Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive276

User:50.184.134.157 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: User warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "O'Brien's claim that he "defined the frame problem" is verifiably false. This is not controversial. Do not revert!"
 * 2)  "add non-controversial example of false claim made by O'brien"
 * 3)  "fix url"
 * 4)  "revert reversion by Winklevi. Original edit was non-controversial removal of useless sources that don't establish notability"
 * 5)  "remove two citations that do nothing to establish notability of Langton & Carmichael or O'Brien's connection to it"
 * 6)  "revert vandalism on my contributions to the controversy section"
 * 7)  "make less inflamatory"
 * 8)  "tone-down unencyclopedic descriptions"
 * 9)  "/* Controversy */"
 * 1)  "tone-down unencyclopedic descriptions"
 * 2)  "/* Controversy */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "re Walter obrien"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Walter O'Brien. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has stated on my talk page that he will continue reverting no matter what. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will stop reverting for a short time while we discuss this. I will admit that the first contribution contained a sentence which was too strongly-worded. All subsequent modifications I made were reasonable. There is no way we can improve this page if this editor is going to revert anything that questions O'brien's claims - which are extremely suspect. O'brien claims to have "defined the frame problem in artificial intelligence," when in fact that problem was defined before he was born. I added a source showing his claim of this, and a link to the Wikipedia article showing the actual history of the frame problem. These edits are non-controversial. If we have to discuss everything on the talk page before doing even simple modifications, nothing will get done. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I object to being referred to as "he". This is the kind of attitude that is holding wikipedia back.50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Simple modifications, such as fixing a typo or changing to better wording, are fine. However, edits like the edits you want to make must be discussed on the talk page first per WP:CONSENSUS. - Amaury (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that addition of (sourced!) content required discussion on the talk page. If someone can somehow prove that O'brien traveled back in time and defined the frame problem before he was born, I will admit I was wrong. But until then it seems extremely non-controversial to point out that his claims about this accomplishment are false. I provided a source to the place on his website where he makes the assertion, and a link to the Wikipedia article that shows it is incorrect. What is the problem here? Winkelvi is the one who is edit-warring by repeatedly hindering progress on this article.50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the filer on this, may I also point out they, have once again breached 3RR as though last week's block or an even more recent warning have had no impact on them. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . I did impose a block on this user as I hadn't yet seen their comment here, but I just unblocked them under the condition that they remain true to their word and stop reverting in order to discuss the matter. The user is warned that the block will be reinstated if they continue to edit war.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , take note that this article is a BLP and the IP editor was continually inserting controversial and unreferenced content about a living, breathing person. BLPs are a very different animal.  If you also note, I stopped reverting his possibly libelous content additions and allowed other watchers to take over.   -- WV ● ✉ ✓  23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the content I inserted was referenced. And again, are correct (or none at all) gender pronouns too much to ask for? 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with the BLP concerns, thus your reversions are exempt from 3RR. Regardless of the merits of the IP's argument, her wording was certainly too biased to be acceptable in a BLP. That being said, given your recent history, it's probably not a great idea to rely on 3RR exemptions too much.  S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Especially when there are certain editors just chomping at the bit to see me blocked and will do whatever they can to make sure that happens. Yes, that happens in Wikipedia (sadly).  Aside from that truth, I hear what you are saying, .  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so how do we proceed? Winkelvi has given no indication of what was wrong with my contribution, which was sourced and was highly non-controversial. I guess I just don't get to make that contribution because Winkelvi has decided to revert it over and over and then accuse ME of edit warring? How is this an efficient way to run an encyclopedia? I haven't heard one bit of explanation for why it's conceivable that O'brien's claims of inventing the frame problem are true. Just because he's a "living, breathing person" means we can't provide evidence against his claims without going through some complicated consensus process? 50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing no explanation, and considering Winkelvi's history of edit warring, I'm going to proceed with improving the article. I'll be sure to avoid direct criticisms of the article's subject, but I will not leave unverifiable technobabble in this article. As it stands now, it is extremely misleading and reads almost like an advertisement for O'brien's business.50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion on article changes and improvements are supposed to take place at the article talk page, not at the 3RR noticeboard, User:50.184.134.157, that's why you aren't getting answers here. Further, another editor's "history of edit warring" has nothing to do with your choice to edit war. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  00:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: I just left the following message on 's talk page, but don't know if they will be back any time soon to see it: The IP User:50.184.134.157 you immediately unblocked and warned is back to inserting the same content at the Walter O'Brien article as before. He first announced it here: and proceeded here: , .  He also now claims a reputable source isn't a reputable source and will likely remove the source.  He is also planning on deleting quite a bit of sourced content .  Which is everything they promised to do before they were blocked, so... -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now he's saying this:, intending to utilize WP:IAR to justify adding WP:SYNTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And now saying he's just going to continue edit warring. But why shouldn't he? He was given the message that it's perfectly okay to do so because even if you get blocked, you'll just get unblocked in a few minutes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I admit that the change I proposed in the talk page needs discussion. That's why I posted it there. I won't carry it out unless there is consensus. The changes I did carry out are non-controversial, and I repeatedly asked you for any conceivable reason why someone could object to them, and you couldn't give me any. There is no problem here. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I support WV on this. The IP editor has reverted again, re-adding material they'd added before, despite saying they would not. A block is now in order. Skyerise (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I wouldn't re-add the material, I said I would pause to listen to WV's reasoning behind not making my properly-sourced, non-controversial changes. They haven't provided any explanation for their mysterious objections to the changes, so I see no reason to wait indefinitely. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has now been blocked for a week by User:Ymblanter for BLP violations. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:EPadmirateur, User:Hgilbert, and User:Thebee reported by User:Shibbolethink (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

(are we allowed to report more than one in a single report?)

Previous version reverted to: version before numerous reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1
 * 2) diff2
 * 3) diff3 (EPadmirateur and Thebee are, in my opinion, meat puppets of Hgilbert)
 * 4) diff 4 ((EPadmirateur and Thebee are, in my opinion, meat puppets of Hgilbert--Here they removed all the problems templates, etc, and more well-sourced material)
 * 5) see above
 * 6) this has spread to several other articles in the sphere of Anthroposophy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EPadmirateurHgilbertTheBee

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff1diff2

Comments:

So I recently added Waldorf education, Camphill movement, Anthroposophy, and Anthroposophical medicine to WikiProject Skepticism, and have met with some pretty severe pushback from some editors with marked WP:COI. Hgilbert initially began reverting all of my good faith edits and removing the criticisms I added which come from a number of WP:RS, including The BBC, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and the Atlantic. He even remarked on several occasions that newspapers should not be treated as WP:RS in the same way that his Anthroposophist Academic papers should be. (see talk page)

Subsequently, Hgilbert, and two other users (who I believe to be meat puppets) began reverting every revision, and neutering all of the NPOV that I added. These users all have a long history in this articles, including several ArbComs. Several passing users, Jeraphine Gryphon, Whitehat2009, and Dkriegls all attempted to help, but were also reverted or ignored. I posted numerous times on the talk page, and consensus was never reached in favor of removing the well-sourced claims I placed in the article. Hgilbert even accused me of being a sockpuppet of a previously banned activist editor instead of answering the arguments and working towards consensus. I try to AGF here, but all I see are reverts and rephrasings back to what these editors believe is the best this article can be. I don't think Hgilbert is here to create a wiki, I think he's here to neuter all criticism in this realm of articles, since he has a very blatant COI, and edits towards that COI's POV endlessly.

Could you temporarily protect it while I escalate to Dispute Resolution? Thanks-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Well,, you got your wish, although you're just as guilty as the other editors. I've locked the article for a week. I have no comments on the accusations of meat puppetry. Yes, you can report several users in one report, but you are required to notify them of this report, which I don't believe you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tagged all three on their user:talk pages? Is there something else?-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OHHH, the NOTICE template. I honestly, 100%, missed this. I'm doing it now. I had no intention of deceit, and wish I had caught this before.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is covered by [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education the Waldorf education Arbcom case]. Due to a 2013 motion, discretionary sanctions are authorized. I'm leaving alerts for Shibbolethink, Thebee, EPadmirateur and Hgilbert per the terms of WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wackosaurus reported by User:Oknazevad (Result:Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Wackosaurus (talk page creation)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New York Red Bulls

Comments:

There was, pursuant to a recent discussion, a consensus to remove the "metros" nickname from the infobox for this MLS team, based on the lack of any sourcing showing that it is actually a current nickname. This new user has reverted every removal, and refused to discuss in any fashion. They apparently signed up for a different account and forgot the password (it's a slightly misspelled name the first time). But the diff here is substantially the same and also a new user making their first edit. Clearly the same user. Good faith tells me that they just forgot their new log in (it happens) but that means the user, presuming it is the same person, is actually at 5 reverts. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

User:5.12.179.96 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Starting with patent troll is fair because it's an accurate description of the company's line of business. "the number of lawsuits made some commentators call it a patent troll" is nonsense. "now appealing to US Supreme Court" is incorrect."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 652829990 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 652843157 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 652843157 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See other warnings given on user's talk page. Also pinging.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The user in question appears to have something of a vendetta against Viringo. The company's activities are controversial, but we do not factually describe companies as "patent trolls" based on the word of a single commentator; it is no doubt notable enough to mention in the lede of the article that commentators have depicted it as such, but to state as a fact violates WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected. At least two different IPs from Bucharest have been warring to insert the 'patent troll' language in Wikipedia's voice since mid February. These IPs are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yo, do I have so anything to say here? 5.12.179.96 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

LE: Added explanations on EdJohnston's talk page, coz it seems I have to request unprotection from him. 5.12.179.96 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Timmbits reported by User:Forbes4bs (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_lock&oldid=635689835

Comments:

Last phrase of second paragraph in U-locks and D-locks: However, locks with the cylindrical key are no longer offered by most manufacturers (with some cheap Chinese exceptions), and they should be avoided. Deleted it due to racism
 * . Reported editor hasn't edited since December 2014. The filer is brand new.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:69.172.85.34 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Hinduism */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 652966574 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) personal attack"
 * 3)  "/* Islam */ original content by authors cited"
 * 1)  "/* Islam */ original content by authors cited"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring over a variety of articles, and talk page access was revoked. Coming off his block yesterday, his only contributions have been to pick up the wars again and return to reverting changes without discussion.

See edits to Creationism, Maitreya, Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, etc, which are all continuations of his prior edit war.

Edits are to a variety of pages, so semi-protection isn't feasible. Another block for a few days might encourage him to move on. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Phil070707 (Result: Declined)
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:

Comments: Today I fixed a problematic classification in the lead section of this article (the consensus among sources seems to be that it is a nationalist party with leftist economic platform. Therefore, just "far-right" in the lead makes no sense, even if there may be a handful of sources that have this label). A user with whom I had a dispute on another talk page, started this "revenge" edit war. I know, that he didn't violate 3 reverts rule directly, but this kind of behaviour: follwoing a perceived enemy and reverting his constructive changes is unacceptable.Phil070707 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional comment: I would not be opposed to leaving the classification "left-wing" out of the lead, if this is an issue for someone (leaving just "nationalist", which is indisputable). However, the current version Marek kept reverting to is totally unacceptable for 2 reasons: - 1. a party cannot be "far-right" and "left-wing" at the same time 2. the so-called source Marek is using for his odd classification is a newspaper article where the Rodina is mentioned just once passing by with no additional information while the 2 sources I refer to are scholarly sources which clearly take precedence over less reliable sources. Phil070707 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: here we go again: Volunteer Marek has now basically decided to revert ANY edit I've made with the wrong allegation - personal assault - that I'm a sock puppet. How long can he go on like that? Phil070707 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by other editors:


 * This is not a 3RR violation and the above account is a screamin', yellin', quackin' DUCK WITH MEGAPHONE of Indef banned user Lokalkosmopolit. I'm assembling the diffs and the info for the SPI as we speak but those always take (i.e. waste) a lot of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Suspecting that someone may be a multiple account of someone does not give you the right to start idiotic edit wars. Discuss the issue on appropriate venues! And as for 3 RR, UI never claimed you performed more than 3 reverts, and this is not a single case on your part but part of your wider editing pattern: provoking edit wars on the Eastern European topics. Just a quick look at your contributions list demonstrates it: (some examples:, . Phil070707 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * your wider editing pattern: provoking edit wars on the Eastern European topics - this is nonsense, except for the fact that it further demonstrates that you are indeed the sockpuppet of the user I mention above, since they tried to falsely accuse me of exactly the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has made exactly the same number of reverts on this page as the complainant. Neither of them have broken the three-revert rule.

Previous version reverted to by Phil070707: 02:09, 9 February 2015 Note the lack of "far-right" in the infobox.

Diffs of the Phil070707's reverts: Recommend 24 hour block for Phil070707 for trying to game the system.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 15:30, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.
 * 2) 18:08, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.
 * 3) 18:11, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.


 * My edits were well explained. I'm not gaming the system but improving the quality of articles. The version before my edits was deficient as I explained at the respective talk page. None of you two managed to present any decent counterarguments to my view. Phil070707 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I have. A simple counter argument - the info you're trying to remove is reliably sourced (just like the info you tried to remove in your previous incarnations was sourced). You just don't agree with the source. That's your problem, not Wikipedia's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think the absurd lead like ″Rodina or Motherland-National Patriotic Union (Rodina - Narodno-Patrioticheskiy Soyuz, Партия "РОДИНА") is a far-right political party in Russia. It was a coalition of 30 nationalist and left-wing groups″ is preferrable to the reasonable one I wrote then I doubt whether you actually are fit to edit constructively. Phil070707 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as Toddy1 is concerned, I'd add that this is yet another problematic editor from the Ukraine-Russia topics. He is no neutral 3. party! Like VM he is prone to concocting ideological nonsense like ″neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist writer Alexander Prokhanov″ which the neutral editors then have to fix . Phil070707 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Making personal attacks at an admin noticeboard is ulikely to help your case. it might to wise to strike those quickly. Also you failed to follow Bold-revert-discuss when you were reverted it should have gone to the talk page to discuss. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree to change my comment. We need to remain rational and calm. As for the cycle you refer to, I started a thread at the respective talk page and made constructive proposals - to no avail. VM is not interested in improving the article. Phil070707 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That personal attack above against Toddy, the fact that Phil070707 is apparently familiar with them (despite having supposedly NEVER interacted with them), the calling of people "idiots" is just more proof that this is a sockpuppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit. Compare: . As is his arguing over the politics of Alexander Prokhanov, which is also what Lokalkosmopolit (more precisely one of their sock puppets, User:Patriot Donbassa) did: . It's him. Indef banned user socking and provoking edit wars. Just block and tag, save regular editors some time rather than forcing them to deal with nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am NOT a sock puppet of the said user. You know very well that sock puppet investigations should be pursued at the respective page. Your allegations constitute a personal assault and you use these as a red herring to justify your revert warring spree. Phil070707 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And as far as this Toddy1 ois concerned, unfortunately I indeed am familiar with that account after his edits like this. Very suspicious indeed! Phil070707 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And they will be. But you're quacking so loudly that it's pretty much a (time wasting) formality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . No 3RR violation. may pursue his allegations at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rebelrick123 reported by User:Creativity-II (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 652048283 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 652390850 by Creativity-II (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 652775271 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk), What exactly is The Authority Era? Go ahead and report, I'll keep fixing it."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 652817305 by Creativity-II (talk) There's no Reality Era but Authority Era? Lol keep acting like you run this page, man."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of WWE. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of WWE. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has repeatedly and insistently reverted edits to the article to his own version, which contains unsourced additions to it. Has shown no intention of abiding by the removal of his unsourced edits per his comments and incivility toward editors removing his changes. Creativity-II (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I warned him not to revert the edit and repeatedly told him his edits were unsourced, but he has persisted to vandalise the page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking for the same period for persistent edit warring, ownership and uncollaborative and combative behavior.   S warm...    &mdash;X&mdash;  20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

List of tallest people (Result: Filer warned)
Hello. Can an admin please look into the article of the List of tallest people? I tried to add the tallest mass murderers such as Osama bin Laden and two users continue to revert my edit and they call it ridiculous and vandalism. One on these two users also dared to call my constructive editing "Vandalism". Can you please handle it out? And please tell me if my edit to this article was right or not. Thanks! Samhan Dobo (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong place for this really, you should post on Talk:List of tallest people EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me list all the things that are wrong with this:
 * (1). You created a category "Tallest mass murderers" with no-one else in it.
 * (2). The category you made was incorrectly formatted.
 * (3). You did not provide a source for his height.
 * (4). You listed him as being from Afghanistan, when his nationality on Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian until 1994 and stateless afterwards.
 * (5). Listing his years of birth as 1957- implies he's still alive, which he isn't.


 * And now on here, your mistakes are:
 * (1). This isn't a well formed request, since you haven't provided version differences showing edit warring.
 * (2). You have failed to inform the user(s) that you reported, which you are obliged to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think this issue should be discussed here, because reporting a user to the edit warring board with no serious evidence, when they've been adding incorrect, unreferenced information to an article is grossly insulting to myself and (who still hasn't been informed about this ridiculous accusation), who are being accused of edit warring unjustifiably. This user should be banned for improper conduct, and unexplained harassment of other users, by trying to get them blocked for removing the unsourced rubbish they added to an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Calm down a tad. First we don't BAN for a bad report to 3RR, heck I doubt it deserves a BLOCK. These aren't for punishment remember, they are to prevent damage. The user appears to have done this in good faith and you should try assuming that sometimes instead of shouting "VANDAL, ban (??) it! at confused users. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no need to add Bin Laden to the list, and they're accusing me of gross misconduct (edit warring is gross misconduct on Wikipedia). Also, I meant ban not block. I'm trying to assume good faith, the first few edits were rolled back with a clear edit summary, saying that this was POV and unsourced. The responding edit summaries were "There is no source needed" and "That's your opinion and I don't care", followed by a report on here. I've tried to assume good faith, they have not. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you wish to assume good faith or not in your head is up to you, but labeling the edits by a new account as vandalism is not constructive unless it's garden variety vandalism. So, don't. Asking that a user be banned at this board makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . You are warned that if you revert again at the article, you risk being blocked without any further notice. You just created your account. Slow down. If you want to discuss the material you want to add to the article, do so civilly at the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, understood. But it is really a mess from Joseph that he calls me a vandal and that he wants you to ban me from editing the Wikipedia! That'S really rude and stupid from him! I'm new here and all I want to give the Wikipedia are constructive contributions. And ok, I will add my request to the talk page of it's article. Thanks that you didn't block me. And how about a Welcome thread instead of adding stupid warnings to my talk page?! Samhan Dobo (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I overreacted, and I'm sorry. For 99% of new posters who post things I consider unhelpful, I send a welcome message, but I got was wrong here and assumed that you were trying to vandalise, because most people who add Bin Laden (or other terrorists) to articles are trying to vandalise Wikipedia. About the content, I'm going to write on the talkpage, and I also sent you a welcome message on your page. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ok. You don't have to feel sorry. I'm sorry for editwarring. And thanks for your welcome message. Samhan Dobo (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:37.208.33.85 reported by User:Mfb (Result: 36h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  Should be obvious from version history.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Literally all of the user contributions (link see above)
 * 10:53, March 22, 2015
 * 11:32, March 22, 2015
 * 12:15, March 22, 2015
 * 12:47, March 22, 2015
 * 13:54, March 22, 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: %3AGravitational_constant&diff=653053868&oldid=586447885Previous 3RR case

Comments:

Clear 3RR violation. --mfb (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The only activity of this account is to WP:PUSH this unsourced material


 * . S warm   X  00:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:TCKTKtool reported by User:Padenton (Result: 5 users blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

User is also certainly IP:, who made reverts here before creating their account:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653076060 by Vtk1987 (talk) revert Sock Puppet"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653075692 by Vtk1987 (talk) See talk page."
 * 1)
 * 2)


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Unproven/non-notable allegations */"
 * 2)   "/* Unproven/non-notable allegations */"
 * Comments:

Article history reveals a history of edit warring with multiple editors. &#8213; Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Padenton for some reason also left out the other users are brand new and obvious sock puppets. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I do not know whether Vtk1987 is a sock puppet or not. However, I was actually referring to  &#8213;  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Then why is none of the edits you linked to above about OccultZone? The edits above are due to Vtk1987 and Human3015, sock puppet accounts. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Partly because this is the 3RR noticeboard and these are the only ones in the last 24 hours. Partly because you responded before I had a chance to add more.  However, here:     &#8213;<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print">  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Which have nothing to do with your original notice. What are you trying to do and why the witch hunt when you are shown the be wrong? You should have kept this at the Rape in India talk page instead of trying to get someone blocked so you can revert. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been edit warring throughout the past couple weeks. I don't care whether you're blocked or not, but this has risen to something that an administrator (or administrators) need(s) to step into. &#8213;<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print">  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 23:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Again this does not even come close to your notice here. Your actions are quite questionable to say the least now and only getting more strained. Stop the witch hunt and return to the talk page; or use a better and more correct board for your grievance. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And now I see you messaging as many as you can to revert and back you up. Maybe a Admin will also look at your actions now. boomerang TCKTKtool (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is wikipedia policy for me to bring edit warring to this noticeboard. Before I did so, you threatened to do the same to  right here:, so I am not sure why you are complaining on that front.  I posted messages to the Talk pages of other involved parties, as is customary.  I have no issue with admins looking at my actions. &#8213;<span style="background:#8FF;border:solid 1px;border-radius:8px;box-shadow:darkgray 3px 3px 1px;font-family:Segoe Print">  Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I did that but unlike you I did not rush into it. I now see that is a sock puppet account. Again if you had taken the time to see you would not have posted a notice here that has already been proven incorrect. I have been following the rules and requested a outside view of the talk page now, as things are supposed to handled. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are telling that Vtk1987 is a sock, you have not clarified that who's sock it could be. It is clearer that you were the IP address who was violating the WP:BLPCRIME and once you found yourself under the violation of 3 revert, you continued to edit war after creating an account.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * has also opened a dispute here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard


 * The following users :


 * for more severe and protracted edit warring. S warm   X  00:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (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)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Confederate States of America#Reagan Speech Inclusion]

Comments:

Texasreb continues to edit this article contrary to consensus. He has been blocked three times for his actions on this article. He has been adding a quote from a Confederate official in the diffs listed above -- first a long version and the last three a shorter version. Four editors have spoken against the changes while none have supported Texasreb's edits.

His most recent comment on the discussion page is here. It seems clear to me that he has no intention of respecting consensus and is fully aware of being blocked. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC) PS This is referred based on edit warring -- not 3RR.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . It has been 5 months since his last block, but it's clear the fundamental behavioral problems remain exactly the same. S warm   X  00:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Shj369 reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Do not delete a history of a famous business school in Middle East, this is an explicit vandalism. RESPECT..."
 * 2)  "This article is about the business school, respect other countries and cultures. PLEASE DON'T DELETE AN ARTICLE DUE TO YOUR INTERESTS"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653054905 by RoySmith (talk) Please, do not delete the school page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 651508147 by RoySmith (talk) This article is about the first modern business school in Iran"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 651508147 by RoySmith (talk) This article is about the first modern business school in Iran"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user is consistently pushing to include his article on some management school, which did not turn out notable per this deletion discussion. It was suggested in that discussion to redirect the article to this one, and that is how it turned out. I have reminded the user about our policies, but he continues to edit war in an attempt to include his article. I ran out of reverts, due to the three revert rule, which I also reminded the user of. It turns out that I am needing assistance in dealing with this user.  McDonald of Kindness  (talk • contributions) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm providing a brief explanation on the talk page of the article (talk • contributions) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I've protected the redirect page for a week. Hopefully, that will solve the problem without need for any more drastic action.  My suggestion is let it go at that, and if this continues to be a problem after the protection expires, we can consider something stronger.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . S warm   X  00:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Carlo pastrani reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result:blocked 3 days)
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: [diff]

Comments:

The user has a conflict of interest as an employee of Giuseppe Sacco, and has been repeatedly removing sourced material with promotional, unsourced material, see the number of warnings they have received on User talk:Carlo pastrani. They seem unwilling to change their behaviour, despite the multitude of warnings received. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: As I was writing this, the user has been blocked for disruptive editing and edit warring by . Feel free to close this. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user for three days and left a note explaining COI, AUTO, BLP/H etc. JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Inorout reported by User:Mfb (Result: Indef)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/653083526, Special:Diff/653158029, Special:Diff/651788226

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/653144847
 * 2) Special:Diff/653162796
 * 3) Special:Diff/653163113
 * 4) Special:Diff/653163248

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for edit warring before, for the same article content, and has been warned on his talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: at "Gravitational constant", at at "Dimensionless_physical_constant", at his talk page.

Not technically a 3RR violation because it is spread over three articles, but clearly edit warring and all edits have the same content. Inorout keeps adding this (his?) fringe theory based on a not acceptable reference to those three articles, despite various warnings, a block for edit warring and overall broad consensus that the references and the content are not acceptable (everyone apart from Inorout and the IPs - and based on the behaviour they might be the same person). --mfb (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I agree with all of the above. Inorout persists in PUSHing his inadequately sourced, FRINGE content on the above 3 sites against the consensus of 5 editors on Talk:Gravitational constant, 3 on Gravity, and 4 on Dimensionless physical constant.  He doesn't participate in the Talk page discussion of his edits even though invited to.  Besides Inorout the only editors supporting his edits are several IPs 217.197.137.140 77.238.218.163, which look very much like sockpuppets; one of which 37.208.33.85 has already been blocked for 3RR  I don't think this guy's going to stop. -- Chetvorno <i style="color:purple; font-size:smaller;">TALK</i> 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: Indef as a suspected sockpuppet of User:Bosnipedian. See the user's talk page for links to prior reports. As you can see from WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian, this editor comes up with new socks almost every month and constantly uses new IPs. Bosnipedian is a growth industry. EdJohnston (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:TheSchoolatColumbiaUniv reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indefinite block )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653202151 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Performing arts */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653198915 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 1)  "/* Performing arts */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653198915 by 331dot (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on The School at Columbia University. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The School at Columbia University. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user is adding promotional, unsourced content to the page. Multiple users have suggested going to the talkpage to discuss their content, but they are unwilling to. They are also ignoring a username violation warning on their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional note: Looks like their additions were also copyright violations, as they were copying from official website (About section, Mission section, History Section. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeffed as a spam only account. When it's that blatant, feel free to report at WP:AIV for a faster response. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:J0mm0n reported by User:Peaceworld111 (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653146328 by Peaceworld111 (talk) Please see talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 652986763 by Peaceworld111 (talk) Please see talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 652936971 by Peaceworld111 (talk) Not really because it is World Christian Encyclopedia"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* WCE */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 3)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 4)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 5)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 6)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 7)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 8)   "/* WCE */ add"
 * 9)   "/* WCE */"
 * 10)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 11)   "/* WCE */ re"
 * 12)   "/* WCE */"


 * Comments:

User has "issues" with non-Muslim sources and therefore repeatedly reverts well-sourced information. Requires minimum 1 week temporary block. See Talk:Muslim population growth for more details.  --Peace world  21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In this instance peaceworld's edits are probably erroneous, because the Salafi lede states that "Salafism is the fastest growing Islamic movement in the world", not Ahmadiyya. Peaceworld's reference seems weaker and uncommon. Afwaaja (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are comparing news sources to a statistical reference work. Nevertheless, the statement being repeatedly reverted by the said user states "According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, the fastest-growing denomination in Islam is Ahmadiyya," which is wholly true irrespective of what other sources claim. --Peace world  21:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . We don't normally block users for a week for first-offense edit warring. Nowhere does this user say they object to non-Muslim, or Christian-authored sources. There objection is clearly that a self-proclaimed "Christian" encyclopedia is inherently biased. Of course, that isn't a valid reason to edit war over the removal of the content, which is written neutrally regardless. Will direct the editor to the proper venue to voice their concerns. S warm   X  21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it. --Peace world  21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Theobald Tiger reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Filing a complaint */ new section"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653142029 by Tgeairn (talk) Stop POV pushing"
 * 3)  "/* Harrassment */ new section"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 653140091 by Tgeairn (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Harassment of other users on User talk:Tgeairn. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Latest edit-warring on (my) talk page. See User:Tgeairn/NPA_diffs editor contributions for additional recent history. Tgeairn (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC) (modified 23:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC))


 * Note that this editor has received multiple final warnings for "personal attacks, edit warring, and disrupting Wikipedia", including this warning, following this and this finding at Arbitration Enforcement. There is also a prior warning for edit warring here. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "A ragged urchin, aimless and alone,
 * Loitered about that vacancy; a bird
 * Flew up to safety from his well-aimed stone:
 * That girls are raped, that two boys knife a third,
 * Were axioms to him, who’d never heard
 * Of any world where promises were kept,
 * Or one could weep because another wept."
 * W.H. Auden, September 1, 1939


 * Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No real evidence of attempt to resolve conflict other than above mentioned user talk page comment, which clearly takes place after the last indication of edit-warring and so there is no basis that any edit-warring after the final warning has taken place. While editors can revert comments on their user talk page without responding directly to them, and that is a reasonable indicator that they have read or at least been aware of the message contained, I don't see any clear evidence that specifically indicates user talk pages qualify under WP:3RR. So, all in all, I honestly see no basis for action, other than perhaps a warning, to Theobald. However, I do see that this complaint itself is also possibly at least as problematic, because it seems to be asserting that edits made before the warning qualify as edit-warring, which is sometimes questionable. That raises potentially serious WP:CIR and/or WP:GAME concerns, and this would not be the first time that such concerns regarding the first of those and the filing party have been raised, and on that basis, if there are to be any reprimands to Theobald, I would think that Tgeairn might reasonably deserve a similar reprimand. It might also be possible that this dubiously substantiated complaint might itself qualify as a form of Harassment as per WP:HARASS. It might not be unreasonable for the reviewing editor to consider taking this matter to WP:AE for consideration there. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not violated the 3R-rule at all. Tgeairn is a COI-editor whose greatest pleasure it is to nail his adversaries unto the cross. It is striking that Tgeairn does not mention the original revert. I reverted Tgeairn's tagging of Gary Bouma. Tgeairn is a Landmark defender who tries to eliminate every notable subject that has any involvement with NRM's. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also note that the material Tgeairn added after my initial comment, in this link here are at best questionably relevant to the current discussion, and I once again question the thinking which would make this matter one raised here as opposed to at the AE page, which would I think be the place most editors with a basic grasp of policies and guidelines might think to be the appropriate place to raise such concerns about the behavior of editors who have previously been involved in an AE case and in a topic area in which discretionary sanctions have been authorized. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * - Given the warnings previously given by ArbCom and AN3, this user simply has no excuse. S warm   X  21:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653110548 by Tomsebre (talk) under discussion. Please discuss"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653109575 by Seeaysee (talk) not neutral."
 * 3)  "/* Critical reception */ fix"
 * 4)  "/* Critical reception */ Have not seen another album page it's used on, no secondary sources, and comply with the hidden message until discussion is over."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 653107905 by 23.120.120.249 (talk) stop removing that until discussion is over. And there is only 10 reviews. no more."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 653107567 by Helpthny needleddroptano (talk) no"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 653107011 by 69.163.90.147 (talk) vandal"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 653107012 by 23.120.120.249 (talk) removal of hidden note"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 653106029 by 99.246.166.195 (talk) needle drop not important or needed"
 * 10)  "Reverted to revision 653103622 by SNUGGUMS (talk): Restored to last good version. (TW)"
 * 11)  "/* Critical reception */ positive is more of a neutral word."
 * 12)  ""universal acclaim" is not neutral wording."
 * 13)  "Undid revision 653097035 by 96.39.222.161 (talk) full text for number, correct sentence format for albums."
 * 14)  "/* Track listing */ Is there a source for all this!?"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 653050775 by 86.20.122.219 (talk) 10 reviews only"
 * 1)  "/* Track listing */ Is there a source for all this!?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653050775 by 86.20.122.219 (talk) 10 reviews only"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor just came off a week-long block for edit warring. Obviously, didn't learn a darn thing. Immediately removed 3RR noticeboard notification. Seems to be exercising WP:IDHT. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 04:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are exemptions, vandalism or clear not seeing of the hidden message, that says 10 reviews only, which most of that was. And I removed it when I saw it. I'm not supposed to do that? And might I note that you are Hounding me? And you tend to not care about others when they are edit warring? Especially himself, as he reverted 3 edits on Walter O'Brien by an IP user. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of edit warring by IPs and a few SPAs seeking to include some vlog as a source as well as reversion of non NPOV language. Joseph has been pretty trigger happy with the undo button when he should have gone to WP:RFPP but I don't think this is edit warring. Blackmane (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It actually ended up getting protected. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , not by me. Couldn't put it better than Blackmane. Seems like most of those reverts are over fans of a music vlog trying to add it to the article, in repeated violation of WP:SPS. Relatively straightforward disruption that the article should and has been protected against. However, Joseph, you are being way too trigger happy with reverting and it's not safe to rely on edit warring exemptions, if there's an issue deal with it in the proper channels, don't edit war over it even if you think you're right. Report disruptive users! S warm   X  20:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry for the being "trigger happy", I understand now. But where would I report them? On this noticeboard, or would it be a different one? I'm not too familiar with the noticeboards. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:71.62.250.238 and 70.190.111.213 reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

Diffs of the user's 70.190.111.213 reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

Diffs of the user's 71.62.250.238 reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

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

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

Comments:


 * , as the edit war seems to be resolved. It has not continued after your message on the talk page, and the editor in favor of the longer version has voluntarily cut down much of the text. Feel free to re-report if needed! S warm   X  03:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:66.44.61.179 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: dif

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: Talk:Michael_Marder

Comments:

Article has been subject to a lot of COI/self-promo editing. IP address is adding information about an unpublished book to the article, in violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is petty but this kind of self-promo by academics gets under my skin. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . IP broke 3RR immediately after being warned. I've weighed in on the talk page. S warm   X  03:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Yobol (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653041312 by Jytdog (talk) I confused the Blaskeiwicz ref w/ Gorski ref; but, this text doesn't contribute to its article sec, and contains unsubstantiated claims of wrong of wrong-doing"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653040160 by Rhode Island Red (talk) extremist newsletter (e.g his letter also attacks global warming) - no ed. review/control, not an WP:RS, it simply fits your bias"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 652981011 by BullRangifer (talk) your name-calling revert of all my carefully made changes is insulting and unjjustified, Bullrangifer"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 652968038 by Rhode Island Red (talk) a WP:RS?? (how can you possibly say that?? it is UNSOURCED [primary-sourced via extremist newsletter])"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 652959506 by Jytdog (talk) my summary was fine (there was no ambiguity, summarizing is not adding non-neutrality, summarizing src material is what we're supposed to do in cases like this"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 652959425 by Jytdog (talk) inclusion isn't "fine" just because you say it is Jytdog; this is *unsourced* (primary source) non-notable extremist newsletter"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 652959425 by Jytdog (talk) inclusion isn't "fine" just because you say it is Jytdog; this is *unsourced* (primary source) non-notable extremist newsletter"

Note that there are other reverts in the history, these were just the ones where the "Undid" terms were used in the edit summary.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Editor warned here and here earlier this month, and was warned again today.


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


 * Comments:

Continued to edit war despite 3RR warning here. Yobol (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah we should have come here sooner. thanks for filing this Yobol and for protecting the page, Bbb23. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * for one week. IHardlythinkso is reverting more than other editors, but there are too many warriors involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , thx for recognizing what I've been up against (at least four editors taking turns reverting my edits). The last revert by me was made on the basis of WP:BLP (as said at WP:RPP and article Talk). I actually would prefer that you locked down the article for two weeks instead of one; however, your lockdown came after user Bullrangifer (in cooperation w/ editors Rhode Island Red and Jytdog) restored the offending material. (Additionally, his editsum contained not rationale just re-assertion: "restore perfectly good opinion of subject expert". In response to my editsum!?: "this text doesn't contribute to its article sec, and contains unsubstantiated claims of wrong of wrong-doing".) Thanks for your consider. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Implicit in your remarks is you want me to back out the last change to the article because of WP:BLP concerns. It's my view that the BLP problem is debatable. Thus, I think that should be one of the issues that you and the others work out on the article Talk page, or any other appropriate forum like WP:BLPN. And I sincerely hope you can work it out. Otherwise, there may be blocks if editors start restoring their own version after the protection expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes that's what I meant, thanks for your attention & your above reply. p.s. I understand discussion/consensus vs. reverting. (But my Q is, do the other four editors who have been reverting me? I mean, the gall of opening this thread at same time admitting to have also excessively reverted themself, what is that?! [I know what it is: Get a contending editor blocked, if you can't already drive them away thru frustration.] It was a perfect WP:BOOMERANG, but I'm not complaining. I'm glad some attention has been brought to bear. I presume when there are conflicts like this at the article, no admin may be aware!? This is my first time at WP:ANEW. Thx again for your attentions.) IHTS (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Administrators are obviously not aware of all the disputes going on at Wikipedia. It depends on whether there's a report at a noticeboard, a report somewhere else, the page is on their watchlist, etc. I don't want to speculate too much about the future. Another battle after the lock expires may trigger multiple blocks, or it may not. The only reason I singled you out wasn't just because you were reported but because, as I said, you appeared to be reverting more than the others. At the end of the day, you should focus on your own conduct and try not to get hung up on the equities of why-am-I-blocked-but-so-and-so-is-not. It's human to do that, but if you keep your nose clean, you shouldn't have anything to worry about.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What I see is IHTS's stubborn warring against a larger consensus, so their deletionism/whitewashing amounts to IDHT, TEND, and BATTLE. Their arguments are generally not based in policy, and when they mention any PAG, they reveal they don't understand them, and multiple other editors call them on it, but then they do their IDHT thing and keep on battling. It's very tiring. Even a superficial examination of their claims usually shows them to be groundless wikilawyering or blatant IDon'tLikeIt.
 * They also throw around BLP claims as if BLP means that no negative content is allowed, and that's BS. Note that the diffs above are only a fraction of a repeated pattern, with many editors resisting IHTS's removal of sourced content they don't like. We're not writing a hagiography. Medical, legal, and government sources are overwhelmingly agreed that Burzynski's work is wrong, unscientific, unethical, and illegal on many levels, and the article must include that sourced content. IHTS doesn't like that content, but we can't accommodate them. A topic ban would be helpful. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Gudzwabofer reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "re-added disputed neutrality tag, unsure why it was removed as dispute has not yet been resolved"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653295060 by Mann jess (talk) The discussion has not been closed. I was told to slow down on it. I'm quite willing to nominate the whole page for review if need be."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653299131 by Zarcusian (talk) consensus clearly shows no such thing. issues about the use of some references have not been resolved and discussion is ongoing"
 * 4)  "please justify the removal of this tag in talk"
 * 1)  "please justify the removal of this tag in talk"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* NPOV review needed? */"


 * Comments:


 * The disputed neutrality tag was originally removed without any discussion of its removal on the talk page, contrary to wikipedia policy. All I did was reinstate it. Gudzwabofer (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Foolish. 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:210.246.16.209 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 1m)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653128077 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Asia */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653127943 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 653123279 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 653128608 by 210.246.16.209 (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* International broadcasters of Pasión de Gavilanes in the world all */"
 * 7)  "/* International broadcasters of Pasión de Gavilanes worldwide */"
 * 8)  "/* Remake */"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653128608 by 210.246.16.209 (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* International broadcasters of Pasión de Gavilanes in the world all */"
 * 3)  "/* International broadcasters of Pasión de Gavilanes worldwide */"
 * 4)  "/* Remake */"
 * 1)  "/* Remake */"
 * 1)  "/* Remake */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Pasión de Gavilanes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Pasión de Gavilanes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

It is clear that the ip not nothing interested and just want to revert for fun. Let you two warning but neither seemed to care. I hope some administrator can do something about it.  Philip J Fry   Talk    08:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional: Also are having the same problems with the user WayKurat; As you can see here, here and here, And in many other articles as it can be seen in his contributions.--  Philip J Fry   Talk    08:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Philip J Fry has exceeded 3RR at Pasión de Gavilanes and did not give a 3RR warning on the I.Ps talk page. The I.Ps talk page is a mess of contradictory warnings and would benefit from a tidy up.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  11:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @: just to clear this issue, I have been reverting the edits of this user for so long since he keeps on adding hoax information on Philippine television related articles. He is an IP-hopping vandal that reverts back the edits of his previous IP address whenever it was reverted. Please see this conversation about this vandal. This user has been a headache for me and . -WayKurat (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this user is a vandal, it was also annoying in articles: Corazón indomable and ¿Dónde está Elisa?, adding false and speculative information. I can't believe to give more support to this user that takes quite some time doing vandalism.--  Philip J Fry   Talk    13:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Just to make sure, --this is Sockpuppet investigations/Mamaluigi2, right? Drmies (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WayKurat, what about 210.4.253.215? I'm tired of this loser and have started semi-protecting affected articles for a year. Next time, it's indefinite, that saves me two clicks. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   X  17:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Cassianto reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Page protected)
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:

User tag teams to perpetuate an edit war over the inclusion of a hidden note that warns editors about the infobox dispute. What should've been an edit-warring block has unacceptably resulted in the article being locked down for seven days. Alakzi (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . I've also counselled Cassianto and another editor regarding personal attacks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The protection, which was put in place in violation of WP:INVOLVED, is not warranted. Why should everybody have to suffer for one person's insolence? Cassianto wouldn't have breached the letter of the law; if it weren't for User:Dreadstar taking the bait, we'd have had none of this drama. The proper thing to do is to unprotect the article, and block Cassianto for disruption if he happens to revert again. Why have we let him turn WP:BRD on its head? Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It wasn't me who was going against 3rr Alakzi, but never let the the truth get in the way of a good story.  Cassianto <sup style="font-family:Papyrus;">Talk   18:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Correctingsection0062 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  on The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone)
 * 2)  on  Songs of Innocence (U2 album)

Block notice for 3RR:. The editor made six edits in all.

Editor's block expired and the only two edits were to return to genre warring, expanding now to the album. This was exactly the behaviour the editor was blocked for. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I reported to WP:AIV as the edits were within 48 hours of the block's end, but was told to take it here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

– 4 days. Continued the previous war even while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I Don't think anyone has seriously tried to discuss genres with the user. If you look at Talk:Songs of Innocence (U2 album), someone started off with a load of insults.  Correctingsection0062 replied and then received no reply in return.  Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Better discussion at Talk:The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone). His block notice also makes the onus for discussion is on this editor: "During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection." Editor has clearly elected to edit war instead. While I agree that the sources are tenuous, they're better than removing all references and not adding any along with what appears to be an opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to discuss the genres with you, but you have an instinct of reverting instead of discussing. Not to mention that instead of discussing the topic you mostly focus on the reverting rules instead of the actual topic. Another thing that was quite perplexing was that you stated that you disagree with the source and stated that the source was weak, but you made no attempts to find a more reliable source. "While I agree that the sources are tenuous, they're better than removing all references and not adding any along with what appears to be an opinion." You know what's so contradicting about that is that you say that but the quote that you are supporting/not supporting ("While I agree that the sources are tenuous") are clearly reviewerers opinion. Hopefully, we can reach a consensus soon and we can have a real discusssion instead of you ignoring and reverting. Take care and have a nice day, your suggestions are welcomed. Correctingsection0062 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Outdrejas reported by User:Weegeerunner (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653359277 by Weegeerunner (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653358970 by K6ka (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653358834 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 653358496 by Weegeerunner (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653340120 by TEB728 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on OUTDrejas. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on OUTDrejas. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Pretty sure this will get a faster response at the WP:AIV, but clear vandalism and edit-warring. Would support indef block as promotion-only account. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User has been blocked by MusikAnimal. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  20:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * as username violation. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:BeyonderGod reported by User:David A (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is part of a pattern that has continued for several months, and quite frankly, I am tired of having to deal with it at this point. David A (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Bishonen &#124; talk 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

User:David A reported by User:BeyonderGod (Result:malformed and misplaced)
Page:

User being reported:

Hello I would like to report David A for giving inaccurate information to wikipedia pages as he uses terms and theories that's aren't based on these fictional communities he have been doing this for a estimate 9 months now? He hardly gives any argument to why he does it and its annoying to see him vandalize and give people false information about the given series he complains and whines about everything on other social sites and he needs to learn he isnt accurate he already been told to leave a page alone where he failed to proof me wrong on any of the topics and at a few moments went off topic to talk about another problem from a long time ago other times people agreed David A at times is very ignorant and VERY biased as I debunked and showed his flaws he ignores them everytime! I proved Kami Tenchi aka Kami which Kami tenchi is a proven FAN term and not his actual name Proof Of Claims I stated Beyonder (talk) 20:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGod
 * Declined. BeyonderGod, this is not a report for this noticeboard. If you think your argument justifies your own edit warring, which you have now been blocked for per the section above, then you can explain it in your unblock appeal on your page. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC).

User:Cantucove reported by User:Ladysif (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=652314119&oldid=652312079

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=652314119&oldid=652312079 Removed all other notable alumnae listings save for two.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=652262078&oldid=652259604
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=652311481&oldid=652310819
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=652274626&oldid=652273956
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=652294463&oldid=652290879
 * 5) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_Briar_College&diff=prev&oldid=652294463

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cantucove#Misapplication_of_WP:WTAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sweet_Briar_College#.22unofficial.27_fundraising.3B_news_about_ongoing_efforts

Comments:

Continuously removing information from the Sweet Briar College page, claiming that alumnae are not notable. Has been recommending that wiki articles on women be deleted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marshalyn_Yeargin-Allsopp While this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Sowell is a new article, and can stand to be revised, I fail to see how a woman in the US government is not a notable alumna of a college.

Lady Sif — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladysif (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 March 2015‎ (UTC)
 * as a confirmed sock of . S warm   X  17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * My attention was brought to this report by a message on my talk page. Yes, checkuser showed this account to be only one in a large group of new sockpuppets belonging to a very disruptive sockmaster. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks and . Bleh, Mangoeater again. You almost wish he'd get a job. Drmies (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:ECW28 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Destiny (video game). (TW)"
 * 2)   "re"


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


 * Comments:

User is hell-bent on adding open world to Wikipedia articles. Fails to communicate with other users, does not follow consensus. I've selected Destiny, but they have also been told by others for other articles to stop adding it. Soetermans. T / C 22:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ECW28's post history for the last few weeks has been really strange overall; he started off by adding "open world game" categories to various video games where it was fairly clear they weren't, then after being told that he needed to find reliable sources to back up those assertions, he went and made posts on several dozen video game talk pages asking for comment on if the game was an open-world game. Upon being told again that he needed to find reliable sources (and that most of his games were definitely not open-world games) he went and deleted most of the questioning talk page sections, then wiped his talk page. Today, he started edit warring over including the category on Destiny, and told Soetermans when he reverted him, "How bout you SHUT THE HELL UP?! [...] Stop coming up with bullshit. Revert my edit again and I'll report you for starting an edit war." Honestly, I'm considering just blocking him for competence concerns, but at this point I'm probably too involved, since I left some comments on his talk page (and he on mine). -- Pres N  22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I think might be a sock puppet of ECW28, editing open world-related articles and using the same style. --Soetermans. T / C 23:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not much to add personally, PresN summarized things to the point. I must admit that I was a little disturbed when he removed talk page sections that other editors had already replied to, and reverted some of that myself. -- ferret (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Winkelvi (Result:Blocked)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

Seth MacFarlane Jennette McCurdy
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "vocal jazz is not a genre, it is not even a genre article, it appears to be a style, not genre."
 * 2)  "It says notable works, not known for, regardless, none of those articles are even GAs."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653401643 by McQueen.30 (talk) like which?"
 * 4)  "not used in every other actor article I have seen."
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


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

At Seth MacFarlane, the content dispute had been discussed a month ago. Editor being reported changed it to his preferred version regardless (see here ). At Jennette McCurdy, the content dispute had been discussed a month ago. Editor being reported changed it to his preferred version regardless of consensus (see here ).
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Editor was brought to 3RR yesterday (see here: ), back again now. Just came off a week-long block for very extreme, intentional edit warring (see here ). Still not getting what edit warring is and isn't, it would seem. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 04:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Editor is now edit warring at Jennette McCurdy and going against consensus reached sound advice given by a seasoned editor at the talk page in February. Details listed above. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 04:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently you didn't get what edit warring was from that recent report either. And the reporter may not have violated 3RR, but he was edit warring as well, reverted twice in about the same time period. And I did attempt a discussion a long time ago. And you could have at least done this, which it says at the top of this page: "If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing a warning on their talk page". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Prasad (talk • contribs) 04:50, 25 March 2015
 * But there's a diff of where they warned you. <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #04f">ki</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I didn't make a revert after that, and it says "before the three-revert rule". I reverted three times, then he gave me a warning, then I didn't do anything and he reported me. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 04:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The warning was at 4:04 and your latest revert on Jennette McCurdy was at 4:42. You've only made three reverts on that article, though, so... I don't know.  <b style="color: #062">e</b><b style="color: #04f">ki</b><b style="color: #108">ps</b><b style="color: #60c">39</b> (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but whether you are warned in advance of the 4th revert isn't really the point, you've just come off a block for exceeding 3RR and know the rules. If I was you I'd get ahead of a likely ban and make an abject apology - and perhaps a self-ban to get fresh perspective. I'm happy to work with you if you're interested in altering your approach to editing.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  05:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also add that he stop trying to wiki-lawyering every time he gets into trouble with this behavior. He refuses to take responsibility and the disruption continues over and over again. -- <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;">✉ ✓  05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure what that is, how am I doing that? And there was no consensus on McCurdy. Apparently you don't know what that means. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph, I suggest you read WP:3RR and WP:EW. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive of each other. 3RR isn't a license to revert up to 3 times then you stop. The first time you reverted McQueen.30 on Seth McFarlane you should have opened a discussion on the talk page and asked McQueen.30 to join in a discussion. Communicating via edit summaries is not discussion. Communicating via edit summaries while reverting is edit warring. You're headed for a 2 week block for this one. You might consider voluntarily taking on a 1 revert restriction because if you continue down this vein, you will be indefinitely blocked. Blackmane (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor is just off one week block for edit warring and starts all over again.Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trivialist reported by User:75.162.230.2 (Result: Blocked IP; semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

It's not necessarily breakage of 3RR, but still an edit war:

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: [diff]

Not yet, but the edit summaries should've done the trick, I'd think.... Right? And I see that someone has tried talking to him on his own talk page about it, which should've done something, but has gotten no response.

Comments:

Trivialist seems to think that even though some articles, like Sony Pictures Entertainment and One Magnificent Morning "need" abbreviations throughout the articles--even though OMM isn't even an official one and has only one reference after the lead--ones like this one, B&E, "shouldn't" have them even though "B&E" may also be an unofficial abbreviation just like OMM is and there are multiple references in this article that abbreviations could be appropriate for. Somehow to him/her abbreviations here are "gratuitous" even though they aren't considered to be that way in so many other similar articles.

On the other hand, when someone tried to remove the other abbreviations because at first he/she didn't see the need for them (I've read the edit summaries, of course), and then the trivialist came by and explained why they were important there but were not important on articles where the name was not mentioned again later in the article, that other editor saw the vision and agreed. So why, now, should there be inconsistency between some articles where the name is both repeated several times more than in OMM, and are no more official than OMM?

75.162.230.2 (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a month (sock puppetry) and article semi-protected for a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trivialist reported by User:75.162.230.2 (Result: IP blocked; semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

It's not necessarily breakage of 3RR, but still an edit war:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Not yet, but the edit summaries should've done the trick, I'd think.... Right? And I see that someone has tried talking to him on his own talk page about it, which should've done something, but has gotten no response.

Comments:

Trivialist seems to think that even though some articles, like Sony Pictures Entertainment and One Magnificent Morning "need" abbreviations throughout the articles--even though OMM isn't even an official one and has only one reference after the lead--ones like this one, CBSSI, "shouldn't" have them even though "CBSSI" is also an unofficial abbreviation just like OMM is and there are multiple references in this article that abbreviations could be appropriate for, and for which abbreviations already existed before he came by to undo them. Somehow to him/her abbreviations here are "gratuitous" even though they aren't considered to be that way in so many other articles.

On the other hand, when someone tried to remove the other abbreviations because at first he/she didn't see the need for them (I've read the edit summaries, of course), and then the trivialist came by and explained why they were important there but were not important on articles where the name was not mentioned again later in the article, that other editor saw the vision and agreed. So why, now, should there be inconsistency between some articles where the name is both repeated several times more than in OMM, and are no more official than OMM?

75.162.230.2 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IP blocked for a month (sock puppetry) and article semi-protected for a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Trivialist reported by User:75.162.230.2 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

It's not breakage of 3RR, but still an edit war:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Not yet, but the edit summaries should've done the trick, I'd think.... Right? And I see that someone has tried talking to him on his own talk page about it, which should've done something, but has gotten no response.

Comments:

Trivialist seems to think that even though some articles, like Sony Pictures Entertainment and One Magnificent Morning "need" abbreviations throughout the articles--even though OMM isn't even an official one and has only one reference after the lead--ones like this one, UA, "shouldn't" have them even though "UA" IS an official abbreviation and there are multiple references in this article that abbreviations could be appropriate for, and for which abbreviations already existed before he came by to undo them. Somehow abbreviations here are "gratuitous" even though they aren't considered to be that way in so many other articles.

On the other hand, when someone tried to remove the other abbreviations because at first he/she didn't see the need for them (I've read the edit summaries, of course), and then the trivialist came by and explained why they were important there but were not important on articles where the name was not mentioned again later in the article, that other editor saw the vision and agreed. So why, now, should there be inconsistency between some articles where the name is both repeated several times and would be using the official abbreviation, and others where the abbreviations are left intact but they're not even the official ones or not even mentioned many times (as is the case with One Magnificent Morning and possibly some others?

75.162.230.2 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IP Sockpuppet of User:IDriveAStickShift blocked. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

92.108.55.19 reported by User:NekoKatsun (Result: 24h)
Page:

Users being reported: 92.108.55.19

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&diff=prev&oldid=611389802]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&oldid=653165256]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&oldid=652840942]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&oldid=652705222]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&oldid=652039346]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned on their talkpage by another user here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:92.108.55.19&oldid=652722645]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Article has no talkpage.

Comments:

I hope this is the right place to report this - Conor Woodman has had the world's slowest edit war going on since June 2014. Yes, seriously, nearly a year. It seems to be mostly 92.108.55.19 adding content duplicated from another article, which is then reverted by various other users. It's not quite fast enough to qualify for 3RR, but it's been happening nearly every day for the past month or so.

I'm completely uninvolved with the article; I was poking about the recent changes and happened to notice. NekoKatsun (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Info: The edit war started in June 2014! --mfb (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The 2 IPs and one account involved have been . S warm   X  21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * A new IP just joined the fray to restore the exact same cut content [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&oldid=653474620]. That IP has no other edits and nothing on their talk page; I suspect it's one of the other parties in the war. NekoKatsun (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * EDIT TO ADD: The most recent IP edit ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conor_Woodman&oldid=653479280]) is valid; I fixed some formatting and didn't realize I wasn't logged in. 74.119.157.2 was me, sorry! NekoKatsun (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * FURTHER EDIT: I've warned the one registered user, Editorgr. Diff: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorgr&oldid=653492391] NekoKatsun (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:71.128.35.13 reported by User:Tom94022 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moore%27s_law&diff=651858726&oldid=651149273

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:38, 24 March 2015‎
 * 2) 14:10, 24 March 2015‎
 * 3) 16:28, 23 March 2015‎
 * 4) 11:45, 20 March 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The facts are not in dispute; I have proposed we return to the original formulation while we let other editors provide their inputs but this IP continues to revert.
 * Both and  are warned that if they continue edit warring in the article, they risk being blocked without notice. Both are reverting each other, and both are discussing their perspectives on the Talk page. There is no justification for the battle.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Redfoxjump reported by User:BlackRanger88 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Diff of edit warring:
 * - edit summary does not relate to the issue that's being discussed, yet is used as justification for the edit.
 * - no edit summary. I made it clear that there had been a discussion regarding this issue that was open for more than a month. User never contributed to the discussion and proceeded to make his/her revision against the compromise that was discussed.
 * - no edit summary. user wants the final result of the conflict to be at the bottom of the infobox's result field? Possibly POV edit.
 * - no edit summary, edits are not from a neutral point of view. Do not reflect the proportionality of the contributions to the conflict.
 * - no edit summary, possibly POV edit.

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–98)
 * Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–98) - As of 05:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC), User:Redfoxjump posted a comment on this section, only after the noticeboard report had been filed and after he/she had finished recklessly reinstating all of his/her edits (performed @ 05:27, 25 March 2015‎ (UTC)). See the update in the comments section for full details.

Comments:

The user in question has shown that he/she refuses to discuss the issues that he/she has with the article, which in this case are the result field of the infobox and some wording disagreements in the opening paragraph. Although this user had previously complied with requests for discussion to resolve issues, the user would first recklessly change the wording to how he/she pleased, and then post a comment on the article's talk page without proper justification, a process that frustrated other editors involved including myself. The user would also abruptly leave the discussions and continue to make his/her edits.

The big problem is that now (as evidenced in the diffs and links above), the user now completely ignores the talk page altogether, despite my attempts to alert him/her to my attempts at discussion there. This user continues making the same exact edits, despite the fact that talk page discussions and compromises regarding these issues had taken place beforehand. I asked the user repeatedly to civilly discuss any issues he/she had with the article's wording, both in my edit summaries as well as by posting on the user's talk page. I don't know how else to stop this from continuing. BlackRanger88 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

- Update: The user in question again decided to make the same edits as previously mentioned, before discussing them properly on the talk page. It may be possible that the user doesn't understand what I'm asking, due to a language problem. However, I sincerely ask that something be done about this.
 * Diff BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I left the page without reverting User:Redfoxjump's edits in the interest of avoiding edit warring until this issue is resolved. It is clear that he/she will not stop reinstating his/her edits without proper discussion no matter how many times I ask in my edit summaries or on the article's talk page. So to be clear, the article in its current form includes the user's edits. BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . This seems to be mainly a content dispute between the two editors, the filer and the reported editor. The Talk page has been used, more by the filer than by the reported editor, but other than one other user (an IP), no one else seems to be taking a position on the dispute. Neither user has violated WP:3RR or even come close., you cannot force another editor to talk. However, there are other dispute resolution mechanisms you can use that would hopefully pull the other editors into the discussion. I see little justification, though, for a block at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Bbb23: I respect your decision. It's just that this seems to be a direct violation of WP:BRD. In no way does the editor seek to find a compromise. It seems rather ridiculous that I have to be so accommodating for the other editor, when he/she ignores all my attempts to discuss the issue with him/her. I'm not trying to force him/her to talk, but it's kinda absurd that the other user's actions consistently follows this same exact cycle: "Ignore discussion. Force edits. Repeat." and that he/she is allowed to get away with it, without any consequences. BlackRanger88 (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

User:192.34.131.84 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National_Alliance_(United_States)

Comments:

Reverts are manual. IP is citing white supremacist websites to argue that the group is now under the management of a William Williams, who (ugh!) Metapedia reports has ties to North Carolina. Also, IP has been generally hostile. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:NatalieLMorales reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: blocked and protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653549055 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653548197 by Joseph2302 (talk) It all n the article.  Many pages have career timelines on them. I am am the real Natalie also."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653547469 by Joseph2302 (talk) I am Natalie Morales from The today Show"
 * 4)  "Please do not revert this I want a career timeline on my page"


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


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


 * Comments:

This user has a clear conflict of interest, that they seem unwilling to properly discuss, see WP:COIN. They are adding a career summary because they want to, despite it being a direct copy of the infobox. This has been explained to them in edit summaries, and at WP:COIN, but is being ignored. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and by someone else -- slakr  \ talk / 09:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Russavia reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 1st insertion of text by (and singed by) banned User:Russavia

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] He's using multiple IPs and clearly knows that he is banned so I haven't warned directly

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

Comments:

See WP:BANREVERT - Any user can revert a banned user without regard to 3RR. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you brought this report here. If I understand properly, Russavia, a blocked and banned user, has been using various IPs on Jimbo's talk page and you and others were reverting them. This is not an issue for this board. It's a clear socking issue and would be reported at Sockpuppet investigations/Russavia. In any event, in terms of the disruption at the Talk page, semi-protected the page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234 reported by User:24.212.232.229 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I spent extensive time adding information, backed up by sources, to this page. This user reverted everything, continuously, and posted a message to my talk page threatening to block me for my edits when I called him on reverting in bad faith and edit warring. (User_talk:24.212.232.229).


 * - User:Sportsfan_1234 appeared to be trying to remove a large and dubious edit to 2015 Pan American Games, added repeatedly by User talk:24.212.232.229. I commented on User talk:24.212.232.229s talk page about this.  Thank you.  Magnolia677 (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If I may add, I peeked at one of User talk:24.212.232.229s past edits to a Toronto-based article, such as this one, and it was pure vandalism. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I left my comments on the user's talk page. Most of these edits are not neutral. Some of the information you added is incorrect (such as the budget growing from $1.44 billion, that's completely wrong). Other information such as linking unrelated transit projects to the games makes no sense for the article. According to the bidbook only the rail link was supposed to be built because of the games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. It appears that both parties have broken WP:3RR. Neither editor has used article talk to discuss the material they are reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the user's talk page... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Piriczki reported by User:Manning Bartlett (Result: No violation)

 * Page:

The user is insisting on keeping a claim that the Eagles have the #1 album of all time, as there is a single 15 year old reference that supports this claim. I have pointed out that there are numerous other references available on Wikipedia which flat out contradict this claim, but the user is insisting on keeping it. (see discussion here) We have hit 3RR now. Manning (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * PS mobile browser issues - I have not posted a notification on the user's page, I can't seem to copy the subst tag. If someone else can do it I would be most grateful. Manning (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * please note that you have not filed a proper edit warring report so this may be rejected. Use the "Click here to create a new report" link near the top of the page to go to find a form that will allow you to create a report. On the other hand this looks to be a content dispute. A conversation has begun on the talk page. You will need to continue there. Next you can request a third opinion or a WP:RFC. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, mobile browser problems, can't get the subst tags to work properly. That is no grounds for rejecting an issue, as I have certainly provided all the links you need. And of course this is a content-dispute - what edit-war isn't? We have a 3RR situation, and as has been the way for the past 13 years, I am bringing for attention. I am also an administrator, but as is appropriate, I am not using my tools for a dispute I am personally engaged in. Manning (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that you will find that you haven't. In fact has only made one edit inserting the info and one reversion in the last 24 hours. So you may not wish to pursue the options I provided at the moment, but, you will have to eventually. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm...it's possible that this is a misunderstanding. I'm going to hold off on any action for the moment and jump in on the talk page. S warm  X  03:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * - Was a good faith misunderstanding that has been cleared up, no need for action. S warm   X  18:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:213.235.6.109 reported by User:Iselilja (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Loreen isin't white and theres nothing racist about stating facts"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653440172 by Jjj1238 (talk) I agree, therefore we should inform the readers that loreen has indeed immigrant parents and is not a native white swede"
 * 3)  "Swedish people are white, Loreen isin't white, so as not to confuse the readers Loreen isin't really Swedish"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 653594207 by AxG (talk) See the link to swedish people, all of them are white and always were. Loreen isin't white and therefore no need to link her with native swedes"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 653596251 by Iselilja (talk) Call the racist police then"


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


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


 * Comments:

User's edits may also be seen as basically vandalism. Iselilja (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   X  18:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:104.173.225.10 reported by User:Skyerise (Result: semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (I am not involved, but IP shows it knows about 3RR in this discussion.)

Comments:


 * The above edits involve different material, specifically these are not the same:


 * 1)
 * 2)


 * and the Casey Research edits were taken to the talk page as required by Wikipedia policy. Thank you!104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually read WP:3RR: the reverts do not have to be of the same material. It's a simple count of reverts on an article in a 24 hour period. You've hit 4. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There are exceptions i.e. "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language". See my comment about removing potential vandalism in the edit summary on the page.104.173.225.10 (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * well-intentioned user No uninvolved user is going to think you were reverting vandalism, no matter how you try to create a loophole. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor removed many sources from the page. It appeared to be "potential vandalism".  I will not try to judge the editor's intentions. I think he/she should not have removed the sources because they provide good information about the subject, and they're not promotional.  In fact he/she removed Strauss and Howe from the Generations page too when that is ridiculous and makes it seem like they're eradicating them from the site.104.173.225.10 (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can judge the editor's intentions by their edit summaries and talk page post. You've been here long enough with your past IPs and done enough wikilawyering to know this. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I try to stay away from judging people's intentions on the site. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that certainly prevents one from judging whether an edit really fits our definition of vandalism or not. Perhaps you should reconsider this, especically when the editor involved tells you exactly what their intent is and what WP policies they are enforcing. Skyerise (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's why I used the non-judgmental "potential vandalism".104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"Potential vandalism" isn't "obvious vandalism", which is what is required for a "free" revert. Skyerise (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We'll I'm fairly new to the site compared with the editor who says they've been editing for "10 years, 7 months, and 6 days". I don't think his/her removal of the content does much for the site but it's a question for greater powers to answer. 104.173.225.10 (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, create an account and be accountable. An account is actually more anonymous than an IP in that it does not reveal your location. Plus you get a watch list and lots of other nifty stuff. Skyerise (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * for a week, so that the IP has plenty of time to discuss their objections on the talk page. S warm   X  18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

User:RABBIT XVII reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removing  templates on Kalvin Wilson. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removing  templates. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The user has created Kalvin Wilson, and is deliberately obstructing a WP:BLPPROD deletion, by removing templates. 7 reversions in 2 hours is clear edit-warring, especially as most of their edits have been removing WP:BLPPROD tags without actually solving the problem. I tried referring this to WP:AIV, but they told me to refer the case here instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Adjusted to remove giant templates. Article deleted as a negative unsourced BLP. I'm going to block for 48 hours for edit-warring, promotion and BLP violations. We'll see if they take it to heart when the block expires.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.221.199 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. User is non-responsive and was blocked before for same edit in another article. See sock.

Comments:


 * Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Vivi243971 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  On March 12, this was his first disruptive edit.
 * 2)  12 days later he comes back once again with disruptive updates.
 * 3)  He was asked to stop.
 * 4)  He was warned about edit warring after this one.
 * 5)  This was after the warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Pretty simple situation. We have an editor doing disruptive updates based on his own will. He was asked to stop, warned and still kept on going with incorrect updates. There's no good faith there as the section is pretty clear and the data is "obvious". Looks like he won't stop until he gets blocked. Might keep doing it more if he gets blocked for a small period. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Not sure what this editor's deal is but if this behavior continues after this block expires I would recommend an indef as a vandalism-only account, per Occam's razor. Feel free to let me know if future action is needed or refer another admin to this report. S warm   X  20:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Drmerishs reported by User:Zad68 (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
 * 2)  "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
 * 3)  "Siddha Treatment for Cerebral Palsy"
 * 4)  "Respecties, This is not a vandalism. Its a true document of Siddha Medicine. This the Evidence of Traditional Indian Medicine. We are following the Procedures here. We cure lot of childrens. If you need to see, you can come"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Respecties, This is not a vandalism. Its a true document of Siddha Medicine. This the Evidence of Traditional Indian Medicine. We are following the Procedures here. We cure lot of childrens. If you need to see, you can come"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653771699 by Zad68 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "welcome"
 * 2)   "/* rsplease */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Cerebral palsy. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* Edits at Cerebral palsy */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Editor keeps re-adding unsourced or poorly-sourced material. Latest edits re-added same material and threw in link to source that does not support content. Warnings and direction to Wikipedia sourcing standards unheeded. 18:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest this editor be indef blocked as a spam-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That would certainly require their attention before they could continue, I'm OK with that approach.  18:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Concur with Ed completely for obvious reasons. No contributions to the project whatsoever except for the promotion of a pseudoscientific belief system in an important medical article. S warm   X  20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:124.82.32.57 reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no false advertisting, stop trying to slander and smear campaign"
 * 2)  "No such thing, stop your lies and slander & smear campaign"
 * 1)  "No such thing, stop your lies and slander & smear campaign"
 * 1)  "No such thing, stop your lies and slander & smear campaign"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Reverted edits by 124.82.32.57 (talk) to last version by Weegeerunner"


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


 * Comments:

multiple edits to remove valid 'false advertizing' category, attempts to talk with this user have not been successful. Seems to be a nvidia fanboy or associated with them. Denniss (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Add-on - user keeps blanking his talk page (removed warnings from me and two other users), obviously not interested in any discussion, did also not start discussing cat removal on article talk page. Don't know if that's just trolling/vandalism or paid editing. In his reverts he called me a liar and starting a smear campaign, the false advertizing cat is valid for the Geforce 970 issue with falsely advertized specifications. --Denniss (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an unsourced claim which Nvidia denies. Perhaps the controversy, accusations, and ongoing can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but unilaterally labeling it as a matter of categorization seems to pretty obviously go against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. And while the IP received templated policy notification, I don't even see any real attempt at discussion from either side. Don't see a one-way block as a solution here. S warm   X  18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please read GeForce_900_series - it's really hard to believe the specifications on their website (also communicated to and via their board partners) were 'accidentally' wrong. No serious hardware-related source believes this claim. If users hadn't questioned and investigated the strange performance issues shown by 970s, nvidia would still show the original (known wrong) specification. --Denniss (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Removing the false advertising category when it is well sourced is just plain vandalism. This report would have been better taken to WP:AIV after the required vandalism warnings. I just won't use my administrator tools to block this vandal because I have been in a conflict with the same user, who edits from some Malaysian IPs. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is vandalism. The controversy section in the article is well-written and sourced, and it could probably even be expanded. However the article itself makes no claim of false advertising. I understand the accusations completely and they're probably right, but in the spirit of NPOV and RS, the article shouldn't take a stance unless the claim is supported by reliable sources. Regardless, until April 2 by MelanieN, which I agree with.  S warm   X  20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:D-Pro22 reported by User:Kareldorado (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #1:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on his/her talk page #2:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page:

Comments:


 * This user refuses to participate in a proper discussion and carries no arguments why his/her source would be reliable.
 * The article's talk page is neglected even though I emphasized time after time that this user should use it.

Kareldorado (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have commented on the articles talk page regarding policy-based guidance on the matter. S warm   X  21:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kharkiv07 reported by User:98.193.95.34 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653818837
 * 2) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817997
 * 3) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=653817932
 * 4) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordis_Unga&diff=653819495&oldid=651843368

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

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

98.193.95.34 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * IP for 48 hours for WP:BLP violations. Last edit by IP reverted by me.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:174.113.44.178 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Since the original report, the IP Editor has twice made changes to the same text in the article:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is a quite simple case, and edit summaries have communicated the need for sources adequately, equating to short discussion

Comments:

First Diff, IP editor reverts long standing figure of 163 appearances to 195 without source or edit summary. I request a source in my edit summary, and restore the original value.

Second Diff, IP Editor reverts, and replaces the figure of 163 to 147, again unsourced. Again, I restore the original data, and request a source in my edit summary.

Third Diff, IP Editor uses original research and claims to have watched all episodes on YouTube, and reverts to the 147 value. (Note that it is impossible to actually watch six season of a half hour program, ~90 hours, in less than a day) This time, I actually research and find the appropriate number of episodes (184) via IMDB and reference that in my edit summary with the appropriate change. Yes, I do know that IMDB is not an RS for biographical data, but it is accepted for credits.

Fourth Diff, IP Editor reverts to their Original Research figure of 147. Subsequently, I stopped editing and came here.

Since the initial report, the Fifth and Sixth Diffs presented have been made, again changing the values of that data.

As this is my first time posting to this board, I trust that I will be informed if I have malformed this request, or have somehow misunderstood the rules. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . Pretty straightforward case. FYI your report was filed perfectly and your clear explanation of the situation is very much appreciated. Feel free to return if the problem persists. Regards, S warm   X  20:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Am I permitted at this point to restore the sourced content, or would that be a continuation of the edit war? ScrapIronIV (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, restore the correct info! S warm   X  23:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (among several other warnings and notices from different editors)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor has been edit-warring with multiple editors across multiple articles with little productive discussion in Talk pages. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   X  00:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Castncoot reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Both warned)
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:

User has a history of tendentious editing in this article. There was lengthy discussion of this material involving multiple editors, and consensus was reached on the material to be added and the wording to be used. The material is well-referenced in the appropriate section of the article. There is no consensus that this material needs to have the references repeated in the lede, in fact the references were at one point in the lede, and were removed by editor Hike395[] as being unnecessary. To the extent that we have consensus, it is that the references do not belong on the lede. There is certainly not the "case-by-case basis by editorial consensus" required for inclusion of the references required by WP:LEADCITEMark Marathon (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually not so. No consensus was reached, as I've noted on the talk page, just that this editor declared one had been reached. In fact, other editors actually had significant problems with his wording. Not only that, but I started the sequence by undoing Mark Marathon's edit today, not the other way around. Most importantly, Mark Marathon is the one who partially reverted himself recently and added a citation-needed tag, and now he wants to take back his edit on his preferred terms. The whole issue here is silly, because all I am asking for is a citation in the lede of an extremely contentious statement. Ultimately, WP:LEADCITE defers to WP:CITE and WP:RS, otherwise one could write anything in the lead section under this pretext; and in any case, WP:LEADCITE also demands WP:Verifiability. Why fight? Just cite! Castncoot (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is that you are edit warring. You have no consensus for your changes and refuse to gain consensus on the talk page. That is in blatant violation of WP:BRD, WP:STAUSQUO and WP:LEADCITE. Consensus is not gained by repeatedly reverting. That is an edit war.Mark Marathon (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, 1) the initial changes today were yours, not mine, and 2) no consensus was reached by you either for these changes or the recent previous ones you had claimed consensus for. So aren't you technically the edit warrior here? Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. The next revert by either party may lead to a block. Neither of you have posted on the talk page so far in 2015. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightning Sabre reported by User:Veggies (Result:blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned in the past about his behavior under the pain of an indef block. Veggies ( talk ) 07:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No indication that the warnings against disruptive behavior have been taken seriously (i.e. leaving a block notice on OccultZone's talk page). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors should also note that this disruptive user has also edited under IP: User:92.97.208.37, as well as another sockpuppet account - now blocked. They have also left block warning notices, when not authorised to do so. They have had multiple warnings and have taken no notice. I totally support an indef block. David J Johnson (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

After all the discussion and warnings, this user is still asking for the block to be reviewed again - with further promises that disruption will not happen again. Frankly this is nonsense, as they have taken absolutely no notice of requests and warnings previously. I would remind admins and editors of the following:


 * Deleting numerous warnings from many editors to stop vandalizing articles through March 2015.


 * Ignoring warnings regarding taking credit for, and downloading, copyright images on March 24 and March 28.


 * Removing legitimate Talk page comments on March 24 and March 28.


 * Creating sockpuppet accounts: User:Kind Dude and IP:92.97.208.37


 * Creating unauthorised "Block Warning" notices on March 28.


 * Account blocked on March 25 and again on March 28.

With this extremely poor history, I urge the community not to lift the latest block. Wikipedia can well do without this constant vandalism. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:77.238.217.48 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Newton's law of gravitation */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring - March 2015 */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

User appears to be single purpose account spamming/soapboxing the same edit across multiple articles - Standard gravitational parameter, Orbital period, Newton's law of universal gravitation, Portal:Physics/Intro, Force, Mechanics. Also appears to be involved in an edit war at Bosnia and Herzegovina. Appears to be related to User:77.238.231.199 reported recently. FyzixFighter (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That IP is banned User:Sevvyan reinserted the same edits he got banned for. Most probably Omerbasic promoting himself in physics and with his trone pretension of Bosnia. FkpCascais (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * IP blocked, semi-protections underway.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Littleboyck reported by User:Vuttamarr (Result: reporter blocked)
User:Littleboyc is constantly warring on a number of articles and has now violated our wonderful 3RR policy right here on New York. See
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th

Then after final warning,

he did fifth.

He is not willing to discuss his changes all of which go against consensus. --Vuttamarr (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All of those links are to an edit made in 2013 in which Littleboyck did no reversions. Proper evidence and differences of edit warring will be needed. Also, have you warned the user that you've reported them on here? Joseph2302 (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to be simple trolling; the reporter has been blocked for other activities. Kuru   (talk)  17:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 653925283 by BethNaught (talk) stop it"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 653899799 by Dsimic (talk) if such consensus will affect the truth of information, then being against it is obligatory"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 653899270 by Dsimic (talk) Why you not stop first?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 653757638 by Ahunt (talk) consensus shouldn't affect the truth of information"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 653756540 by Ahunt (talk)"
 * 6)  "Linux is considered a kernel until someone else prove the opposite of that. if you have any thing against that just discuss it and prove it."
 * 7)  "Linux is just a piece of code, so prove me how it's an os."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 653740382 by Haminoon (talk) explain why you did that revert"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor is trying to put article into their preferred version despite standing talk page agreement and being reverted by several other editors. BethNaught (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   X  20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

User:JasonNolan64 reported by User:88RRRR88 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Ninja_Warrior&diff=653831083&oldid=653817332
 * 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:


 * Try discussing the issue with this user. S warm   X  20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Filer was indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet per a case a WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:162.212.107.47 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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: section

Comments:

Editor is edit warring and not talking. Likely a sock. See also Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Sockpuppet_investigations/Richie1Thoa Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I also requested page protection. I did this as the IP has exceeded 3RR now. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * note, an admin from pp came through, and has protected the page. thanks !


 * , as I saw the RFPP request first. By all means return to either board if future action is needed. Regards, S warm   X  02:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)