

In contrast, Betty Logan is always a revert, never a suggestion for compromise or re-write. She/he should be sanctioned and blocked for being bad. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Jetstreamer's full protection because unless you protect my version. This is because I discuss but Betty Logan does not discuss. Full protection with my version would force him/her to discuss but full protection of her version would just cause people to behave badly by complaining to WP and not discuss or compromise (as Betty Logan has done). In contrast, I've toned down my original edit and tried discussion. I even took out the part where Burt Lancaster said "Jesus, you must need the money (to do that film) Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It should be pointed out here that User:Jetstreamer is not neutral, having previous interactions with User:Wowee Zowee public. Secondly, a partial revert is still a revert, and in all the edits listed User:Wowee Zowee public persisted in restoring contentious material. Finally, the issue has been discussed on the article talk page and there is a consensus not to include the material. If Wowee Zowee public disagrees with the outcome then he has several options (i.e. an RFC, raising the issue at the Film project), but persisting in restoring content that no-one else supports is not an option. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * LIES and comment about Betty Logan In the above claim that Jetstreamer is not neutral, I have no interaction with him EXCEPT he and I DISAGREE about a current AFD! However, we are both civil and respectful as well as explain our beliefs. That is what Betty Logan needs to learn. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment on misconduct by Betty LoganHe/she seems to be a troublemaker. Look at how aggressive and uncooperative she/he is with another user a few days ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABetty_Logan&diff=650405617&oldid=650259414 For this and being untruthful, Betty Logan should be blocked or his/her complaint closed with no action. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that Wowee Zowee public has been blocked for 24 hours. --MelanieN (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * for 24 hours by User:Coffee.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trackteur reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: as above)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  Not an exact revert, but reintroduces confusion to section title.
 * 4)  Not an exact revert, but reintroduces confusion to section title.

A different previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

There were two previous blocks for edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Previously reported, see above. Kuru   (talk)  15:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . (Tagged for archival purposes)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AnarchistFakest reported by User:Snowager (Result: AnarchistFakest and MehrdadFR blocked)

 * I reported the innocent user for due to edit warring.


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "reverted; numerous grammatical fallacies from islamic republic worker"
 * 2)  "relevant facts readded"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 650855967 by 109.60.7.0 (talk) You're starting an edit war"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 650856412 by MehrdadFR (talk) Again, there are many grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors, and many RS's have been unjustifiably removed."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 650857080 by MehrdadFR (talk) see User talk:MehrdadFR"
 * 6)  "/* Within Iran */ source from Iranian.com"
 * 7)  "RV, nothing about it is "stable". RS's still unjustifiably removed & continuous errors"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 650857652 by MehrdadFR (talk) RV, edit warring. Possible non-RS removed"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 650857934 by MehrdadFR (talk) Your sources have nothing to do with "Irreligion in Iran" - more of propaganda and projected views"
 * 10)  "RV; to begin, "Quesion" isn't a word..."
 * 11)  "RV, I reported you bud. Take it to the talk page"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 650859095 by MehrdadFR (talk) rv vandalism that includes removal of sources and addition of irrelevant information with grammatical and spelling errors"
 * 13)  "RV vandalism. "non-RS blog" removed". Your edits are nonconstructive and only mention why Iranians should stay religious..."
 * 14)  "Undid revision 650859924 by MehrdadFR (talk) rv irrelevant & Mehrdad's see also section added"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 650860078 by MehrdadFR (talk) RV vandalism"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 650860291 by MehrdadFR (talk) Administrators please lock page due to Mehrdad's vandalism. He doesn't seem to comprehend his mistakes that I've mentioned on his talk page."
 * 17)  "Undid revision 650860528 by MehrdadFR (talk) Pushing propaganda much?"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 650860737 by MehrdadFR (talk) you're doing a great job of pushing your agenda"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 650860923 by MehrdadFR (talk) are all the sources you're unjustifiably removing from Fisher?"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 650861224 by MehrdadFR (talk) Then I suggest you only remove the source and paraphrase as opposed to the whole article..."
 * 21)  "Undid revision 650861387 by MehrdadFR (talk) Once again, I suggest you only remove the section you are referring to, unless if you'd rather push your agenda."
 * 22)  "Undid revision 650861577 by MehrdadFR (talk) Mehrdad is pushing his anti-irreligious agenda"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 650861797 by MehrdadFR (talk) see source"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 650861916 by MehrdadFR (talk)"
 * . Both warriors blocked for 48 hours. More detail in the report just above this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . (Tagging for archival purposes)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Both warriors blocked for 48 hours. More detail in the report just above this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . (Tagging for archival purposes)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Idjemememememme reported by User:Snowager (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Early career */"
 * 1)  "/* Early career */"
 * 1)  "/* Early career */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * This is just child-like vandalism; account is blocked as VOA. Kuru   (talk)  02:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (Tagging for archival)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM reported by User:Harald Forkbeard (Result: no action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

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

Comments:

User CorporateM has started the edit war on Sageworks page, despite the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see a 3RR violation as there are only three reverts, but straying into edit warring territory; it's just the really suspect behavior of the other party that stops me from closing this. CorporateM, will you refrain from editing there for 48 hours? Kuru   (talk)  01:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't have any particular interest in the page. It was brought to my attention as an NPOV dispute that needed more watchlisters. CorporateM (Talk) 02:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Si. I've watch-listed now as well. Kuru   (talk)  02:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . (Tagging for archival purposes)  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drizzy010 and User:Justinw303 reported by User:Blackmane (Result: 72 hours each)
Page:

User being reported: ,

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

Diffs of the users' reverts:

|Article history which speaks for itself

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

I'm not involved in this article and picked up on it while reading a blocked user's talk page. Admins will note that I have not entered any diffs above but have linked to the page history itself. Justinw303 has performed a staggering 40 reverts of Drizzy010's edits in the last 2(!) days. Drizzy010 is at roughly the same count. The two of them are at 15RR each as of this post. Drizzy010 was previously manually reverting the edits but has since taken to using the Undo button. In comparison, the article talk page has seen zero edits from either party and in fact it has descended into petty sniping and personal attacks on Justinw303's talk page. Blackmane (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Wow! That really is a bad one! Thank you for catching this and bringing it here, Blackmane. Your concise assessment of the situation is helpful and appreciated. This is a first offence for both users, but considering the severity of the edit war, . Take care,  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  03:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted the article to see if they resume their edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)