Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278

User:OAS Supporter reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Overview */Ron Smith is posted this Wikipedia article because of a vendetta he has against the owner of the sanctuary."
 * 2)  "/* Overview */Added Content."
 * 3)  "/* Allegations of animal abuse */Added valid content."
 * 4)  "corrected and added content"
 * 5)  "added content"
 * 1)  "added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* The notes above */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

As shown by their name, editor is here to promote a cause. Various BLP and copyright violations scattered throughout edits. Neil N  talk to me 22:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user seems to be here on a mission and is adding information about a Facebook controversy that lacks reliable sources (what he refers to as an "online hate campaign"). The subject of this article is distasteful but well-sourced; we should stay alert to keep it neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:76.111.172.54 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Semi, block)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) Revision as of 07:51, 9 April 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 08:08, 9 April 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 09:02, 9 April 2015
 * 4) Revision as of 22:36, 9 April 2015
 * 5) Revision as of 03:21, 10 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

IP editor refuses to collaborate and instead keeps adding his preferred version of the content. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The user continues edit warring and engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. See also -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I am simply editing bias information from the article. Cwobeel  is clearly misrepresenting cited sources. I am just rewording the line referring to the cited source in a factual light. The cited article clearly states that there was a struggle between Slager and Scott, but that information in conveniently left out. And re-edits continue to remove this information, yet the information is clearly stated within the cited source. I only edited the article to reflect all the information from the cited source for this particular line of text. Cwobeel  continues to change the line without discussing it within the talk page.  Cwobeel  decisions are guided by emotions.76.111.172.54 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The information about a struggle was already in the article, as discussed in talk . But this is not a discussion about content. It is a discussion about your editing behavior. Your edit was reverted by several editors including and, but you have decided to continue adding your preferred version in violation of WP:3RR. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note, that I have not made an edit on that line as you say. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am making the claim that you are using multiple devices and accounts to edit the page.76.111.172.54 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Cwobeel continues to make false allegation of edit warring in attempt to silence me. And now he claims WP:BATTLEGROUND when I am simply trying to help maintain creditability for the article. I have not added anything to those specific lines of text that was not within the cited article. Yet  Cwobeel  continues to edit the wikipedia article without discussing the fact that the information I added to that particular line of the wikipedia article is in the cited article.  Cwobeel  is guided by emotions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.172.54 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The page has been semi-protected. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected for a week by User:CambridgeBayWeather. The IP was edit warring and also called Cwobeel a tyrant and a bigot so I'm blocking for 48 hours anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23 March 2015 diff
 * 2) 2 April 2015 diff
 * 3) 2 April 2015  diff
 * 4) 2 April 2015 diff
 * 5) 3 April 2015 diff
 * by this time discussion on talk was very clear that 4 editors opposed these edits and only HughD wanted them, so WP:POINTy tagging
 * 1) 3 April 2015 diff
 * 2) 8 April 2015 diff
 * 3) 8 April 2015 diff
 * that didn't work so HughD wrote an edit note "remove tag; integrate controversies with history WP:CRITS" and did major rearrangement
 * 1) 9 April 2015 diff series
 * 2) 9 April 2015 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3 April link

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

Comments:

Edit war has been going since 23 March, when HughD came to GSK article grinding an ax about Heartland Institute and State Policy Network. HughD appears to be fairly obsessed with this topic - see Special:Contributions/HughD. The above string is one continuous push. Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment of reported editor in progress. Please stand by. Hugh (talk)

I apologize. I admit to violation of the revert rule. Not in any way an excuse, but I would like to please take a moment to make a few points for consideration in evaluating this report, how an experienced editor could find himself reported here. I will not get into counts or hours.

I missed the warning on my talk page (tho not on the article talk page) since it had a typo and the template did not expand until it was corrected minutes before this report. I apologize for missing the warning. I should have been more attentive to my talk page. I will do better in the future. Again, not an excuse for my editing behavior.

Please note in the "attempts to resolve" my ongoing continued engagement and commitment to dialog grounded in policy and guideline, and also please note some decidedly non-collaborative dialog including AGF shortfalls and name-calling such as "ax-grinding" and "you have thing" and "I will not be responding further."

None of my edits are "pointy;" I know better. All of the edits are sincere efforts to improved the encyclopedia by fairly and accurately summarizing reliable sources. The tagging of non-neutral sections and asking for collaboration in expansion were a sincere reaction to reversions of well-sourced contributions and rejection of highly noteworthy reliable sources and a unilateral end to dialog in talk space. Again, not an excuse, but perhaps not an unnatural reaction.

The edits are unfairly characterized as "one continuous push." The edits of 9 April listed above by my colleague involved no loss of content or references, but rather were purely structural, and address a "Criticism" section nonconformant with WP:CRITS. Please note, the last edit is not re-do of the next to last, but rather was modified in response to feedback provided by the reporting editor regarding chronological ordering of content, and is an example of collaborative editing. In fact, only one of the recent edits was a straight character-for-character undo; the more common pattern is one of incremental improvement in response to feedback in edit summaries and on the talk page. Again, not an excuse, but this is not a report of an mindless do/undo war.

I am (rightfully I think) proud of my contributions and article space %, maybe it makes me more prone. I need to make better use of DR. Thank you for your careful consideration. I look forward to working collaboratively with the reporting editor and all other editors to improve the encyclopedia. Hugh (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * HughD I agree it was not at all mindless - you are relentless about those two conservative organizations and your behavior has been classic WP:Civil POV pushing.  I know it is really hard to work on political stuff - I stay the heck away from it.  I don't want to see you blocked and am always happy to collaborate but when you don't have consensus, you don't have it. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:HughD, has it come to your attention that nobody on the talk page supports your changes? Are you planning to continue regardless? How about agreeing not to revert any more until a talk page consensus is reached in your favor? That might allow this complaint to be closed without action. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saddened that after what I thought was a sincere and thoughtful response to your report, you apparently unsatisfied with your original report, felt obligated to get in yet one more jab at my motives, in case anyone might miss your version of events. Hugh (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand consensus. I'm not interested in doing anything without consensus. Hugh (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * HughD was warned for 3RR over a month ago, although not on this particular article. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * HughD, Ed just stood by the door to give you a clean way out of this. All you had to do was answer his questions directly. ("yes i knew that no one supported me."  "no, i don't plan to continue"  "yes i will not revert anymore until i get consensus on the Talk page" with some kind of acknowledgement that you went too far in this particular thing)   and you were out of here. instead you denied there is a problem. But your behavior shows a lack of understanding of consensus and that you are interested in doing things without it.  if you had acknowledged the problem, you could have walked away clean already. Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * so instead of being reflective you went back to the Talk page and started hammering away again, and accused me of WP:OWN. Again four editors oppose the addition you want to make. At one point I had offered a compromise of a minimal addition but even that wasn't enough for you.  Please drop the stick already. Jytdog (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I did not edit article space without consensus. I'm sorry for reaching out to you to re-engage on the talk page and attempt some humble perhaps crude relationship maintenance. Sorry, I thought that's what you wanted. Perhaps it was unwise, with your report unresolved, obviously I should have anticipated you would take it in the worst possible way. I understand now, you want a block, and you want me to go away. I did not accuse you of anything, I asked you a sincere question in hopes of building rapport around mutual shared values which hopefully may serve as a foundation for collaboration going forward, something you expressed an interest in above. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not seeking a block. This is a board for edit warring, which is what you have done. The root of that behavior is blowing off consensus and trying to get exactly what you want. It is well established on the article Talk page that you have no consensus for what you want, and piling up more references and turning the argument this way and that is just beating a dead horse.  You need to accept it, that the you are not going to get what you want on the article Talk page.  You have to stop beating the horse. Your options are: a) walk away; b) step back and see if the compromise I offered will work for other editors; c) actually use DR (as you said you would above), like an RfC.  The latter is a waste of the community's time, in my view, but you will do what you want.  At this point it is clear to me that you neither understand nor respect WP:CONSENSUS nor how we reach it. Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "piling up more references" Wait, is not bringing additional reliable source references to the attention of your colleagues on the talk page a legitimate, measured, collaborative response to a content dispute over a due weight issue? And what is this compromise b) you now claim you offered? Hugh (talk) 17:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. While assuring us of his benign intentions, User:HughD won't actually promise to stop reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 17:58, 8 April 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 19:34, 8 April 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 18:22, 9 April 2015
 * 4) Revision as of 19:54, 9 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

Comments:

Just the day after his second blocked (a one week block), Hadraas goes and violation of WP:EDITWAR for the third time. He reverted middayexpress four times just a bit shy of 24 hours. He is also still unable to grasp the concept of "3RR": "but where did i breached 3RR i am sure that did it twice today and twice yestarday by reverting my self". There is a self revert but it's on content unrelated to the reverts shown above. He has also made baselessly accused Middayexpress: and i accused you of being the founder of Northern Somali Unionist Movement". AcidSnow (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . I'd block for his conduct based on their history. However, after a tortured discussion between Hadraa and  on the article Talk page, it looks like Hadraa has apologized for edit-warring and will hopefully not continue. If they do revert again, this report should be updated to reflect that. At that point, I would recommend a lengthy block (based on the block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you and can you please close this? I had thought they were talking about something else in those last few replying as he was treating edit waring as a "game". AcidSnow (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, per the suggestion of User:Bbb23. Hadraa has made no further reverts after the ones listed above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:86.24.128.230 reported by User:Jayron32 (Result: Blocked 31 Hours for 3rr)
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 user talk page:

Comments:

User has not yet hit 3RR, but clearly is edit warring, and shows no desire to stop disruption. Multiple users have attempted to intervene, and attempts to get the user to rephrase their question or alter it so it was not objectionable have been ignored, and the user refuses to discuss or accept this advice. By forcing the issue, they make it clear their intent is not to get information or help from others, rather they clearly just want to troll. Multiple people have reverted them, and requested that they alter their approach. I even offered ways the user could ask the question in ways that didn't make it look like trolling. I was ignored, showing the user is simply interested in edit warring and "winning" some sort of battle. Request a block to deal with the disruption. Thanks! -- Jayron 32 22:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: User has hit bright-line 3RR. More evidence that a block is needed.  -- Jayron 32 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IP behaves identically to a long time IP-hopping troll that gets off on asking stupid and pointless questions. Page protection already requested. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Parallel discussion at WP:ANI. Abecedare (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the IP on the 3-rr violation, if you want to pursue it further for a longer block on the other grounds, it was cross posted to WP:AN/I. Monty  845  22:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Broadmoor reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (among others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This editor was previously blocked for edit warring and has returned to doing so with an edit summary that explicitly announces ownership of the article and an unwillingness to collaborate ("I'll let the external links slide by not this one. This is biased and irresponsible editing. I will always delete it"). I'm not necessarily asking for this editor to be blocked again but if that's what it takes to get him or her to stop edit warring and actually try to work with others then so be it. ElKevbo (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there ElKevbo. Although the user has a history of editing warring, I think it is worth attempting to contact the party first. The attempts to do so you provided are from 23 days ago, and you didn't leave a message on the user's talk page yet. Suggesting he's going to be blocked doesn't count as attempting to engage in resolution. I'll leave a message on his/her talk page and let's try to resolve this without more blocking (which to be fair, in your posting, you said you're not necessarily advocating). Best wishes, -- Jay  Σεβαστός discuss  12:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I left a message seconds after opening this report so that's a completely ridiculous charge to levy. I also left yet another reply in the thread in the article's Talk page on the very subject about which he or she is edit warring, a conversation in which he or she hasn't recently participated.  And I also left a reply to his or her message on my own Talk page in response to a message he or she left yesterday.  So I'm not at all sure what additional outreach you want me to engage in...! ElKevbo (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * HI there ElKevbo. I see you posted something on the talk page after you filed the report and just as I was writing. I checked the user's talk page but didn't check yours as you didn't mention it previously. It does seem that the contributor is unwilling to discussion, but even so I think we should still try to resolve this without resorting to blocking as the user hasn't been given a chance yet to repond to the now-new messages on the article talk page. After all, at the time you were linking to a very old discussion indeed. Moreover he/she hasn't yet crossed into the realms of 3RR (perhaps partly because of your own good editing practices!). I understand your frustration, but not convinced blocking is the only recourse here. All the best, -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss  12:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The first message I saw from Elkevbo left was a threat. He told me to cut it out or he'll block me (look at the revision history for the page in dispute), does that sound like he's trying to reason to you or willing to collaborate?  Him adding that sanction is redundant and unnecessary.  As I told him weeks ago, it's already in their sports wiki page and why isn't he on a campaign to add NCAA sanctions to other universities which plenty are guilty of (check his editing history). He's committed to being biased and bullying anyone who dare oppose him (me included).  He's using intimidation tactics  (i.e. again look at the his revision history message on the Texas Southern University page).  And based on past wiki practices, the only time NCAA sanctions are placed on a university's page is if a sports program was terminated or suspended as a result (e.g. Southern Methodist University football) which isn't the case with TSU. He needs to be reprimanded not me. I have proof to validate my claims. I just need help from administrators and other editors to be fair and balanced and get him together and stop him from making that add.  The only issues I've had in my 6 years are with ElKevbo, so I've proved I'm a collaborative editor.  I'm not the first person ElKevbo tried to permanently block. Broadmoor (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Broadmoor, you need to focus your arguments on the content, not on the person themselves. Similarly, please be aware that continuing to refer to the possible inaccuracies of other articles does not constitute a valid argument; it is quite possible that said articles are also lacking and need updating and does not follow that the article in question is therefore erroneous. Again, focus on the given article content and certainly not on the contributor. I would imagine any valid argument would centre around whether you believe the sources to be reliable and whether you believe what is being presented is being presented in a neutral way. Please take this (amended) debate now to the talk page, as this isn't the place for it. All the best, -- Jay Σεβαστός discuss  01:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I've tried to reason with him but it's been to no avail which is why we here yet again. My argument has always been on the content ... most of my rebuttal above was on the content and why I stand where I stand with the edit.  But of course I need to partially address my direct conflict with ElKevbo because he's part of the content argument.  Again, please explain how am I suppose to seriously reason with someone who first response to something he doesn't like is "stop it or I'll block you again" ..... come on.  And so I'm more clear, the main issues (to be more specific) is the biased editing and redundancy like I mentioned above ... it's a valid argument for reasons already stated.  It's unfair ElKevbo is constantly allowed to keep changing the narrative to make it seem as if I'm this arbitrary disruptive editor who's totally averse to sensible and fair collaboration ... it's simply untrue and he's the one who used intimidation tactics without any real reasoning.  Broadmoor (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * for one week. The content dispute, IMO, is not particularly illegitimate on either side. I can see how one could argue that the section in question may be undue weight for the university's main page. Regardless though, there has not been an appropriate level of discussion or attempt at dispute resolution on the part of either party, and I hope during this next week you'll take the step of discussing the issue further and maybe seeking some outside input. Best regards, S warm   we ♥ our hive  04:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've explained several times to ElKevbo on his personal talk page and other platforms on his biased editing practices, unfamiliarity with the situation, and the redundancy of the "sanctions" add. Opposed to presenting credible evidence/references validating his stance like I have, he has simply threatened to block me and then plays the victim. 1) The sanctions are already added to the athletics wiki page, why does it need to be on the university's main page when the infractions are under the athletic department. That's redundant and irresponsible editing. 2) The editor in question continues to attempt to over-exaggerate and over-expose the sanctions opposed on TSU. And when I've cited several incidents that were more serious and larger in scope at other universities (i.e Arkansas football that are not pronounced on their pages whatsoever ... he didn't start a editing campaign to properly rectify that which validates his biased editing on the matter. 3) There's not a practice to place NCAA sanctions on university's pages unless a sports program is terminated or temporarily suspended (i.e. SMU football) ... again for example I cite Arkansas football and Baylor athletics department. Both were convicted of violating NCAA sanctions but yet there's no section mentioning it on their pages (no team was terminated nor suspended from play). NCAA sanctions are quite common (I'm a sports fanatic), they don't deserve a section on the main page nor to be mentioned twice if a sports program has not been terminated or suspended.Broadmoor (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Erlbaeko (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attack&oldid=655661192

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

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * The page are currently subject to active community sanctions (1RR restriction).
 * After being blocked for this behavior several times, the user continue to say he don't understand what the problem is. diff WP:DONTGETIT

Erlbaeko (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See also this recently archived discussion about the behaviour of this user. It is a POV-warrior only account, who continues edit warring as soon as he is unblocked. He never seems to learn from his mistakes/blocks. FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * this is insane. I edited the article and did not edit war. I removed an obsolete bit of text - how is that an 'edit war', (diff 1)and consolidated some of the over-used Seymour hersh stuff.(diff 2) ( and consensus on talk page was that hersh is over cited and needs consolidating). Diff 3 is not anything other than  a few words changing round,  and is called editing erlbeako. diff 4 was removing repetition I had introduced.  These are politically motivated editors who are hostile personally to me.  - any look at my edit history over five years or so will see I edit over a wide range - to say I am a pov driven account is ridiculous. this is a personal animus dragging me here for no reason, aiming to get an editor they don't like blocked and banned. I find it all very upsetting but not surprising I suppose - (the recently archived discussion you link to funkmonk, a discussion you started  because you hated my user page having quotes from garry kasparov and such  - I changed my user page, all I left is a couple of userboxes and a photo of simone weil .) Sayerslle (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere, if you only learned from your past blocks, you wouldn't be blocked again. is it really that hard not to revert more than three times? How long are you going to continue the same disruptive behaviour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * one edit was a revert of redundant material over a year old, the couple others were just edits. Sayerslle (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Sayerslle: this is indeed a WP:1RR violation and you have an impressive block log. If you are blocked again for edit warring it has to be for a long time, since the last one was two months. I suggest you accept a permanent restriction from editing Ghouta chemical attack and a permanent 1RR restriction on all your Wikipedia editing. Otherwise the admin who closes this report is likely to issue a proportionate block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * have you looked at the diffs? on the talkpage not everyone agreed with erlbaekos interpretation of my edits. would you at least look at the discussion there?I dont accept if I am blocked it will be for edit -warring because that is not an accurate representation of what happened. I don't mind a1RR on all my Wikipedia edits if that means 1 edit on a page, per 24 hours only. I cant agree to a total ban on ghouta chemical attacks because that implies I accept I was disruptive at that page or out of control somehow and I regard that as absurd.  Can't you ask for a bit more input from other editors or something. if the general feeling is that I am a menace at that page I'll agree, but  the two editors above are political enemies who want to get me banned.Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle, when judging a 1RR violation there is no need to check the talk page. If the edits are both reverts and both by you, it's a violation. So please go ahead and accept the restrictions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope User: Kudzu1 won't mind if I paste here what he/she wrote - 'I don't agree with your interpretation, User:Erlbaeko. The sanctions are meant to prevent disruptive edit-warring, not to constrain users from being bold. If the Del Ponte section had been added recently or User:Sayerslle had good reason to believe there was no consensus for removing the content, I would say yes, it counts as a revert and WP:1RR applies. But he was making BOLD changes, following a Talk page discussion with broad agreement, to material that was inserted into the article (during the bad old days, I might add) more than a year ago. It doesn't make any sense to count that as edit-war behavior, which is what 1RR is designed to curb ' - so, you know, I removed an old piece of SYNTH-y material and consolidated a bit of other material for which there was consensus to do - Sayerslle (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sayerslle, your block log suggests that your judgment of when you have consensus is faulty. If you hadn't transgressed so many times in the past we could afford to be more generous here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * so what happened doesn't matter - its pre-judged. I pasted a comment from the talk page that I didn't write, so its not my judgment in question there. I edited the page in a responsible and reasonable manner- if this leads to a block then it will be another victory for those that game the system imo but what can I do - its tiring and it just wastes time. I am not a disruptive editor, my block log considering its six or seven years, editing in sometimes very contentious and pov driven areas, seems nothing excessive really. the last ban for 59 days was because I was stupid enough to insist on reliable sources  arguing with a spa, - in the end the article got deleted it was so problematic . so it goes - believe me  I am learning how it works here and if I am blocked again, or not blocked, I will learn from this exchange also. The only thing I don't like in what you suggest is the total ban from ghouta chemical attacks, otherwise I  agree to all the restrictions and understand them fully now.  Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – 4 months. There was an edit war at Ghouta chemical attack, the editor's last block was for two months, and no agreement could be reached here that would ensure different behavior in the future. The last two 3RR complaints were here, on 8 February and here, on 18 November 2014. The reverts listed above in this report are from April 8, which is the very day that Sayerslle's two-month block expired. It didn't take long for him to get into trouble again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:70.26.220.3 and User: 70.26.223.190 reported by User:108.162.157.141 (Result: Temporary semi-protection)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

70.26.220.3 and 70.26.223.190 are very likely socks as they are both new and have made very few edits and they both made the same edits. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * 70 changed "France &amp; Monaco" to "Monaco &amp; France" with an explanation in the edit summary. 180 reverted without explanation.  Then each reverted twice with no further comment. Since the first edit of 70 was not obviously unreasonable and a reason was given, 108 should have explained the revert.  I don't see a reason to sanction 70 without sanctioning 108 too.  I'm semi-protecting the article for one week; use the talk page, folks. Zerotalk 07:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

User:173.180.72.36 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Incorrect height"
 * 1)  "Incorrect height"
 * 1)  "Incorrect height"
 * 1)  "Incorrect height"
 * 1)  "Incorrect height"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Brendan Gallagher. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IP address has been falsely changing the hockey player's height, even though majority of articles say 5'9" or 5'8". Callmemirela ( talk ) 01:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: User took an hour or two of a break then resumed. Callmemirela ( talk ) 03:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. An IP from 173.180.* has been trying to change this player's height to 5' 6" since December. His NHL player profile says 5' 9". EdJohnston (talk) 05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:66.190.249.59 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removed link to freedom from religion foundation as it is unrelated to AU"
 * 2)  "deleted entry under no heading"
 * 3)  "external links to personal opinion articles do not belong in an organization info page.  If Dougweller wishes to debate "right wing religion" he needs to start an article"
 * 4)  "deleted portion that has nothing to do with AU per Dougweller's suggestions in ongoing editwar"
 * 5)  "deleted POV without citation for over two years"

NONE OF THESE WERE REVERTS AS ERRONEOUSLY REPORTED BY DOUGWELLER. These were simply edits.

However Dougweller did participate in edit warring by repeatedly reverting my edits and reverted in excess of 3 in 24 hours while hounding me over an approximate 3 day period. He followed ALL my edits with some type of a revert.66.190.249.59 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See where I explained that consecutive edits count as one. A lot of the IP's edits needed to be reverted for various reasons, and I'm just one of several reverted. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * IP, looking at other edits is accepted and expected practice when an editor makes dubious edits to one article. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Americans United for Separation of Church and State. (TW)"


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

The IP needs to use talk pages to discuss and wait until a consensus is formed. Same behavior at Answers in Genesis. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:122.171.95.11 reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "He should be introduced by his nationality, not language"
 * 2)  "Even if it was his ethnicity, a person should be first introduced by nationality. U can mention ethnicity anywhere else. See his Britannica page-http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74633/Satyendra-Nath-Bose"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 655865168 by Ctg4Rahat (talk) See this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA No doubt on nationality of SN Bose. Don't make it an ego issue"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 655865168 by Ctg4Rahat (talk) See this.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA No doubt on nationality of SN Bose. Don't make it an ego issue"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Jagadish Chandra Bose.. (TW)"


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

Comments: I am giving references. It is User:Ctg4Rahat, who is not giving references. I gave this reference- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose Here, he is introduced as Indian, not Bengali. Then this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OPENPARA. But, he is constantly making changes, without any proof User:122.171.95.11 19:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit-warring or WP:3RR are different issues, but I want to highlight this is a disputed topic with no clear consensus. An attempt was made here, but I don't feel it went anywhere. What the IP is saying, makes sense to me. Whether he is right or wrong, I am talking on that, but makes some. Can you guys go to article talk page and discuss it there if you have not done it already. You may ask opinion of Aditya, nafSadh etc. who are very active these days. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper from 122.*. The registered editors are warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:80.111.246.210 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: IP blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Revision may not have been minor edit - Please can you discuss any changes in talk page -  Undid revision 655988862 by Gobonobo (talk)"
 * 2)  "Please check that you are not breaking WP:BADPOV policy - Undid revision 655914818 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 3)  "Not relying on one source. Including the dictionary definition, along with UN definition. There are various other definitions including EU and UNICEF, that will also need to be included."
 * 1)  "Not relying on one source. Including the dictionary definition, along with UN definition. There are various other definitions including EU and UNICEF, that will also need to be included."

link
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

Attempted discussion at Talk:Gender_equality

Been edit wasting slowly since April 6. Total of the editors have reverted this user. They continue to edit war regardless. Ignores BRD.

See user contribs for full history (on mobile and twinkle won't load them all).

User was warned about edit warring on user talk page. Will link momentarily. link.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 06:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , IP blocked. <font color="#C50">Nakon 06:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Editing Net reported by User:HLGallon (Result: Indef)
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:

As Editing Net is a sockpuppet of User:UnbiasedVictory, globally blocked for long-term abuse, warnings and discussion are superfluous. Editing Net admitted the sockpuppetry and abuse in [|this edit]. I have launched a SPI but in my opinion it was mishandled by the admins, who incorrectly moved it to a related SPI into another user; this has obfuscated the issue and unduly delayed matters. Editing Net's edits have continued UnbiasedVictory's campaign of relentlessly stuffing cruft and original research into articles' info. boxes. The community is already heartily sick of Editing Net, whose recent edits are clear edit-warring. HLGallon (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Walter Scott */"
 * 2)  "/* Michael Slager */"
 * 3)  "/* Michael Slager */"
 * 4)  "/* Walter Scott */"
 * 5)  "/* Walter Scott */"
 * 6)  "/* Michael Slager */"
 * 7)  "/* Walter Scott */"
 * 8)  "/* Michael Slager */"
 * 1)  "/* Michael Slager */"
 * 2)  "/* Walter Scott */"
 * 3)  "/* Michael Slager */"
 * 1)  "/* Walter Scott */"
 * 2)  "/* Michael Slager */"


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

Discussions:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:Shooting_of_Walter_Scott
 * Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

Mattscards' comments in the latter discussion have been particularly unhelpful. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Editor wants to remove races of subjects. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . Where did User:Nøkkenbuer spring from?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, no idea but as their posts have been thoughtful and focused on content I'm hoping this is a new editor who happens to be particularly clueful. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I have no affiliation with this Mattscards fellow, though I find it interesting that he claims to hail from the same hometown as I. In any case, I have no relation with him, and I consider his posts to be very problematic, even though they appear to support my cause. I appreciate the support, but his statements are very hostile. I've even cautioned him to not be so hostile in the original discussion: I really didn't mean for all this hostility to occur from my posts. I wanted to raise some concerns, but certainly not cause any trouble. I'm really sorry about all this. –Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Vamsisv reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Use dispute resolution)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Vin09 (talk) to last revision by Vamsisv. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Don't edit war. "official you might want to look at WP:CALC"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* List of Indian Premier League records and statistics */"
 * 2)   "/* Don't revert */"
 * 3)   "/* Don't revert */"
 * 4)   "/* Don't revert */"


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


 * Comments:

The user added section Man of the match Awards without proper references. The ref provided is an article that is outdated. I've already taken initiative to resolve it by writing on his talk page at 09:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC).Vin09 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * .  has reverted three times. You have reverted twice. Based on a comment on Vamsisv's Talk page you apparently want an administrator to resolve the content dispute ("I've asked for admins intervention rather than having our own interests. Let the admins decide. Whatever they decide let's keep it."). This noticeboard is for reporting sanctionable misconduct, not for dispute resolution. All I can suggest is that the two of you stop edit-warring or both of you risk blocks. Instead, use whatever dispute resolution tools are appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Religious Burp reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Re-formatting the page so the band's entire history isn't included in the initial synopsis"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 655522417 by Walter Görlitz (talk)  Lots of wikipedia articles use short sections for easy reference, and these will be expanded."
 * 3)  "Reverting to previous edit.  Control freak had changed it without merit. Having sections helps easy use of article."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 655713245 by 208.81.212.222 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 655775792 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Religious Burp's recent edits */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Prayer Chain edits and general knowledge */"


 * Comments:

Editor doesn't edit much. Fewer than 200 edits ago, December 2010, editor was blocked for edit warring. No discussion here. Not sure what to do about this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in the process of formatting an article on The Prayer Chain so it is more user-friendly and contains more information for people researching the band. I'm styling this on the U2 article which has a very easy to follow format and is rather interesting. Walter Gorlitz doesn't like this. He wants all the various information about different eras of the band to be in one bulky lot. He keeps reverting these changes.  The entire history was originally formatted in the initial synopsis under his preferred format.  This is sloppy. Religious Burp (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * First, The Prayer Chain are not U2.
 * I have tried to explain how we don't need multiple short sections, you didn't take kindly to that. Your other formatting and heavy reliance on direct quotes are a problem. As an editor of the u2 article, I can tell you that there are not many quotes, and none that are as long as those you provided. There is duplication of material in your edits and a lot of WP:OR. Instead of thinking that your prose are straight from the hand of god, assume that other editors know how to edit too and are trying to create an encyclopedia just like you. You're wholesale reverts are counter-productive. The total number is troubling. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC) The
 * The first "revert" Walter has listed isn't actually a revert. It was the initial change that wasn't to his liking. He reverted all those other changes before I reverted them back, meaning he should be blocked before I am.  His reverts haven't been proof-read which is obvious from sentences that don't make sense and contained wrong spellings, one sentence alone contained 4 errors.  I have noted these issues on The Prayer Chain talk page, and have only been met with bullying by his alternate username Amaury on my talk page, and flawed egotistical arguments from Walter. Walter himself has acknowledged he doesn't know anything about the band that is the subject of the article, so shouldn't be allowed to contribute to the page.  Both Amaury and Walter should be blocked and refrain from further edits on The Prayer Chain page.  Religious Burp (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to strike the section claiming that Walter and Amaury are socks as without evidence its a personal attack and wont help your case. Amortias (T)(C) 10:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * had used huggle. It was not even a manual edit.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So is the suggestion that Amaury & Walter are different people but both making identical sloppy edits? No one has addressed the example issue of the sentence containing 4 errors, 3 of which are basic English that any decent proof-reading editor could fix, which has been reverted back to it's incorrect state 4 times by Walter and his "alleged" alter-egos! Where in Wikipedia policy is that OK? And it appears all the people commenting here have more of a history with edit-warring than I do. Religious Burp (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will go on record and state that I am not Amaury. This is the only registered account I have ever used to edit with. Feel free to take your concern to WP:SPI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Religious Burp is warned. If this continues, a block will be issued. Your suggestion that your opponents are socks is without merit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I being blocked for reverting edits, which is what Walter Görlitz did more than I did? And the reason he reverted my edits?  Because I used subsections, which is exactly how he has just edited the Jars of Clay page.  Not to mention that he has completely butchered The Prayer Chain article and doesn't proof-read his edits.  Well done on an obviously intelligent verdict.  No warning for Walter Görlitz then, very even-handed.  It's hilarious how absurd this is. Matthew 7:4-5.  Religious Burp (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Kingofaces43 reported by User:David Tornheim (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here

Version that Kingofaces43 reverted: here

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

Admission of guilt: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: by David Tornheim here

also warning provided by here

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

Comments:

Note: I have never filed any action against anyone before. Sorry it has come to this and sorry if I made an error.David Tornheim (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * An IP edit may be a different user. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * trout for bringing a dif not from the user. Plus, the spat of edit warring ended with the last dif above (which removed the whole pesticide section) at  04:01, 12 April 2015‎. This case was filed almost two days later when the issue is stale and the article has gone off on a different vector Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – Kingofaces only made three reverts. The submitter included this item which is a revert by an IP, not Kingofaces. Kingofaces receives the special irony award for making a revert with an edit summary that tells others to use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ctg4Rahat reported by User:182.65.212.159 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:49, 12 April 2015‎
 * 2) 18:48, 11 April 2015‎
 * 3) 03:56, 11 April 2015‎
 * 4) 16:19, 10 April 2015‎
 * 5) 16:19, 10 April 2015‎
 * 6) 10:59, 10 April 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper from 122.*. '''The registered editors are warned to observe WP:3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)'''
 * http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/74631/Sir-Jagadish-Chandra-Bose States he is Indian not Bengali
 * Replaced Indian with Bengali this is a content dispute not resolved and no use of Talk page 2013 Bangladesh India WikiProjects dispute resolution

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: '''Satyendra Nath Bose Watch WP:3RR please. Might help if you opened a talk page discussion. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)''' 182.65.212.159 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Those IPs are socks of Kumarila/Vivekmandan (Proofs: diff, diff, diff, diff ). Kumarila was previously blocked. First for 3RR, second time for sock-puppetry and again for 3RR (diff). His/Her only job in Wikipedia is edit warring. - <font style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; font-size:18px;">Rahat <font style="font-family:Calibari ITC; font-size:12px;"> (Message) 14:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This sock is warring against consensus. His/Her edits were reverted not only by me but also many other users. diff, diff, diff, diff. - <font style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; font-size:18px;">Rahat <font style="font-family:Calibari ITC; font-size:12px;"> (Message) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Ctg4Rahat is warned for violation of WP:3RR. The only reason not to block is due to the high chance of sockpuppetry by people on the other side. All parties should be waiting for a clear agreement on the talk page about Bose's nationality. If you all think this is important you should be prepared for a very long discussion. For an example, see Talk:John Tyndall. This was an attempt to determine if the physicist Tyndall was British or Irish. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ghatus reported by User:Xtremedood (Result: Ghatus blocked; Xtremedood warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverted to:
 * 1) "(Undid revision 656237692 by Xtremedood (talk) I am to wiki before you came and know the rules. It is you who has violated the rule. I have open discussion on the Talk Page. Go there.)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."
 * 3) "Undid revision 656223115 by Xtremedood (talk) Illegitimate source. Nothing to back it up in the article or source. Does not even disclose the source of the data."
 * 4) "*Source is legitimate academic source"
 * 5) "Undid revision 656141936 by Ghatus (talk) Sourceless is legitimate academic source."
 * 6) "rv 4 edits. Baseless source and the page can not be accessed."
 * 1) "rv 4 edits. Baseless source and the page can not be accessed."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 656235749 by Ghatus (talk) Source is legitimate and respected publication. It has been utilized in a variety of academic sources. Do not revert back, as to adhere to 3 revert rule."


 * Comments:

Editor Ghatus has been warned for not reverting, however he has refused to adhere to the three revert rule. He has also been edit warring on a variety of Mughal-Maratha war articles and has been warned in the past. His latest comment on the 1971 history page shows his lack of respect for Wikipedia's rules. Xtremedood (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ghatus also deleted my recent warning on his page. Xtremedood (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ghatus's Reply "Xtremedood" is told to discuss on the Talk Page of the relevant Page. He did not do it. A discussion is open there already to solve it out. He has a past history of doing such things in other pages. I have also called on three other editors to look into the matter. I just reverted his undiscussed and dubious sounding edits. Three other editors are, ,. Thank You.Ghatus (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . I was about to warn both and  because they were both at three reverts when Ghatus reverted a fourth time. Therefore, I have  Ghatus for 36 hours and Xtremedood is  that if you continue to revert, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning Bbb23, however I have reviewed the edits and I believe that I was only at 2 reverts (please correct me if I am wrong). I made my initial changes on April 11, at around 11:15-11:30. However the first revert was done by Ghatus, on 06:45, 13 April 2015‎. I reverted for the first time on 04:30, 13 April 2015‎ ‎ and the second time on 07:09, 13 April 2015‎, which makes for a total of two reverts. Ghatus on the other hand reverted 3 times. Xtremedood (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I counted that first edit as a revert as it undid another editor's actions, even if those actions did not immediately precede your edit. That's a strict interpretation of policy, and some administrators disagree with it (meaning they won't count it). That said, I don't count any change as a revert. I take it on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the change you made to the article was significant and formed the basis of the war. Therefore, I count it. As an aside, adding brand new material to an article is not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Bbb23. I guess it is a subjective measure. I did not see my first edit as a revert and I would not categorize it as such. I see it as an introduction of new materials based on the reading of a verifiable and legitimate academic source. Xtremedood (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lumia930uploader reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 656257530 by FleetCommand (talk) Reverts without a reason given are not permitted, also try to watch your language as you are the one reverting my edits without giving any re"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 656173882 by Codename Lisa (talk) You said that RT is a client version because it's on mobile devices, W10M isn't Windows Phone so it should be treated the same as RT."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 656024555 by Codename Lisa (talk) If Windows RT is a client and mobile devices are clients, why isn't W10 mobile? Microsoft doesn't treat RT differently from W10M"
 * 4)  "RT is also not a client OS"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ Warning"
 * 2)   "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ *"
 * 3)   "/* Template:Microsoft Windows family */ Added reply. [Thanks God Wikipedia has a  script. This keyboard does not a tilde key.]"

A discussion on Template talk:Microsoft Windows family already exists. asked the user to "study it". See.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

WP:3RR violation. Combative editor edit ninja evading consensus-building process in a highly visible template. He is using revert+edit summary for communication instead of taking the discussion to the talk page. Or at least visiting it. There is a discussion there already. Codename Lisa explicitly invited him to come with a message in his user page.

His last edit summary is a clear act of denial, having forgotten every communication he has received thus far. Fleet Command (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not edit warring or 3RR violation. Hi. This is . Thanks God I saw this. If one disregard the edit summary that reads "Undid revision [...]", one can see that is evidently attempting to improve based on objections that I register. He is not repeatedly restoring a certain revision. At least, I think the first questionable revert was the counter-revert against Fleet Command; I am afraid Fleet Command's own edit summary was questionable. He used to ambush me in the same way when I was new here, when I was practicing bold, revert, improve.


 * I think the solutions is not to block someone, but to calm down. Lumia930uploader must start replying in talk pages instead of within edit summaries and Fleet Command must stand down from Template:Microsoft Windows family. At this stage, I don't think even a page protection is necessary, per WP:ROPE. This template is not that high-profile anyway.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Lumia930uploader is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus on the talk page. I only see three clear reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel hurt, and backstabbed! (I assume it is legal to exaggerate when I am hurt, right?) What was your definition of edit warring again? Biased reversion, either partial or full towards one's own preferred version, coupled with either no explanation or non-constructive explanation and non-collegial mentality? What am I missing?
 * This person has started two out of the way attempt that I don't view positively: (1) One a discussion in in which he lied about me and didn't notify me. (Why hold a discussion in such an out of the way place?) (2) A WP:ANI discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents without sending me a prior talk page notice. Isn't it obvious that this person is up to no good? Fleet Command (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lurker1589 reported by User:Morbidthoughts (Result: blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 656179753 by Howicus (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 656199316 by Dismas (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 656236479 by Lurker1589 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 656345236 by Morbidthoughts (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * "Result": --Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

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

That's just the move-warring. The associated reverts of text are:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:. The editor is well aware of the 3RR/no-edit warring rule as they've been warned before. In fact, their entire user talk page is pretty much all warnings about disruptive conduct. Additionally they've been warned about disruptive behavior, discretionary sanctions in this topic area , and POV pushing (none of these by me).

Additionally after this dispute arose, the editor began making "revenge edits" on other articles which they had never edited before (warning: )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The editor in question is ignoring the talk page discussion, even after being specifically mentioned. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Comments:


 * The debated move is a textbook example of WP:COMMON NAME please see discussion. The fact that an experienced user (Axxion) decided not to discuss this question, but continued reverts a few hours after the beginning of discussion and made a retaliatory revert on another page is telling. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:24.246.11.235 reported by User:JaconaFrere (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed reference due to lack of evidence and international opinion on the subject."
 * 2)  "Removed reference"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 656033327 by 24.246.11.235 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Parts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts have not been seized by the Russian army. The territory is occupied by ethnic Ukrainians."
 * 1)  "Parts of Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts have not been seized by the Russian army. The territory is occupied by ethnic Ukrainians."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * I believe that the ip edits are perfectly valid: Thy were removing unsourced and badly sourced pov. My suggestion is to warn both warriors.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There are 3 edits. Consecutive edits are considered one. This is not a violation of 3RR. Here You'll see where the IP has taken this to the talk page prior.  Here the IP went to their talk page.  Here I went to their talk page asking questions in  regard to the page. There was good call for this removal by the IP. The IP isn't in violation of 3RR. The IP has taken action to discuss this. There's no reason for a warning for this IP.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * – Technically there was no violation of 3RR at the article and no warning was posted to the IP's talk page. IP has posted to the talk page of the article. DrKiernan (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Danacloud8 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Danacloud8 blocked 24 hours; Nedrutland warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Also edit warring / reverting possible vandalism:

Previous version reverted to: Not really sure...

Diffs of the user's reverts: Page history says it all 20-30 reverts in the past eight days.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Doesn't seem to be any.

Comments:

Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Danacloud8. Nedrutland warned by Jim1138. DrKiernan (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dmcq reported by User:HughD (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: illustrates reported user's preferred, WP:CRITS nonconformant section layout "Incidents"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 3 April 2015  re-instates WP:CRITS issue
 * 2) 11 April 2015  re-instates WP:CRITS issue
 * 3) 13 April 2015  re-instates WP:CRITS issue
 * 4) 13 April 2015  ownership of section and subsection headings
 * 5) 13 April 2015
 * 6) 13 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  plea for collaboration, offer of GA nom
 * 2)  plea for collaboration, offer of GA nom
 * 3)  request feedback
 * 1)  request feedback
 * 1)  request feedback

also at WP:NPOVN:
 * 1)  reference highly relevant project-specific section layout guideline
 * 2)  request principle behind "Incidents" section fork
 * 3)  ping request principle behind "Incidents" section fork
 * 1)  request principle behind "Incidents" section fork
 * 2)  ping request principle behind "Incidents" section fork
 * 1)  ping request principle behind "Incidents" section fork

Comments:

Pattern of edits frustrating WP:CRITS issue resolution and in defense of personal idiosyncratic subsection ordering scheme seems to exhibit ownership tendencies. Hugh (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reported user persisted in preserving a personal, nonconformant, non-neutral section layout scheme despite multiple clear talk page references to highly relevant guidelines and best practices including WP:CRITS: "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" and a project-specific section layout style guideline WP:WikiProject_Conservatism/Style_guide#Article_structure "Organizations". Hugh (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)


 * Three people disagreed with you about your section ordering and nobody agreed. Four including me. I gave plenty of time for you to respond to the comments but you didn't. I even said if you could just find one person to agree with you I wouldn't do anything about it. Dmcq (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The last revert was over 40 hours ago, so it is not possible to take action against any editor at this remove. I suggest you continue discussion on the article's talk page, use dispute resolution where necessary and note that the article is under discretionary sanctions. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Eaglestorm reported by User:174.141.182.82 (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) —Not a 3RR vio

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I’m not sure whether the best place is here or WP:ANI, or whether I should try WP:RFC/U. This user has not violated WP:3RR, but is definitely edit warring against consensus and policy. I posted to the article’s Talk page and to his own Talk page, hoping to get his side just in case he had a point, but it seems he rarely uses Talk pages at all (and even then, mainly to complain or to inappropriately delete content from article Talk pages). He clearly has no interest in discussion, reverting my requests on his Talk with the edit summaries “desperation play” and “[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eaglestorm&diff=prev&oldid=656566621 my talk page my rules. get lost]”, and proceeding to re-revert against otherwise unanimous consensus. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I blocked for 72 hours to save everyone (including, who's probably living it up in Gatlinburg, and ) some of their precious time. Note that Eaglestorm has been blocked for edit warring before; it's time they start to learn how to play the game properly. My one revert of this editor was done on formal grounds, for edit warring and lack of talk page discussion, which is a violation of our policies and guidelines. I have no interest in the article and do not consider myself involved. Thanks to the IP for reporting this. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (blanket rv to old version, reintroducing large amount of dubiously sourced material and (accidentally?) removing several maintenance tags and an AfD tag)
 * 2)  (removing an "unreliable source" tag)
 * 3)  (removing a "failed verification" tag)
 * 4)  (removing yet more maintenance tags)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Dr. Blofeld (warned after 4R, refused to self-revert)

All of the maintenance tags in question were explained and justified on talk, see Talk:Flame of Peace.

Comments:

Dr. Blofeld has been aggressively trying to bolster up an apparently self-promotional vanity article to prevent it from deletion, using multiple poor sources and warring against maintenance tags marking the source misuse. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, I ask a neutral commentator to assess if I've used "multiple poor sources" on this, nobody is going to agree. I removed several tags during my expansion work which were blatantly false and placed there in haste by yourself. The info is there in Italian and the source does say that it's his wife. Childish, pointy stuff over my good faith actions in improving an article to avoid deletion. The real issue is that Future is gutted that I've now proved it's notable and he knows it won't be deleted so I'm the target. I'm off to bed, yawn yawn. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  22:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If Blofeld makes a number of separate edits to separate aspects of the same article, edits that Future Perfect clearly disagrees with, then that's still not edit warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I only reverted him once. He reverted twice and has subsequently reverted my tag removal in places so technically he'd be over 3RR too if he's going to claim my edits were reverts. I made one revert and the others were mainly constructive article changes as I was expanding it but being impeded by him plastering tags on most sources and generally being irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem seems the reverse. The article is about a dull but worthy Austrian charity that tries to promote World Peace. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has got it into his head that it is spam, made a deletion nomination that verges on slander, and is frantically trying to prove his case by removing content, tagging extremely solid sources as unreliable and so on. This behavior seems bizarre. A topic ban might be kind. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . Frankly, I don't know what to do about this report as it defies the usual edit-warring analysis. I'm not going to take any action but will leave it to another administrator to do so if they wish. That said, my opinion is neither party has behaved well, but 's conduct is worse than 's. Dr. Blofeld keeps adding sources, Future Perfect keeps tagging them (sometimes also removing material), and Dr. Blofeld comes up with more sources and removing the tags or in some instances just removing the tags (it's a bit hard to follow and I'm at the end of my day), and the back-and-forth goes on. The article is at AfD. The community is able to assess the reliability of the sources added, and Future Perfect is free to comment on the reliability at the AfD, but to remove material from an article up for deletion when the removal is not compelling (e.g., vandalism) is not an appropriate action and, even more so, when it's the nominator who's doing the removals or tagging or whatever. But I don't feel like blocking two very experienced editors, or even one of them, based on this squabbling; nor do I feel like locking the article while it's at AfD. So I'm punting and hoping it sticks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since when is tagging bad and misused sources inappropriate? We are dealing with four distinct removals of maintenance tags. In each of these four cases, the reason for the tagging is out on the talkpage. One revert was a blatantly inappropriate edit removing the AfD tag. Two cases were of blatantly misused sources that simply didn't say what they were claimed to be saying. Have you checked them? Are you of the opinion that this Italian page is saying that Roberta Pinotti received an award? (if you don't read Italian, let me tell you: it doesn't). Are you of the opinion that this newspaper text is calling somebody an "archduke" and "prince"? It plainly doesn't. In what way is the removal of the necessary maintenance tags for these not abusive editing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm just going to respond to your comment about the removal of the AfD tag. That was at best a comedy of errors, exacerbated by you and . An IP edited the article to add a lot of new material and removed the AfD tag. Rather than simply restoring the tag, you reverted the whole thing. Dr. Blofeld, rather than restoring only the material also restored the tag removal. You did the same thing you did before in your first revert, and then the battle continued over the material and your tags.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake. That IP was one of the usual attacks of banned harassment vandal "Wikinger" (really not that difficult to find out if you look at their contribs, is it?) He wasn't "adding a lot of material"; he was just randomly blanket-reverting to an old version from before I had touched the article, as he always does when randomly revenge-reverting anything I do; of course his edit had to be rolled back, just like all the rest. It was entirely Blofeld's fault that in his following edit he was blindly repeating the edit of the banned vandal without looking what he was doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (Actually, I am going to reinstate that tag on the aefi.it source right now, as my explanation of how Blofeld was misreading the Italian in that instance still stands uncontradicted on the talkpage . Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Actually, I am going to reinstate that tag " – if you don't read Italian Future Perfect, let me tell you: that's more edit-warring by you.
 * The basis for all this seems to be, "I am right, you are wrong, and as I'm an admin, that means I'm Very, Very Right Indeed." This is characteristic of Future Perfect's editing style. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says it's her husband and who his father is, yes. And I've also supplied other sources supporting his heritage and the Archduke thing, yes. And you're wrong about the Italian source and your claim "Blofeld was misreading the Italian". The source says "Le serata, organizzata dal Consiglio regionale del Veneto, ha visto tra le presenze più illustri il ministro della Difesa, Roberta Pinotti, il vicepresidente della Regione Veneto, Marino Zorzato e il presidente del Consiglio regionale, Clodovaldo Ruffato, al quale gli Arciduchi d’Austria, Principi di Toscana, Herta Margarete e Sandor Asburgo Lorena hanno consegnato la Fiamma della Pace" in English means "The evening, organized by the Veneto Regional Council, included illustrious participants such as the Italian Minister of Defence Roberta Pinoti, the vice-president of the Veneto Region Marino Zorzato and the president of the Regional Council Clodovaldo Ruffato, to whom the Archdukes of Austria, Princes of Tuscany, Herta Margarete and Sandor Asburgo Lorena gave the Flame of Peace."♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing as no action. Two users in good standing, each of them having over 50K edits and many years of experience, should be able to sort this out, especially since both of you are willing to talk.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather reported by User:Faceless Enemy (Result: No action)
Page:

Lightbreather:

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:

Essentially there are 4 points of contention at the page, all related:
 * 1) Is Walter Hickey at Business Insider a reliable source?


 * 2) Should we lead the NRA's finances section with its funding from the firearms industry or with its total budget?


 * 3) Should we lead the gun industry contributions paragraph with "A considerable amount [of money] comes from the gun industry"? (LB says that it is, because we are paraphrasing Hickey) Or should we jump right into the numbers?


 * 4) Is it WP:SYNTH to follow that with a statement about the size of the NSSF?

LB prefers 1) Yes, 2) industry funding, 3) "Considerable amount", and 4) No. She reverted the page back to a version with those decisions 4 times in a row between 00:09 and 17:59 14 April.

NB: The last one was a partial revert; she edited some of my other edits back in, but not the 4 sticking points. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have had a broken elbow since March 30, when I fell down while I was out of state helping a hospitalized friend. I have since returned home and I had surgery on my elbow on April 8. My arm is in a cast, I am in pain, and my waking and sleeping patterns have been disrupted - and my ability to type has been restricted to my non-dominant hand. After weighing my options, I have decided to respond at Talk:National Rifle Association#Edit warring to the various discussions Faceless Enemy has started on different pages.


 * This problem goes back weeks, and I have made good-faith efforts to resolve it. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems like an acknowledgement of the editwarring but not an apology or a promise to cease edit warring. I am sorry for your personal health problems but that doesn't resolve the issue. It would be best to agree to cease edit warring and find other ways to resolve the content dispute. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Closing this with no action/warning. Discussion is ongoing and a block would not be conducive to discussion. and, it takes two to tango. I've watchlisted the page and will block both of you if any further edit warring occurs. Your instinct should be to discuss first, not edit war and then begrudgingly discuss. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Epigogue reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user DrKiernan keeps inducing grammatical errors in his revisions. I encountered him while helping to edit the page on Elizabeth II, where he was reverting the article without much explanation. He did that in triplicate, so this complaint against me is quite vexatious.

I am happy to discuss my reasons for revision in terms of fact or grammar; but when another user is arguing against that on a subjective basis, they do not also have an objective complaint.

Epigogue (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Epigogue

Comment Oh boy, Epigogue complains here that DrKeirnan "keeps inducing grammatical errors in his revisions". (Note "inducing".) Look at this edit from Epigogue and his summary "fixed subject-verb agreement". As for his comment that he is " happy to discuss my reasons for revision in terms of fact or grammar" he never commented on this talk page comment. I have edited Microwave so am involved, but I can still express my opinion which is that whether Epigogue is a troll or incompetent, he is a definite disruption and needs admin attention. Moriori (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Yagmurlukorfez reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Alerted under ARBAA2)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

And over a similar issue in the same article:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Due to the edit-warring by this user, the revision history of this article is a mess. Even with an ongoing discussion at the talk page, the user unilaterally continues to revert and edit-war over this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a current edit war report, It seems I accidently violated 3RR 2 days ago, I was responding to an another user's irresponsible restoration, but suddenly User EtienneDolet involved in it. I also made my point at the discussion page, but he/she didn't make a comment on it. So I added a sourced info, but User EtienneDolet removed it back too with the reason of "this article isnt about Nihal Atsiz, this is about Pan-Turkism." In this case, this can be considered as Vandalism. If there is an edit war, then all of us (Me, User EtienneDolet and user Athenean) involved in it.

I came here after User:EdJohnston's massage on my talk page, but I didn't understand what he is actually meant with his offer.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No block. But any editing about Nihal Atsız is covered by the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions. For example, supporters of Atsız have demonstrated in favor of the Armenian genocide, according to our article on him. I'm leaving Yagmurlukorfez an alert of the WP:ARBAA2 sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * "/* top */ +important qualifier"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 656473938 by Alexbrn (talk) don't be ridiculous - ANP is naturally occuring amino acids, even the Dr's contrarians do not assert cytotoxicitys"
 * 2)  "generally understood (by all sides) to be noncytotoxic chemo, not cytotoxic (traditional) chemo"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 656569383 by Alexbrn (talk) restrore needed clarification what kind of chemo this is understood to be"
 * 4)  "/* top */ it is a fair-enough source (and you deleted it!); help by finding a better source; this clarification isn't even disputed in the literature - only by you 3 tag-team POV warriors"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Burzynski Clinic. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:75.162.243.229 reported by User:Spshu (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:46, 16 April 2015
 * 2) 18:28, 16 April 2015
 * 3) 18:31, 16 April 2015
 * 4) 18:32, 16 April 2015
 * 5) 18:37, 16 April 2015
 * 6) 18:42, 16 April 2015
 * 7) 18:47, 16 April 2015
 * 8) 18:53, 16 April 2015
 * 9) 18:55, 16 April 2015
 * 10) 19:00, 16 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - Discussion has been open since 12:47, March 15, 2015. I made additional comments at 18:42, 16 April 2015. Given non-response to that and its corresponding edit summary message and his "other stuff" edit summary, [edit summary at 18:45, 16 April 2015 indicated/pointed to [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists]].

Comments:

Article was put up at RfPP at 18:38, 16 April 2015 as it seems that this IP editor is believed to be a sock of User:IDriveAStickShift. No administrator response at that board yet. He has since showed up on the talk page with no knowledge of Other stuff exists. Spshu (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected six months. There is a dispute whether the abbreviation "OMM" (for One Magnificent Morning, the name of the programming block) has to appear in the opening sentence.  This article has been reported at admin boards about a dozen times altogether. The dispute resumed on the very day the last protection expired. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Hohenloh reported by User:Wuerzele (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  edit summary "incorrect English"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: --Wuerzele (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * – The question is whether to use 'formed' or 'were formed.' It's hard to see this as a big deal. If you need more input consider WP:3O or other steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston as you know/can see by the talk page comment, I had advised Hohenloh to use WP:3O, but he did not, and chose to revert. thats why I filed this report, so ?--Wuerzele (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can use WP:3O yourself. If you do so and the other party pays no attention to the results then you might bring this to AN3 again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:McQueen.30 reported by User:SNUGGUMS (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute:

Comments: Does not appear to be very willing to discuss rationales on talk pages or negotiate with editors. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 19:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Similar pattern of behavior on Trevor Noah and Al Franken: adding minor professional credits and reverting removals, not responding to requests for discussion. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional revert by user since notification of this report:


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:GravityForce reported by User:DVdm (Result: 48 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  Added after report and after notification.
 * 6)  and again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and further messages by myself and others on talk page, all erased by user now:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:,. Invitation to comment on project talk page:

Comments:

User seems to be wp:SPA with a mission to push their own work. Meanwhile user is reverting beyond 3RR on the other articles as well. DVdm (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Dvdm is censoring. I merely placed onto his talk page what he placed on my talk page in terms of editing wars. A published reference from a secondary source keeps getting taken down without consent. It is ridiculous that he determines the validity of published content when it clearly falls under the rules to be valid material for wikipedia. GravityForce (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Content is copied from http://unifiedgravity.com/styled/ without permission. So it does not follow under the category of valid material for Wikipedia. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * . You "merely" bounced back their own message to them by way of retaliation? And then edit warred to keep it there? Please don't revert users' removals on their own talkpages, as they're entitled to remove any material they like, and you have no right to reinsert it. Blocked for 48 hours for userpage harassment and edit warring on several pages. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Advice)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Walter Görlitz: Proffessional is used on almost every article and team dont only play in bundelsiga they represent germany in many tournaments. (TW)"
 * 2)  "There are more than one bundesliga"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 208.81.212.222 (talk): Editors should not have to search for thsat information as per earlier discussions. (TW)"
 * 4)  "You can not only say Bundelsiga as there are several bundesligas!!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Professional & German legaue */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Professional & German legaue */ Reply"


 * Comments:

Long-term editor. No need to warn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I might as well point to WP:BOOMERANG here as Walter Görlitz is the one not agreeing with me or User:Danieletorino2 and I did provide my argument and link to Player MOS on the artile talkpage in this diff. This is a simple content dispute where I am not the only one at fault. I might have edited the article one time to much, sorry about that, but I get the feeling that it is wanted I get blocked so the other editor gets what he wants. I will not edit the page any more but I will stand by my edits (in discussions) as they are good and improving. If a spanish player plays in Germany that is worth noting and as I said there are several leagues called bundesliga so nation is definately worth noting. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that Walter himself has 3 reverts, , and you dont have to pass 3RR to be considered edit warring and that he has also continued on other pages, knowing other editors dont agree like this diff at Lionel Messi. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: All parties advised. This is a dispute as to what information should be displayed in the biography of a football player. Use WT:FOOTY to get consensus. If warring continues on individual player articles, blocks may may needed because there are too many articles to consider protecting them all. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

War (Result: Malformed)
The Voice of Peace (marathon) - User:Green Zero
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Aergas reported by User:Alon12 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The User:Aergas has engaged in edit warring multiple times on this particular wikipedia article, and was banned accordingly in the past, in addition. The conclusion of the community a few months back after the original dispute was to maintain the article in the state before he decided to unilaterally make such edits once again. In fact an entire sub-section on the talk page, was specifically created in reference to warn against such edits. It was in fact, a senior wikipedia user User:Robert McClenon, who also had previously acted as an intermediate party in a dispute resolution regarding this article, who decided to create this sub-section, regarding his edits. So, not only has he shown a blanket non-response to community approaches to dialogue and standards on wikipedia, but he continues to engage in a one-sided edit war. Alon12 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * While filling this case, the User:Alon12 left out some important points that I will write here: Alon12 was, indeed, banned for edit warring in the past, on issues related to the article linked in this case. He is also making up the resolution of the community, in fact, what he says didn't ever happened, if he thinks so, i'd like to se a diff to a discussion proving it, what the actual resolution said and what happened was to leave the article as it was before the edit war with Alon12 started, which actually was MY VERSION OF THE ARTICLE (and I can prove it if requested to do so). In his report above Alon12 is, using the most proper word: lying). Then we would see if third editors shown interest on the article, but that's something that barely happened. The section Alon12 refers to was created to discuss edits regarding the article, and so I did, and everything was going smoothly until the users involved on said discussion stopped replying (manily Alon12, who is the only one who actually cares about these edits), after that, I waited for more than two months to see if Alon12 could reply to the suggestions I made regarding edits to the the article on said talk page (which are competently sourced). So, given that two months passed with nobody giving input on my suggestions I supposed that to go on was the right thing to do (because have someone had a problem with my edits then they would have said something about them in the talk page, specially Alon12). Then today, Alon12 noticed that I have edited the article in question and rushed to revert it without even discussing his reasons in the talk page (and continues to not do so, claiming a consensus that has never existed), when I ask him about his motives and about explanations regarding the way he acts he fails to give a good response, and just proceeds to accuse me of edit warring when I waited more than two months to get a response from him regarding my edits in the article. Behavoirs like this one, that he have shown to have double standards and bias regarding the sources used on said article before (things I'm confronting him with in the talk page right now) and that he filled this report with a premeditely incomplete and distorted version of the events from the last months (for all the reasons I explained above) to paint himself as a victim leads me to strongly believe that Alon12 acts on bad blood. His credibility has also been called in question by an administrator and the same administrator has pointed out that Alon12 is a single purpose account, who has made edits to only a pair of articles on Wikipedia and hardly sum up to 20, with the rest being edits done in multiple noticeboards and talk pages. 00:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Aergas (talk)


 * . Both and  have been blocked before for edit warring on this same article. They're lucky I didn't see this report when it was first filed or I would probably have blocked both editors. However, there've been no reverts since April 15, so I'm taking no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Hmdwgf (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_FIFA_World_Cup_finals&action=history (please look at most recent edits starting from the first one made on the 15th)
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * I have made good faith edits to a number of articles- no vandalism of any kind. I have had a number of edit-war run-ins with this user; but the real reason I am bringing his actions to the admin's attention is that his editing behavior isn't constructive nor acceptable; he has been involved in numerous edit wars since (to my knowledge) 2010, and has done nothing to discuss in a civil manner his reverting of my edits- he has reverted nearly all of my World Cup page edits- all of which have adhered to Wiki rules. This particular edit-war was one over small details helped to make the article more specific; he just won't have it any other way other than the way he wants it, even if the edits are constructive.--Hmdwgf (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with my edits, raise it on the article talk page. But you need to know that Pasadena and Saint-Denis are respectively not part of Los Angeles and Paris, and it is misleading of you to imply that they are. Furthermore, if you think this is an edit war, you're mistaken. – PeeJay 22:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You've been involved in so many edit wars- from my experience, the way you often disregard the edit warring rule is a reason in itself to report you. I also understand you are a student of journalism- what school of tabloid journalism you went to, I don't know.--Hmdwgf (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I see two reverts of your edits today, and from what I can see, you made a completely unsourced attendance change that doesn't match the official figures or the cited sources. So your credibility falls apart completely there, and I don't agree that the rest of your edits were an improvement either. After being reverted once, you should've taken it to talk, not reverted again. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Luigi1090 and User:Gmira99 reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Users keep removing Sonic Boom from the list without first seeking consensus.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Luigi1090, User talk:Gmira99

<font color="000FF">Electric <font color="00FFFF">Burst (Electron firings)(Zaps) 23:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC) 1) Some users make mistakes in spelling, date and more; 2) To resolve the matter once and for all Sonic Boom (and beyond), I created a section in his talk page entitled "Production by other companies", in which I explained in detail what the TV series you have to officially put in that paragraph. Luigi1090 (talk)
 * for one week. Long slow edit war (since late March) with multiple editors involved. Hopefully in the next week you folk can work it out. Otherwise, there may be blocks waiting for each of you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone. I've read the message came on my talk page, but also seen all the changes listed above. I can tell you that this is a huge unjust cause against me: during all my activities on Wikipedia I never committed acts of vandalism on any page, because in general users (registered or not) the ruin. Back in the case of the Cartoon Network's Template, I re-edit because:

User:Clubjustin4 reported by User:Johnglen559 (Result: no violation, IP editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clubjustin4 is reverting good faith edits that are minor, factually correct and constructive to the page through edit warring and making unfounded threats on alongside another user

In relation to the actual content of the original edit itself, it consisted of correcting the status of exclusivity of Fable from "Yes" to "No," as the game itself is reported by Wikipedia's article to in truth, not be exclusive, as it is available on Mac OS X, PC and Xbox 360. The reported user also for some reason found it to be "cleaning-up" or constructive to remove the number count of total listed games.Johnglen559 (talk) 03:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP editor involved was blocked.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   07:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Inayity reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked Inayity and warned Factchecker_atyourservice)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:59, 10 April 2015
 * 2) 08:50, 11 April 2015
 * 3) 09:17, 11 April 2015
 * 4) 12:56, 17 April 2015
 * 5) 13:01, 17 April 2015
 * 6) 13:07, 17 April 2015‎
 * 7) 06:49, 18 April 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal

And on their talk page:

Comments:

Appears to be gaming the 3RR; clear pattern of edit warring and attacking other editors over content issues. I just warned, who appears to have broken 3RR. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, guilty, and my only defense is that the other user wasn't engaging at the talk page, just reverting and claiming consensus (which doesn't really appear to be supported by looking at the Talk Page discussion he referred to). Meanwhile the material doesn't seem appropriate, and at the very least it doesn't belong in the lead.
 * It is a little silly to suggest not using the talk page when the talk page subject was created by me, and everyone can see all my comments. It did not seem appropriate TO YOU!! The point of Wikipedia is not what you on your own think. Why did you continue to remove it when you had been reverted with a reason. You were not part of the hot discussion, where did you come from? to push what you think?--Inayity (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * THis editor actually has a history of being a bully bully forceful I am right editing just check their contributions and see the battleground forceful way they force their POV on Wikiepdia.--Inayity (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The body of the article has Amnesty International saying it doesn't consider Mumia Abu-Jamal to be a political prisoner. Amnesty International, as I understand it, is the world's foremost authority for designating who is a political prisoner and who isn't.  If the body of the article says he's not a political prisoner, citing to AI, why should the lead then say that he is — while citing to a source that lacks any real authority on the subject and is notorious for being highly partisan? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * THe amnesty thing was an error, but I made that clear on Talk page. But the point still stood as Amnesty would not be discussion the term political prisoner if he was never considered one.--Inayity (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your report doesn't make sense. I don't see any warning, at least not recent, given to Inayity. Inayity has not even come close to breaching 3RR. Factchecker admits they breached 3RR and yet rather than reporting them, you only warn them. Finally, you did not notify Inayity of this report as you are required to do.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23, he's clearly breached 3RR in the last 24 hours now because he reverted for a fourth time this morning. There was also a typo in one of the diffs above, which I've corrected. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And you have an agenda as pointed out. You Dr Kierman are the one who placed that sentence there and now telling people about POV. Did you not agree to that sentence? So now you have someone with your agenda you no longer agree he is a political prisoner? Is that what you are [saying https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AInayity&diff=655957214&oldid=655946183]--Inayity (talk) 08:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion at this page isn't about whether the sentence should be present or not: it's about whether an editor has edit-warred or not. DrKiernan (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he meant to report me  :(
 * However, I do notice that the diffs posted by VQuakr are of Inayity previously edit-warring on the same issue with another user. It also appears he was misrepresenting Amnesty International's statement on the subject, although that could have been a simple mistake. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * mea culpa on the notification. I pinged Factchecker and that somehow satisfied the "must do this" criterion in my brain. I have now notified the editor. The warning regarding edit warring is linked above, here. It is from April 11, which in my mind is plenty recent enough for them to be aware of our policy on edit warring. The reason I reported Inayity is because they are back to edit warring over the same section for the second time in a week, after being warned. I mentioned in my comments above that Factchecker is the other editor this time around, but Inayity was the common factor both times hence the noticeboard posting. I did not report Factchecker because I only just warned them. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. For future reference, pinging is never a substitute for notifying an editor of a report on this noticeboard, or on most administrative noticeboards where notification is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Heard. VQuakr (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably fair to say that I distracted VQuakr with my similar 3RR conduct. I'm to blame. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 01:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In all of this remember the edit war ended with an AGREEMENT, and that was that. Now comes ANOTHER editor taking out what was agreed upon without agreement on the Talk. So we were not edit warring over the "SAME THING", since the stuff I reverted was agreed between me and another editor. (I forgot his name). --Inayity (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Edits I have restored have NOT been written exclusively by me. They are the product of multi-contributions. Yet here comes some new guy who decided ON HIS OWN, that all of the stuff we spent weeks discussing should be thrown out. We have raised the issue of slant (me and another editor) fought with Dr. something and come to an agreement. Now fly by is throwing out everything because he is right and superior to everyone else and master of Wikipedia and does not need any agreement, just forcefully arrogant editing. Go and read the talk page and see if I am in error. And I suspect the great issue is an agenda editor who cannot stand Mumia and is hence deleting positive remarks from the lead.--Inayity (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I've Inayity for 36 hours. Apparently, they show no insight into their behavior. First, reverting to enforce a supposed consensus is not acceptable and not an exemption per policy. Second, reverting after a report has been filed against you is almost never a good judgment call. I am not blocking  because they do appear to understand that what they did was wrong. However, Factchecker_atyourservice is  that if they revert again at the article anytime in the next five days, they risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:123.140.222.75 reported by User:Nug (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to be an SPA intent on edit warring across multiple BLPs, rather than make any meaningful contribution. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Rovoobo reported by User:FkpCascais (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

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

Comments:

Classic case of edit-warring. Rovoobo inserted a dubious tag claiming the term was coined later and that the origin of the term srbosjek is uncertain. However, the sentence itself says " The Ustaše slaughtered the inmates of the concentration camp also with a knife that became known as the Srbosjek, or Serb-cutter . ( Reference: David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn, The Library of Congress World War II Companion (Simon and Schuster, 2007), pages 640, 646–47, page 683 ). The sentence is sourced, it says that the knife "became known" as Srbosjek, so it really ends up not being important when the knife became known by that name. Other editors removed his tag but he made 6 reverts in less then 6 hours to restore it even warning other users and asking them to discuss (see article history) totally ignoring that by WP:BRD he is the one that should not edit-war and should discuss.  This is a sensible article and making 6 reverts in 6 hours is just too much. FkpCascais (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * . Clear labeled reverts; warned prior to last revert. Oddly warned others of edit warring so well aware of policy. Kuru   (talk)  13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:156.61.250.250 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result:Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: see below; same incorrect claim being inserted into multiple articles

Diffs of the user's reverts: (version of "Universal Time" being reverted to)
 * 1)  ("Coordinated Universal Time"
 * 2)  ("Universal Time")

version of "Greenwich Mean Time" being reverted to.
 * 1)  "Greenwich Mean Time"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Warning that introduction of outdated information will be reported to administrators:

Discussion of the same factual error on the talk page of closely related article: Talk:Coordinated Universal Time

Comments:

Editor was blocked for edit-warring on time and calendar related topics by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on 2 March and again the same administrator on 10 March, the latter for 1 month. User has returned to the pattern of coming up with some time or calender related idea that is refuted by many reliable sources and stuffing it into some time or calendar related article.

There is a discussion of the previous edit warring block at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive269 but since administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise decided to describe the behavior as edit warring, I am making the report at this noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC), additional diffs inserted 15:42 mean solar time at Greenwich.


 * Please identify more than three alleged reverts within 24 hours. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no misinformation.  All changes are sourced per the discussion at Talk:Coordinated Universal Time.   The way to handle this is to discuss on talk, not run to AN3.
 * I see an edit by me at 08:22 16 April and another at 09:48 this morning in line with the discussion. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that my cite of infoplease is being described as "stuffing" an idea. 156.61.250.250 (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This appears to be an edit dispute that needs to be resolved through appropriate channels like WP:30 or Dispute resolution noticeboard. I don't see 3RR being violated at the moment.  only (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:176.25.207.254 reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result:Blocked 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: User has ignored suggestions to discuss this on the article talk page. Comments:


 * The IP only have four edits, and all of them are identical reverts within 24h, without any comments.Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with this, Ymblanter, and I apologise for the fact that I failed to notify the user that they'd been reported here. It slipped my mind somehow, and I'm happy for the block to be reviewed if anyone thinks that I acted improperly. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Strivingsoul reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result:no violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments: Not a 3RR case, but the editor has been warned before, and recently, about edit-warring. Despite being admonished to follow WP:BRD, the editor continues to make sweeping, controversial changes and then edit-war aggressively when reverted. I have attempted to discuss this content dispute with the editor, but he has demonstrated an inflexible bias that has more than verged on fringe theories and anti-Semitism at times:    While this may not be something to be addressed at this particular noticeboard, I can't help but suspect that his extreme POV is part of what makes it difficult to convince this editor to behave responsibly on this particular article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If he continues, I suggest taking it to ANI.  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa  <font color="FireBrick">K <font color="2F4F4F">atie   07:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Dishonest sweeping charges! I have no comment on charges of anti-Semitism for I have already explained that my position is a critique of Jewish/Zionist power elite which is just as legitimate as critique of any other political group. As for charge of edit warring, the reason I insisted on my edits is that I had elaborately summarized and explained my edits, while the removals were sweeping and unexplained and by a user (user:Monochrome Monitor) who has a history of such sweeping unexplained deletions. Sweeping deletions with no explanation or justification and then forcing the contributor to discuss his contributions with a user adamant to censor some unfavorable referenced facts from the page seems like a good strategy of gaming the rules to suppress some facts that are unfavorable to the political persuasions of the user! Strivingsoul (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I support a topic ban on the Syrian Civil War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Syrian_Civil_War_and_Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant). As for "sweeping deletions", I was undoing Striving Soul's previous "sweeping edits" which hadn't been discussed on the talk page. It got to the point where he pushed the limits of what he can put on the article under any pretense of neutrality, ie this edit . --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to explain why referenced materials must be deleted with no explanation! Wikipedia encourages users to be bold and try to enhance the content so long as Wiki guidelines are taken into account. But your past record on the page (e.g. accusing editors of being "Shia extremists" for editing the page with referenced POVs and information that you didn't like; and then insisting on unexplained sweeping deletions) shows that you deserve a topic ban on the topic for your persistent bias against any sourced information that enhances the article NPOV. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I deleted your material because on the talk page it was established that Press Tv sources had to be corraborated, and they weren't. As for calling you a "shia extremist", you called the Houthis (Shia extremists) "lions", which is pretty indicative of extreme views. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  15:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:223.176.190.65 reported by User:Mfb (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) Based on very similar IP and version history, also diff and original change

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:223.176.190.65 (done by Jaaron95)

Comments:

Repeated nonsense in the article and edit war for it. --mfb (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * . This isn't really an edit war; it's simple nonsensical vandalism that you're free to remove. I've blocked the latest IP and will semi-protect the article if they keep rotating out of the block. Kuru   (talk)  15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is Administrator intervention against vandalism the right place then? Okay. --mfb (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, and usually faster. No big deal; it all comes out in the wash. Kuru   (talk)  15:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B16F:48A2:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 reported by User:CharlieTheCabbie (Result: no violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 657087910 by 132.3.53.81 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 657093945 by Keilana (talk) repeated addition of vandalism highlighted by obvious ignorance of Latin"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 657096850 by Wikiisawesome (talk) failure to cite a reliable source or explain changes to long-standing content confirmed in article text"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 657098303 by Wikiisawesome (talk) repeated vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 657098875 by Wikiisawesome (talk) try actually looking at the (Latin) motto's linked article. Now what's your source for Madonna's  song being the anthem"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Discussions has been held over edit summaries. <span style="background: turquoise;font-family: 'Segoe Script', 'Comic Sans MS';">(t) Josve05a  (c) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Warnings have been given by at least 2 other users to cease disruptive editing and provide sources. These have been ignored. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti| diskussjoni 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think my reversions of this IP's edits were in error. Looks like the IP was correcting some earlier vandalism and I was too quick on the trigger. My fault. wia (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Does that actually excuse the edit war from occurring though? Surely it should have stopped before it hit that mark. CharlieTheCabbie|paġna utenti| diskussjoni 22:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know, the whole situation seems more my fault than the IP's. Perhaps IP should have posted on my talk page, but I should have paid closer attention to what I was doing. I'd rather not have the IP blocked when the problem stemmed from my own jump-the-gun reversions. I will offer to stay away from anti-vandalism work for a token period as a gesture of goodwill. wia (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Screw up admited good faith should be applied and a fishing trip may be required but that should be sufficient. Amortias (T)(C) 23:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * . Goodness. Apologies to Puerto Rico. Kuru   (talk)  16:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Timbouctou reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Appears not to be willing to discuss on talk page or stop reverting the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Tuvixer ignored repeated requests to explain his recent additions, which include listing unsourced ministry budgets in a list of government ministers. He never tried to start a discussion or resolve the matter in either article talk or my user talk page - that is, not until he decided to file this report, after which he started a discussion in the talk page, issued a warning on my talk page, filed this report and then notified me about it - all in the space of 11 minutes. Sounds rather disingenuous to say the least. <span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk ) 17:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It is the first time I am reporting someone. It is not the first time you have harassed me and you are doing it even now on the article bout the Ministry of Culture(Croatia) --Tuvixer (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And where have you tried discussing the matter at the other article you've mentioned? 17:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> Timbouctou (<span style='font-family: Georgia, serif; color:#639;'> talk )

User:217.118.81.17/User:217.118.81.21 /User:217.118.81.22 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:, ,

This IP-hopping editor is edit-warring to insert the following uncited POV text into the article on the Crimea
 * But it must be said here that this United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted only by very small majority. By example, only 51.81% of total UN members voted for this resolution. This small majority is only 33.80% of world`s population. The international community was split.

A later version is:
 * But it must be said here that this United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 was adopted only by very small majority. By example, only 51.81% of total UN members voted for this resolution. This small majority is only 33.80% of world`s population. The international community was split. Even under strong American pressure, the majority were minor. It was a real Pyrrhic victory for American policy.

Diffs of the user's edits to do this:
 * 1) 09:09, 18 April 2015
 * 2) 13:16, 18 April 2015
 * 3) 08:15, 19 April 2015
 * 4) 13:53, 19 April 2015
 * 5) 14:08, 19 April 2015
 * 6) 18:40, 19 April 2015
 * 7) 18:56, 19 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:52, 19 April 2015

There has been no discussion on talk pages. Four different editors have reverted the IP editor. Some of them explained why in their edit summaries, e.g: "reverted uncited POV edits by 217.118.81.17", "Reverting POV OR", "OR"-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Comment Page protection requested, might be more beneficial as ip-hopping. Amortias (T)(C) 19:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * . Per Amoritas; the rapidly rotating IP makes semi-protection a better option here. Kuru   (talk)  19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

User:174.124.182.172 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Reported to AIV and warned about edit warring.
 * 1)  - Reported to AIV and warned about edit warring.
 * 1)  - Reported to AIV and warned about edit warring.
 * 1)  - Reported to AIV and warned about edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pretty clear cut violation of WP:EW and WP:NOTCENSORED. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:GogoLive123 reported by User:Jetstreamer (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Links can be found at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents where I started a thread regarding the warring pattern of the user concerned.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Many warnings left at the user's talk regarding the removal of content.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user also left a message at my talk (diff provided in the link to the thread at WP:ANI above) and in their latest edit summary to the article that borders WP:BATTLEGROUND.--Jetstreamer $Talk$ 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I saw after seeing the WP:ANI report and checking, this definitely looked like Edit warring to me. I would definitely agree that a (short) block is in order, possibly a somewhat longer block when the personal attack (see: diff) is factored in. --IJBall (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Unesco2015 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ removing "social networking". This is a real chapter-based activism group that has been around for 6 years. It has had over 1000 events"
 * 2)  "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ Adding viable data. Removing biased legal reference used to distract and create POV"
 * 3)  "/* Zeitgeist: The Movie */ Removing incorrect 3rd party ref to claim the film supports "new world order"  interests. This is a fringe 3rd claim with non consensus."
 * 4)  "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ Removing incredibly biased and unfounded ref to  "profit" for peter joseph. Who is putting this crap in here?. Peter joseph has never claimed to lead any group/"
 * 5)  "Removed "social networking group". In the 6th year history of the movement, never has this term be seen or heard. The movement is a network of physical chapters across the world"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 657349409 by Ian.thomson (talk) Restoring non POV change."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 657351194 by Ian.thomson (talk) Removing biased vandalism"
 * 8)  "Showing source as documentaries"
 * 9)  "fixing biased vandalism"
 * 10)  "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ repairing POV based on blog sources"
 * 11)  "removing poorly sources blogs references that paint absurd and false POV"
 * 1)  "/* The Zeitgeist movement */ repairing POV based on blog sources"
 * 2)  "removing poorly sources blogs references that paint absurd and false POV"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * The article attracts WP:SPA fans who want to censor the article and turn it into a promotional piece. Unesco2015 is just another one.  User has also engaged in talk page vandalism and their first edit was an utter fabrication about consensus.  Unesco2015 is WP:NOTHERE except for WP:ADVOCACY.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Nulla Taciti reported by User:Khestwol (Result: Restriction for one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to (no link to Wahhabism in the "Ideology" section of the infobox):

Diffs of the user's reverts (with misleading edit summaries):
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (Nulla Taciti decided to delete my warning note about disruptive editing to them from their talk page .)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut violation of WP:1RR. The user is repeatedly pushing a certain POV while disruptively edit-warring in articles related to Wahhabism. They are removing any link to Wahhabism that they find from multiple articles. Another user, Mbcap, who is also pushing the same POV as Nulla Taciti, had also violated 1RR recently, after reverting 2 users in a period of less than 1 hour in the same article. Even Mbcap had agreed that something must be done so that the removal of the Wahhabism reference from the ideology section of the infobox is stopped. But all of that, and even the 1RR restriction, is not protecting the article from disruption by Nulla Taciti. Khestwol (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Other users active in the article are welcome to comment here, including Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, GregKaye, and Aronzak. Khestwol (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This is remarkably WP:BADFAITH behavior on the part of Khestwol. Wahhabi/Wahhabism is considered a derogatory sectarian term: this was the result of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page WP:CON that this user is completely misrepresenting (see also The Vocabulary of Sectarianism "The utilization of Wahhabi as a negative moniker is not new"). Khesteol is using sensational language and clearly pushing his own agenda regarding the inclucision of an obviously contentious term, and hasn't even attempted to discuss this matter before coming straight to the admin noticeboard on the most flimsy pretext (didn't even realize the page was 1rr, which I usually adhere to on a global basis regardless). Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * stop deleting notice from your talk page about this report. Also, there have been discussions about 1RR at Talk:ISIL in the past, so a user like you active in POV-pushing in the article can not claim to not knowing about 1RR. Khestwol (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I will remove WP:BADFAITH from my talk page whenever I see fit. You are literally edit warring on my talk page while engaging in a bad faith attempt to get an editor you disagree with blocked. Talk about a hypocrite. And stop with the WP:PERSONAL (e.g. "POV-pushing") and debate the issue at hand — why are you so insistent on inserting sectarian hate terms into articles? Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the only other article edited in relation to the misuse of the term Wahhabi was al-Nusra Front, where an article was quoting a Shiite sectarian figure disparagingly using this term. It is uncommon to except 1rr. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * When you violate WP:1RR it doesn't help to argue you were right, so it was justified. It is now too late for Nulla Taciti to self-revert. But in my opinion they might be able to avoid a block if they will agree to make no edits regarding Wahhabism on any article for the next seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input EdJohnston. Also note that Nulla Taciti has been repeatedly deleting my warning note and AN/EW notice to them from their talk page . Such unhelpful behavior should be considered vandalism. Khestwol (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Khestwol, your reading of policy is not correct. Per WP:BLANKING a person can remove almost anything from their own talk page except declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A person can also remove warnings for edit-warring from their talk, as much as 3 times within a period of less than 15 hours? Khestwol (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem Khestwol? You are going to quite great lengths to WP:HARASS me over this unintentional 1rr. It really speaks to your character, as well as your intentions regarding this subject. I didn't "use misleading edit summaries" and a user can revert whatever they like on their own user page or talk page, as many times as they like (especially when the user continutally reverting is conducting themselves in such an inflammatory manner). Stop clutching at straws. And yes EdJohnston, I agree to avoid the subect of Wahhabism for the next week — probably would have anyway. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have found the editor Khestwol to be an extremely bad faith editor who decided to open a thread on the ISIL page about my conduct in regards to 1RR, instead of approaching me first. Secondly Khestwol himself has broken the 1RR rule here and here. It is very rich for Khestwol to be alleging that I am pushing a POV when he/she has consistently pushed for Wahhabism to be included in the infobox, despite not enough weight in sources. Mbcap (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Nulla Taciti has agreed to make no edits regarding Wahhabism on any article for the next seven days. I'm accepting this assurance in lieu of a block for the 1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If an admin could remove the subject Khestwol dumped on the talk page of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant titled "clear cut edit warring" linking here, that would be great. This user appears to be obsessed with smearing me on articles I edit frequently, the title isn't accurate or fair at all, and this matter was quickly resolved anyway. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Laddypat reported by User:Widefox (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 657489974 by Joseph2302 (talk) Undid deletion of New York Times sourcing information. Please put edit protection block back on page as per Chris Wilson at Wikipedia."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 657463744 by Smartse (talk) Added New York Times reference link that was questioned and undid negative, non-factual comments that were questioning the validity of this article."
 * 3)  "Added Vine back as another platform where Basedow's show Culture Pop is on."
 * 1)  "Added Vine back as another platform where Basedow's show Culture Pop is on."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on John Basedow. (TW)"
 * 2)   "WP:COIN notified"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removing afd templates on John Basedow. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Disruptive SPA & COI editor refusing to engage in dialogue and continuing to remove maintenance templates and the AfD after final warning given. See also Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Widefox ; talk 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reported the same user to ANI. They hadn't been warned about EWing, but had been about AFD templates and are clearly being disruptive. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They're blocked. Withdrawn. Widefox ; talk 13:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Laddypat has been blocked indef by User:Parsecboy per WP:NOTHERE. There is a longer explanation of the problems at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Mustu6233 reported by User:Summichum (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
 * 2)  "/* List of Da'i al-Mutlaq of Dawoodi Bohra */"
 * 3)  "The changes is been made by looking towards the followers of super majority sects of group who are following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and let the world know who is currently the authoritative of the community.The other sect have less than thousand ppl."
 * 1)  "The changes is been made by looking towards the followers of super majority sects of group who are following Syedna Mufaddal Saifuddin and let the world know who is currently the authoritative of the community.The other sect have less than thousand ppl."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

long history of reverting correct information, possibly a partisan of one of the claimants to Dai.

WARNINGS given by admin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mustu6233#April_2015 Summichum (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see if User:Mustu6233 will respond. He has not edited since this report was filed. Though it's not a 3RR violation it's a case of long-term edit warring -- several reverts since April 9. (Declaring one candidate to be the winner, while having no reliable source to confirm it). EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – Indef per WP:NOTHERE. Mustu6233 continued the war without responding here. He is an enthusiastic partisan for one side of the dispute and has no edits outside the topic of the Dawoodi Bohra. It would be optimistic to assume he will ever be able to add neutral content to the encyclopedia.  EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not blocked yet, and continues to add his POV. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked at 16:09. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TheGracefulSlick reported by User:CrazyAces489 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

Editor 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: [diff]

Comments:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs)

This user is only adding irrelevant tags on specifically  my pages as a type of personal revenge. Yes, I remove the tags because he/she has no base reasons to adding them. This user is negatively affecting articles and it needs to stop as I don't want part in his/her sad edit war. TheGracefulSlick ( talk)
 * Result: Both parties warned. Any further addition or removal of the notability tag may lead to a block, unless consensus is found on Talk. User:CrazyAces489, if you believe the article is not notable consider nominating it for deletion. That will allow others' opinions to be brought in. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you  , after report was filed user:TheGracefulSlick reverted again.  I will bring forth an AFD.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Amber388 reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: Protection)
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:

Amber388 has continually placed blog sourced and other self published defamatory material into the article. WeldNeck (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected two days. User:WeldNeck and User:Amber388 are warned for exceeding WP:3RR. Since I don't see a genuine BLP issue here, none of the reverts are exempt under the BLP exception. WeldNeck appears to hold distinctive views and would be well advised to carefully check for consensus before making large changes. He has made numerous appearances at admin boards since 2013. I previously [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive272#User:Lightbreather_reported_by_User:WeldNeck_.28Result:_Protected.29 warned him at this noticeboard] for inserting partisan language into articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Using a self published blog to call an individual a "neo-fascist" doesnt qualify as a violation of WP:BLP? Several other users agreed with this interpretation so its not like I am in the minority here. As far as my "numerous appearances", this is my third edit warring report I have filed. I dont see how that constitutes as "numerous".  WeldNeck (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thought you are right that the comments of Philip Sandifer including the phrase 'neo-fascist' don't belong in the article, since the comments were made only in Sandifer's blog. But you were also [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Beale&diff=prev&oldid=657524021 removing the comments] of Theodore Beale himself.  This material is allowed by WP:BLPSELFPUB. A person can't be defamed by quoting what they have said about themselves. EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no notability conferred by secondary sources, wouldn't this be considered WP:NOR? I thought one of purpose of WP:PRIMARY was to avoid quote mining? 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article. It is up to the consensus of editors whether Beale's own statements are interesting enough to include. Since he expresses himself very colorfully, the material seems interesting and relevant even if distasteful to many ('I consider women's rights to be a disease that should be eradicated'). Also it's germane to an overall impression of whether he is outside the mainstream. For example, whether he is a white supremacist. Criticism by others may or may not be fair, but his own statements can't be said to be unfair. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest some techniques or examples of how to include information from the subjects own blog without synthesizing new information? It is turning out to be somewhat difficult.  My understanding is that if the subjects own writing could be fairly described by some as white supremcist, unless the subject writes that himself, as editors we can't characterize it that way ourselves in our own words.  If we can find reliable sources that characterize it that way, we can identity that source and quote them.  Is this an accurate representation of how editing it should work? Kennedy Trengove (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. If you want to use his website postings to indicate to the reader what Beale believes, you'll have to limit yourself to taking direct quotes from his writing, within the constraints listed at WP:BLPSELFPUB. Unless you can find a third party who has characterized his views. We can't say 'white supremacist' unless that is his own choice of term. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IP-hopper (132.3.61.##) reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Two articles semied)
Page:

User being reported:
 * - Geolocates to near 132.3.61.81
 * - Geolocates to near 132.3.61.81
 * - Geolocates to near 132.3.61.81
 * - Geolocates to near 132.3.61.81

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:

Comments:

IP addresses belong to the same building. It's clearly the same person. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll also note that 132.3.61.81 is beginning to edit war at Minoan civilization, continuing edits made by, for the same WP:ERA-violations as at Tetragrammaton . I was going to suggest just protecting Tetragrammaton, but it looks like we've got an IP-hopping POV pusher with no interest in collaboration or conversation, and so may need to block the base. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * And another IP (66.87), probably their cell phone. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected Tetragrammaton and Minoan civilization. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I happen to be on this IP at the moment, and I got a message it is being discussed. I'll let you in on two things. 1. It is aliased or "NAT"ted. The IP I see as a user is not what you see for me as the outside world, even though it is a fully routable IP. 2. It is from a US Government IP hoarde. So on any given day, dozens of people might use it. It might he possible to track back to find out who using it at a given moment, but I really don't know how it could be done reliably. I don't like the idea that someone is vandalizing WP articles, and ordinarily I login and edit as my UserName. But some folks just are not responsible like that. 132.3.61.78 (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Had Ed blocked the IP addresses, he probably would've set it up so that editors with accounts could still log in from that IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

User:برسام reported by User:Samak (Result: Warned)
According to agreement in this article and talkpage-Requested move, The correct writing is Hamadan not Hamedan. Even a valid source for example Encyclopædia Iranica wrote Hamadan but this user do not accept the agreement 1 and 2. plz investigation-<font size="+1" face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">SaməkTalk 19:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * If User:برسام doesn't respond to this complaint a block should be considered. Meanwhile I've applied move protection to the article. The question is whether to render the town's name همدان into English as 'Hamadan' or 'Hamedan'. Since this is an issue of romanization there is no answer that is certain to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:برسام is warned. If they continue to change the spelling of Hamadan before getting a talk page consensus they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:José Antonio Zapato reported by User:José Antonio Zapato (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Can you take my word that I've exceeded it? Here is the revision history, my reverts are clear from the comments: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Voice_for_Men&action=history

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm reporting myself for violating 3RR to remove disputed BLP content. Note the article is under article probation. Prior to exceeding 3RR I posted on the BLP Noticeboard but the discussion has not progressed beyond those involved in the dispute on the talk page. I've asked editors on the talk page to delay restoring content until the noticeboard discussion is concluded. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * per community sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Anglicanus reported by User:TITUSIIX (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user is violating Wikipedia's editing policy and restricting the legitimate content population without COI of pages he deems irrelevant. I am not sure if this is the proper forum for this but the user is engaged in behavior that is borderline bullying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TITUSIIX (talk • contribs)
 * See a complaint about the same article at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. The reported user, Anglicanus, has only applied a COI template to the article but hasn't disputed the content. There's hardly an edit warring case here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User:TITUSIIX is going out of his way, wherever he can, to make complaints about my belief that he is engaged in very obvious COI editing on articles for church organisations that I believe he is very closely involved with. He also claims to be a "new" editor who has only been editing on Wikipedia for 24 hours. For such a new editor he certainly has very quickly acquired a considerable amount of know how on how to edit and do many other tasks on here. It is all highly suspicious. Anglicanus (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * More attacking behavior. I tried to edit a page and create another on my first interaction with Wikipedia. As a result I have been dragged into a ridiculous argument with an individual who is accusing me of being a fraud and a liar. If this is the sort of interaction I can expect on Wikipedia from zealous individuals then I certainly have no time for it. Good Day! TITUSIIX (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The only "attacking" behaviour seems to be coming from you. Your editing seems highly suspicious to say the least and I believe there are good reasons for me to suspect you of deliberate COI editing. I brought my concerns about this to your talk page but instead of responding to them properly you chose to keep on editing and reverting me and blanking your talk page instead. Such behaviour on your part does not encourage confidence. Anglicanus (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus all of your bizarre warnings on my talk page. Anglicanus (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * – Anglicanus did not violate 3RR. People such as TITUSIIX getting started on Wikipedia sometimes make mistakes. Even if they do have a COI this is not usually a fatal problem unless they are here for promotional reasons. I encourage User:TITUSIIX to seek appropriate assistance from experienced editors. Though User:Anglicanus, who identifies himself on his talk page as a priest, seems to be an expert on some of these matters it might be best for him to step back from direct confrontation with TITUSIIX. Admins will keep an eye on the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

User:BosnaSRB RS reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)  after this report and notification on their talk page
 * 9)  and some more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk page. I got this on my talk page. ???

Comments:

This is a clear case of an agenda account. A snowball block would be the most reasonable solution. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * – 1 week. It's hard to know what this editor is up to, except making record-breaking numbers of reverts. If he requests unblock maybe we will get an idea. Otherwise an indef appears likely. EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)