Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive281

User:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )
User being reported:

Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with  that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently   ).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826

He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later:

As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article ).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love, Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.

I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg     ) and  (eg      ) simply revert.

I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize 's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage in addition to my own talkpage  as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me, , , , , and  among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion here has already ventured into WP:TLDR territory).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Wikipedia, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hanswar32 continues to edit war --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & ) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage . You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag . Hanswar32 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - There have been various conversations on article Talk pages as well as on the Porn Project Talk page along with related Project Talk pages and Noticeboards such as the Film Project, DRN, and NPOV. So far it seems acceptable that significant awards like the AVN Award and XRCO (wins and nominations) are OK to list. This leaves the main applicable policy to be that of Notability with regard to content in that it states that it does not apply to content. In other words, listing a win for a non-Notable award is OK as long as its sourced. Furthermore, if analysis or anything past a basic statistic like a or Nominated, must be sourced by a secondary source. This is just basic application of existing Policy.


 * The problem here is squarely on the unilateral interpretation of these Policies in much the same way that another User did last year. This instance does not seem to have the tendentiousness that the previous issue did, but it has similarity. One example is this discussion at Talk:Brandi_Love where the Accuser claims that the main industry trade publication has a conflict of interest because it is supportive of the subject's non-profit activities and is trying to call into question any of its reporting on the BLP subject. I highly doubt anyone would make that claim (at least a believable one) of the San Francisco Chronicle or the Boston Herald with regards to programs they support and people associated with those programs. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Clarifying and summarizing Hanswar32 was blocked for edit-warring three days after he started editing with his current account. That block was removed based on his promise to stop edit-warring and learn and follow our dispute resolution approaches. He's failed his part of that promise by continuing to edit-war extensively and to use reverts as his main tool for addressing disputes. After being given a formal edit-warring notice for his latest round of edit-warring, his response was to revert. After this discussion was started, his response was to revert. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What "formal edit-warring notice" you're referring to (dif please)? As for the difs you provided, all I see is the addition of sourced and fairly basic content, an award win. Are you "clarifying and summarizing" that you don't like this? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" above. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your last comment Ronz neither clarified nor summarized anything except your own delusional beliefs built on falsehood instead of facts. All the evidence I presented and everything I wrote above proves that I indeed have kept my promise. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've provided diffs for everything. Are you contesting that you were blocked, or that you wrote what you did to lift the block, or that you made the many reverts since? --Ronz (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this a troll attempt Ronz? Because I find it hard to believe that someone could lack this amount of comprehension after I've made myself abundantly clear. I'm not going to dignify your questions with a response except to point out that you've had a history of being blocked for edit-warring . Hanswar32 (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Boy, that's a dishonest response by Hanswar. Ronz may not be a perfect editor, but his only block for edit warring came in 2007. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kindly point out where I have been dishonest? That's right, you can't! And your claim is in and of itself dishonest. The one thing you got right though is "Ronz may not be a perfect editor". My only block was a year and a half ago within 3 days of creating my account, so I'd say Ronz and I have a similar history and that was exactly my point. Next time try harder, thanks. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Wolfo is right about one thing, there's are dishonest statements here, but IMO its Ronz trying to claim that a previous incident is somehow evidence that current edits they do not like amount to Edit warring rather than just focusing on the issue at hand, whatever that is. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems Hanswar32 is unable or unwilling to answer simple questions to clarify his aspersions. Seems he would rather attack others or editwar than follow our dispute processes. That's why we're here. --Ronz (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually Ronz, I've answered everything sufficiently and you lacking basic comprehension or trolling is not of my concern. I'd like to see you answer to your transgressions and take responsibility for your false claims and disruptive behavior. Hanswar32 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hanswar32, I've a suggestion that might help. Please just tell us whether or not you will from now on follow your promise to learn and follow our dispute resolution process rather than reverting. --Ronz (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I've never broken my promise to begin with, your suggestion seems kind of redundant, doesn't it? I have a suggestion of my own though: tell us whether or not you will refrain from making false accusations in the future and that you have learned your lesson from this miserably failed attempt of silencing those who disagree with you. Hanswar32 (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that the edit-warring has continued by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Scalhotrod . Seems that Wolfowitz considers the statements by Hanswar32 and Scalhotrod as reason to go ahead and remove the disputed content once again .  If nothing else, it clearly shows that Hanswar32 has certainly not resolved the dispute with Wolfowitz nor for which Hanswar32 was blocked. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's so much wrong with your comment that I don't know where to even begin. Let me start off by declaring that continuously referencing a 1.5 year-old block that occurred within 3 days of account creation and lasted for only 2 hours due to it being immediately lifted after the admin accepted my appeal request is not only irrelevant for the reasons stated, but a despicable sign of desperation to win a losing argument by grasping at straws. You on the other hand had to serve the entire duration of your block for edit-warring after an admin refused your appeal request . What your comment does clearly demonstrate though is Hullaballoo's insistence on edit-warring/reverting by ignoring what I and many other editor's have established and agreed upon in numerous talkpages. After such discussions take place, Hullaballoo goes into hibernation mode for weeks to months and suddenly develops amnesia or plays dumb (I'm not sure which one) by doing massive reverts across a large number of articles as if discussions never took place. Scalhotrod and I, along with various other editor's have done our part by discussing the issue, coming to an agreement/consensus, and applying appropriate edits to the articles based off this consensus with Hullaballoo all of a sudden waking up from hibernation and having to repeat the cycle once again by reminding him and rediscussing the issue over with the same results. How you were able to conclude that I am blameworthy for allegedly failing to resolve a dispute with someone who exhibits such behavior as Hullaballoo through your observation that justifiably reverted a single page from among 6 pages Hullaballoo decided to impose his fallacious views on despite documented overwhelming opposition to them is beyond me. If you're so eager on finding a resolution to something which is clearly only bothering you, go ahead and report the source of the problem which is Hullaballoo and leave those who engage in discussions over the matter and come to an agreement over it alone. I'm sure you were also aware that this discussion was about to be archived and so to keep it active you decided to post a frivolous comment with information two days old that you were fully aware of the entire time. Is it fun being Ronz? Stop embarrassing yourself and let it go. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hanswar32 now continues edit-warring directly against his promises to stop: --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this another pathetic troll attempt? Or just a desperate attempt to prevent this discussion from being archived? As a liar, I'm not expecting you to answer those questions since you've already ignored/failed to address anything previously mentioned above. And since you are a liar, I'm sure you already know what I'm going to say regarding the diff you cited, so don't read into this as me feeding the troll, I'm merely mentioning for anyone who happens to read this without checking the diff for themselves that the edit cited is completely benign and void of any warring (it involves no other editors, it's not an undo/revert and not even a restoration of disputed material taken off the article by an opposing editor) and Ronz, the troll/liar, knows this but is harassing me. I've gone ahead and formally warned you on your talkpage to stop your disruptive behavior/harassment. Keep it up, and you'll probably add on to your already multiple block history. Hanswar32 (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So no explanation for the continued edit-warring then? --Ronz (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this troll, will you. Asides from the amusement, how do you suggest I proceed to ward off this minor annoyance/harassment? Hanswar32 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Another revert --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You conveniently missed reading the edit summary which I purposefully left expecting your continued harassment and specifically wrote to the editor that I'm not going to revert you to be absolutely and unambiguously clear, and I didn't. I've already warned you on your talkpage, so if you keep harassing me and continue with your pitiful lies, nothing would be more satisfactory than seeing you endure another prolonged block to your history. Hanswar32 (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You restored disputed information, in a BLP of all places, without discussion. That's a revert. That's more edit-warring. It is nice you're adding edit-summaries more often. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has ever disputed the information. It was merely written in an incorrect section under "awards" and I placed it in the correct section under "career". Nice try troll, good luck next time. Oh, and regarding discussion about other issues that were disputed in the past, I've cited above numerous examples where discussion took place and consensus was reached with several editors. You on the other hand are an expert at avoiding discussion as evidenced by your failure to address anything I write above and choose to employ classic trolling/harassing behavior. Amusing, but ultimately pathetic. Hanswar32 (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kendoalkaedasincorporate reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Jessie episodes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User persists in adding same unsourced material about a future episode, even after several editors have reverted and warned user about the material being unsourced. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kellie01 and User:Doubletoasted01 reported by User:Xochiztli (Result: )
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts by User:Kellie01 Reverts by
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 1)
 * 2)

User:Kellie01 was warned by User:Cullen328, Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: My warning to User:Doubletoasted01:

Users do not seem interested in discussion. My response to a previous editor on the talk page:

Comments:

As I've said, these two do not seem interested in discussion. The fact is that the actress has explicitly used "Mexican-Kenyan" to describe herself, yet these users believe that by simply swapping established references, without discussion, they can change Wikipedia as they see fit. Judging from the similar edits they have done (and the warnings they have both recieved), it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest they are sock puppets. Xochiztli (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you, . Lupita Nyong'o was born in Mexico and according to the Mexican Constitution, as described in Mexican nationality law, anyone born in Mexico is a Mexican national and citizen, and this status cannot be taken away. Nyong'o embraces her dual Mexican-Kenyan citizenship as described by the reliable sources. Kellie01 is a single purpose editor who edits to impose their own OR interpretation of citizenship and nationality on various articles about notable people who have changed citizenship or have dual citizenship. This editor has been edit warring for weeks to impose their preferred view at Lupita Nyong'o. I hope that this disruption can be brought to a stop. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:97.90.159.126 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

User:IndianBio reported by User:Brocicle (Result: )
Page:
 * User being reported:

I wasn't sure which page was the correct one to report this user so I apologise if this is the wrong section. User IndianBio has violated the three-revert rule on the page American Horror Story: Hotel. They have reverted three times in the past 24 hours and re-added information under the pretence of another unrelated edit as stated in the edit summary. I tried to take it to the talk page but received no response from the user.

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

All of the above reverts occurred within a 24 hour period. Also please note the last diff under 'filming' is where the information was re-added which, if I read the three-revert rule page correctly counts as a revert.

I notified the user of their violation TWICE on their talk page only to have them remove it both times and being told to "get lost".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of second edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I understand that I also violated the three-revert rule so if there is a punishment on me for that I will accept it without protest. Brocicle (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the sections on the article talk pages are efforts to resolve the underlying issues. Specific discussions of removing the tag are at Talk:Southern strategy. See also Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

Comments:

The editor is engaging in Tendentious editing. User also posts as an IP and two of the reverts above were by the IP. This diff is an acknowledgement by the IP that he is also GetOverPops. Note that the 3RR warning issued mentioned specifically the use of IPs. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * North Shoreman is being dishonest in this complaint. He is correct that both IP reverts were mine (I had to find my password again).  However, he is wrong about the edit war.  He is trying to simply prevent edits he doesn't like.  Last time he claimed something similar and was found to be wrong.  The backdrop is there is an neutrality dispute associated with the article.  I was away for a bit and an editor removed the tag even though the neutrality dispute had not been closed.  I readded the tag today.  It was removed again so I added it again with a statement that the neutrality dispute was not closed.  The neutrality dispute had been archived so I will concede there was some merit to the previous removals.  However, I have since reopened it and it is now on the current dispute page THUS it is an active dispute and thus the tag is correct (I did change the date).  I resent that NS is attempting to use the rules to avoid a discussion of the article flaws.  Regardless, so long as the neutrality dispute is active the tag SHOULD be there so my addition should not be seen as an edit issue.
 * NS has NOT tried to resolve the issue with the dispute tag on the talk page. This is not an edit war and wasn't the last time NS claimed as such.  I would ask that because the Neutrality tag SHOULD be there while a neutrality discussion is in progress no action is taken against me for simply returning the tag.  Thank you.Getoverpops (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Accusations of dishonesty are in bad faith and the evidence is clear that Getoverpops violated the 3RR rule and has returned to edit warring. He also admitted here that this was his IP. Scoobydunk (talk) 04:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I admitted the IP address was mine in the paragraph above. Why are you acting like I'm trying to hide it?  You improperly removed the tag after I restarted the neutrality dispute.  The other editors would be right to say I let the dispute laps and thus the tag should be removed.  However once I restarted the dispute on the dispute page it was 100% proper to add the tag again.  You were wrong to remove it.  Restoring it was the correct thing to do.  My accusations against NS are valid.  Previously he incorrectly claimed an edit dispute after just 3 edits (he falsely claimed a 4th which was the removal of obvious vandalism).  Given that why shouldn't I believe he is doing this in bad faith?Getoverpops (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You were not cleared -- the referral went stale. As the referral makes clear, your edit warring as an IP had caused the article page to be semi-protected and in a separate issue your IP received a 24 hour block. I never claimed more than 3 reverts -- edit warring can occur w/o a violation of 3RR. See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277 for details. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * NS, Let's get your story straight. First, do you agree that the article is CURRENTLY the subject of a neutrality dispute, the one you linked to above?  If yes, then why are we even here?
 * For the record, the dispute tag was removed while I was off line for a bit (personal reasons). The dispute itself was never resolved but initially I didn't know the dispute had been archived.  So when I saw the tag had been removed I added it.  Someone removed it.  I added it again with a note that the dispute was not closed.  After that I saw that the dispute had been archived.  At that point I reopened the dispute and, since the dispute was now open again (and is currently on going) I added the dispute tag back to the article.  Are you claiming that an article that is the subject of a neutrality dispute should not have a tag?  So I added the dispute tag back because the article was now the subject of an active dispute.  Scoobydunk removed the tag for a 3rd time despite the fact that at the time he removed it the dispute was reopened and I had posted this in the article talk section.  I would argue that adding it the 4th time was undoing vandalism as much as anything.  So unless you think the tag currently does not belong on the article, why are we here?Getoverpops (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We're here because you were edit warring which is a violation of WP policy and were warring to the extent of violating the 3RR rule which you've been warned about before.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

– 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Southern strategy. User:Getoverpops and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See: His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks. He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277
 * Not that it matters in terms of edits (I had mentioned previously that I was out of town for much of the week) but why is consensus needed for a POV tag? The conversation previously went stale because I was away for a period of time.  We were actually getting towards a resolution in the archived thread.  How was I to handle this case?  Since a POV discussion IS active why is it not correct to include the tag?  Personally I think this was NS trying to be petty and SD, an editor who had NEVER posted in the thread until I came in (I have no idea how he decided to start trolling my posts - yes, I have examples of his attacks on my posts) just trying to make things difficult for a new editor.  Regardless, I would like some explanation as to how you think I should have handled a POV tag removal for a thread that has an active discussion.  I think this punishment was uncalled for.  I believe it justifies my view that NS is not acting in good faith with regards to the edits in question.  Please advise.Getoverpops (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to note that the first thing Getoverpops did upon return from his 48-hour block was revert the same article again. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Report for Edit Waring Article Govind Kumar Singh  by  single user

 * Admin kindly note there has been continuously removed content references from Article . It is valiance of Wikipedia 3 edits policy . Please do check and take action . Thank --Rainu2006 (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The edits appear to be fine and there is no violation of 3RR here. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also: next time you restore your post on Sitush's page you'll definitely be blocked for edit warring, Rainu2006. See warning on your page. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Wintertanager reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: Voluntary restriction)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)


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


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


 * Comments:

Note these span more than 24 hours, but persistent, protracted EW is clear. The Dissident Aggressor 04:02, 8 May 2015‎
 * Also note that is not me. The Dissident Aggressor 04:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Would welcome other eyes on this page - have documented every edit very transparently on talk page. Wintertanager (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Having never in my history on this WP been flagged in this way (which is disconcerting to me) would like also to defend myself by pointing out the edit history of the editor whose tags I reverted. 79.97.226.247 talk page.  I did not instigate, addressed every edit in talk page, and am pretty sure I followed the rules.Wintertanager (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * [| As I have already pointed out to you], wikipedia is not a forum for the PR that you have inserted at Hugo Barra, Matt Williams (Internet entrepreneur), Rick Schwartz, and  M. T. Carney. 79.97.226.247 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And therein we disagree, as I do not believe those are 'PR' pages at all, but rather well sourced, neutral and encyclopedic BLPs absolutely meeting notoriety. I am allowed to write or contribute to those, have adhered closely the WPs rules, commented in talk regarding my edits, and expressed enthusiasm for other well reasoned edits towards an improved page.  For a few of those pages (some of which I haven't touched for years) I have made stern edits in line with NPOV, UNDUE, etc.  Your blanket, cursory sweep of simply tagging pages I have worked on or contributed to is exactly what I reverted.  Wintertanager (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I believe a block is in order - it's clear you believe you are entitled to continue removing these tags against consensus. The Dissident Aggressor 20:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Against consensus? Um, I think a 'consensus' is the last thing I would use to describe the activity on aforementioned talk pages. Wintertanager (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't recognize that you're an outlier and repeatedly editing against consensus of 3 other editors. (Not to mention you mostly write puff PR pieces about tech execs) You need to be blocked or topic-banned from writing about tech executives.  The Dissident Aggressor 14:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wintertanager's constant removal of the advert and resume tags from Mark Ghuneim (eight times since April 28) looks like an edit war. It is not up to his sole discretion whether these issues have been resolved. In my opinion he can avoid a block for disruptive editing if he will agree not to remove any more quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will absolutely agree not to remove any quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May and respect the rules of WP, but I am perplexed by this verdict. Knowing this verdict, Dissident Aggressor is now adding tags to pages I have worked on without any reasoning or specificity, which is all I ever asked for.  I hope someone will dig deeper into this. Makes me want to throw in the towel to what I had thought were very positive contributions to WP. Wintertanager (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He has, since this verdict (5 min ago), tagged the following pages without any explanation in talk. I doubt he knows anything about any of these BLPs, could tell you nothing about the topic of any of these pages.  Their only common thread:  I've either written or contributed to them.
 * [Matt Williams]
 * [Hugo Barra]
 * Wintertanager (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Voluntary restriction. To avoid a block for disruption Wintertanager has agreed not to remove any more article quality tags from biographical articles until the end of May. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this restriction today, these two guys have gone to town on multiple pages I have written - flagging with all kinds of (what I believe are) unfounded tags - again the only common thread being I wrote them. Saddens me.  And helpless to do a thing about it. Wintertanager (talk) 00:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And other folks have joined in discussions on the talk pages supporting these edits. The Dissident Aggressor 12:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:100.11.221.199 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
 * 2)  sock  ""
 * 3)  sock  ""
 * 4)  IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
 * 5)  IP sock 100.11.221.199 "Undid revision 661727495 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 6)  IP sock 100.11.221.199 ""
 * 7)  IP sock 208.54.35.169 ""
 * 8)  single-edit sock ""
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Theodore-Edevu. (TW★TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on John Theodore-Edevu. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "COI template"


 * Comments:

Edit-warring by IPsocks of COI sockmaster. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/MrEditor88. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The sockmaster has also broken 3RR and the report is shown below:
 * User:MrEditor88 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on John Theodore-Edevu. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "COI template"
 * 2)   "/* Sockpuppet investigation */ new section"


 * Comments:

User:Whyedithere reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

 Second Page:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1)
 * 2)  3 minutes later
 * 3)  9 minutes later
 * 4)  5 minutes later
 * 5)  4 minutes later
 * 6)  3 minutes later
 * 7)  2 minutes later
 * 8)  2 minutes later

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: 6 reverts in less than 20 minutes on CSI: Cyber after 8 reverts in less than 30 minutes on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. No block issued since it's more than 24 hours since the last revert. But the renewal of CSI: Cyber for another season was indeed just a rumor. User:Whyedithere could have saved everyone some trouble by listening to other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:GabrielKuka reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring adding unsourced information against existing sources. Typical sock/nationalist POV. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring and nationalist POV-pushing. Repeatedly changing 'Greeks' to 'Illyrians'. Making a speech denouncing 'the greeks'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:NeilN reported by User:Gdteda (Result: Filer blocked as a sock)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

I assume this is about me. The OP is a sock of an indef blocked editor: Sockpuppet investigations/Adityashashtri --Neil N  talk to me 15:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OP has been blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: The filer has been blocked indef as a sock by User:Salvidrim!. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Leprof 7272 reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Leprof 7272 has engage in a revert edit war having reverted back edits which appear to remove sources and also make no great improvement to the WP:BLP article for Nassim Taleb. Editor also reverted all caps comment that telling me to leave off from my personal talkpage after I requested that they not comment on my personal page but rather comment on WP:BLP article talkpage. LoveMonkey 23:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also say I categorically deny the quality claim made by the complaining editor, and simply ask reviewing editors to compare the state of the citations before and after  I did my work to complete citations needing  or  tags, and to consolidate redundant citations. An immediate effect of the reversions that this and the second complainant made of my extensive work was to reintroduce redundant citations and at least one broken URL. It was this that led me to revert, asking them not to throw baby out with bathwater. Moreover, this initial reversion of theirs were accompanied by no Talk (vs long Talk entry by me, made earlier), and only very limited Edit summaries. Clearly, I stumbled into an article where these editors are not used to anyone coming in and doing bold edits, but these two are not in any way blameless, either vis-a-vis AGF or other policies regarding respect and communication.
 * Note, finally, in terms of quality. The lede, before my arrival, made mention of "systems" in the paragraph about the antifragility and convex tinkering concepts. That reference was vague, so I went to the journal Gene that was cited—later arguments to the contrary, a source very much within my formal doctoral training and expertise—and derived from that article that the systems that were being referred to were "biological, [and] economic", and I added this to the lede. This is a further example of the material that was removed when these two editors did their team reversions. As an educator, I stand by the quality of my citation editing and my text additions. User:Limit-theorem may be a specialist in finance, but sometimes specialists in their areas cannot see that what they write is confusing or ambiguous. I have nothing to say about the all caps-Talk page issue. I was trying to persuade this uninformed reverting editor to stop and read my edit summaries, so as to not revert good work with the ANI-related matter. I could not get through to him, then, or now. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Accused responds in detail:
 * First, the diffs offered are prejudiced, and fair-minded respondents will have to fully review the article Edit history (beginning 7 May, here ), comparing to the Talk page, here . As well, the counts being offered are biased. My work was reverted in block; for sake of clarity, I tried making small sequential edits, explaining how each edit improved things (e.g., again removing citations that were redundant between lede and main body, one at a time). Because I did these one at a time, they are being counted against me as multiple reversions, when in fact, they were simply a strenuous attempt to explain what had been done earlier, why the blanket revert by the two complainants was re-introducing citation issues into the article, how my innocuous edits were separate from the ANI issue—that is, the ideal of small, serial, carefully explained edits is being held as nefarious, while the initial blanket reversion made without Talk or substantive Edit history discussion that began the conflict is being held forth as praiseworthy. Please see through this. The long list provided by User:LoveMonkey obscures what actually happened, and my motives.


 * Second, note that beginning on 7 May, I made a long series of good faith edits, and documented them extensively with a Talk section, and with detailed Edit summaries for each edit. Please note the difference in length of Edit summaries I gave, before the conflict started, and those given by User:LoveMonkey and User:Limit-theorem in their initial, conflict-beginning reversions.


 * Third, in re: the complaint instruction: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too.": This complainant knows that the dispute has ended, but is pursuing this anyway, for personal reasons unknown.


 * Fourth, note that the matter at hand is complex, because the edits involved confound two matters—the ANI matter, see here, which is about whether Prof Taleb's personal web pages should be used to populate his WP article with biographical information, and separately, the matter of various copyedits that were made to the article that were unrelated to the ANI issues.


 * Fifth, I acknowledge my reverts were ill-advised, given the parties involved. They were simply aimed at separating these two issues, allowing the valid copyedits to remain in place, while the ANI matter was discussed.


 * Sixth, I would note that each time I attempted to return solid content to the article, I accompanied my doing so with pleas to the reverting editor(s) in the Edit summary and/or in personal Talk page notes—asking them to slow down, and consider separating the good from the bad. I would further note that no corresponding care was taken by the two editors reverting (LM, filing this complaint, and User:Limit-theorem). That is, I explained what I was doing and why, and in response, they simply reverted without any attempt to engage at any substantive level. I leave it up to these two editors to explain their relationship, and any concertedness of their actions.


 * Seventh, even though I ceased editing at the article, these two editors continue editing, obfuscating the ANI discussion, and obfuscating this discussion. That is, rather than engage in discussion, the editor's reverted me part and parcel. Then, on being confronted that their baby-with-bathwater reversion resulted in damage to the article, they quickly engaged in further edits to remove any appearance for a basis for my earlier good faith edits. I challenge this as seriously undermining the the good faith of their response to me and my editing.


 * Eighth and finally, this matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, insofar as I am absenting myself from the article in question, and from contact with these two editors. I am letting the valid copyedits be discarded. The article again contains unnecessary duplication of citations that I had earlier removed, and possible deadlinks that I had replaced. The article again contains repeat appearances of the personal webpage at issue. That is, rather than the good-faith outcome of allowing the removal of the offending self-published BLP citations until the ANI could rule, this complaining editor, and his compatriot, have had their way—the article continues to contain the personal web page citations, and my separate (essentially innocuous) cleanup copyedits went out with the bathwater.


 * In conclusion, penalize me if you must, even though I will do no further reversions, or edits, at this article. These two editors take advantage of a system that allows first to revert the upper hand, even if their reversion breaks many other rules, including AGF and expectations of communication via Talk.


 * Cheers, I am at your mercy. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Editor Leprof 7272 also made edits to other editors talk pages which appear to violate talk page policy LoveMonkey 00:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is off point regarding the claim regarding the edit warring. Please submit a new, separate entry regarding this violation, so that we can focus on the behaviour on both sides, if you think it worth the time of yours and others to do so. Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is critical to note that aside from erratic behavior (he went ballistic on my page with uppercase shouting then realized he was angry at the wrong editor) his knowledge of the subject matter related to the page, mostly applied math and math finance, appears to be very limited. Limit-theorem (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As already noted, apology already offered for this, long before the matter escalated. If you are admitting this as the matter motivating this reversion matter, please say you. But one can only apologise so many times.
 * Otherwise, you are entitled to your opinion regarding my credentials. I simply refer those visiting this matter to the last two references you added to the article:
 * * Derbyshire, J., & Wright, G. (2013). Complements scenario planning by omitting causation. MISSING NAME OF PUBLICATION, VOLUME, PAGE NUMBERS, ETC.
 * * Mattos-Hall, J. A. (2014). Strategy Under Uncertainty: Open Innovation and Strategic Learning for the Iceland Ocean Cluster (Thesis). MISSING INSTITUTION, URL, ACCESS DATE, ETC.
 * …and encourage those judging to compare the manner of this, Limit-theorem's most recent sourcing effort, to the citations, before and after  I did my recent citation completion and redundancy work. I stand by my scholarly credentials, and find this further criticism—besides being off-point—as simply being laughable, in the face of the clear evidence.  Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a deeper problem with this editor. The citations were completed (missing parts) 3 hours ago from GS... I fail to understand this confusion. Limit-theorem (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In response I can only say that this is a further example of how you obfuscate matters. Yes, you have fixed these two citations, after I called your attention to them. You did the same earlier in the ANI discussion when I called attention to the fact that your reversions duplicated citations between lede and main body, and introduced a . I am sure any point I will raise here, you will hurriedly rush to the article to make it disappear. This does not alter the fact that your two recent citation additions (disappearing issue though they are, at your hands) are still valid examples, still valid comparisons, to the extensive citation cleanup work I did 7 May onward. The only "deeper problem" here is that you are faced with a faculty colleague who is as credentialed as you, as confident as you, and so not cowed by you (though I will grant that you and LM have decidedly more wikilawyering experience, and more apparent time on your hands). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, User:Leprof 7272 might avoid a block for the 3RR violation if he will take a two-week break from the *topic* of Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This will require him to stop editing the article, and to cease commenting on the article or on the other editors on all pages of Wikipedia, including noticeboards. We shouldn't have to put up with the steady stream of invective and all his charges of bad faith. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This proposed cessation from editing the article has already taken place. Otherwise, the only place that I am commenting on this matter is here. (Please note date stamps on all entries at Talk pages; those entries were made when I was trying to encourage these two editors to stop the reverting, and separate the ANI issues from the innocuous citation completing and redundancies edits.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I also say, having looked at the careful attention you have paid previous situations, that I look forward to your more full response to the actual points made above. When reverts are initiated without Talk that therefore defy AGF and simple respect, it should be expected that those spending many hours at constructive edits would be put out. Please review the edits that I made, beginning 7 May, and the Talk that was offered in accompaniment, and compare these to the way in which the edits were pro forma rejected without discussion or explanation afterward, by the two complaining editors. As one of your colleagues notes above, regarding another editor that "rarely uses edit summaries," my overheatedness in using all caps in my clearly engaging and persuasion-attempting edit summaries cannot be counted for less than those reverting and offering no or only the most cursory or dismissive Edit summaries. The two complainants are not blameless here.
 * Again, I ask that my edits and Edit histories be examined, one-by-one, beginning 7 May, alongside Talk entries and dates, before having a look at the response they were given by the complainants, so that an accurate picture of what transpired can be seen. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Per User talk:EdJohnston's comment, I have committed to leaving this article permanently to the two complaining editors, and as well, since there is nothing left to persuade, will leave no further communications at either of their Talk pages. I will also no longer reply to them here, leaving other editors to glean what they can of the real matter by a quick start-to-finish read through here, and then a look at the Edit history at the article, 7 May onward until I finished, and then when these two began their reversions. I accept I over-reacted to the feeling of being reverted without substantive Talk or explanation by these two, but contend, in summary, that these two were not admirable, upstanding WP citizens in the way they responded immediately in their opening reversions, or since (e.g., see LM's opening play of expertise card, saying my "knowledge of... subject matter… appears to be very limited" and his clear pejorative and obfuscatory "[t]here seems to be a deeper problem with this editor", both appearing above).

Hence, I would ask this matter be closed with a warning, on hearing my commitment to leave the article to these two clearly dedicated editors, at least until the ANI decides how to rule on the central issue—the matter of allowing the title subject Taleb's personal web page as a substantive source of self-published CV and other biographical information for Taleb's article. Even then, I don't imagine I will return. The risk is too easily predicted/modeled, and will almost certainly outweigh any predicted benefit. So, I invite Administrative warning, but also ask that the behaviour of the two complainants in their initial reversions, insulting statements, etc., be reviewed, and any further appropriate warning be issued there as well. Last word from me on the matter. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)


 * Comment (pro Leprof/pro restraint): Uninvolved in the current question, however (full disclosure) an occasional helper to editor who works on improving Wikipedia with Leprof here. I have read through some of the general concerns on all sides listed here and will say I have precious little time to get deep into all points.  If we all step back from this however and consider Wikipedia pillars and the good of the encyclopedia an editor that is using talk pages to further discussion, understanding and wikipedia goals for articles should not be shown to the rest of the project as having done something worthy of a block or the proposed pseudo/selective block.
 * I think we all do great harm and damage to Wikipedia by showing the world what happens when people of intellect, accomplishment and forceful ideas are shown that Wikipedia is not a place for them, that their time here will be ultimately wasted and abused. It accelerates a brain drain that can prove fatal to this project's ability to sustain and attract future contributors.  All editors should be welcomed especially ones that ask tough questions and seek difficult consensus on talk pages while maintaining civility.  Leprof 7272 I have always known as a tough but fair and overly civil editor, nothing in this case shows otherwise.  No editor is perfect, we all make mistakes but I have wondered increasingly what type of mistakes Wikipedia wants to sanction more, those made with clear intent to improve and lift up the encyclopedia in a collegial way (like Leprof 7272) or those mistakes that have clear intent to tear down, rip apart and create headaches and time wasting for dozens or hundreds of editors (not Leprof 7272, but happy to answer questions about it).  Disagreements happen all the time, what kind of editor do we want on Wikipedia the next time those disagreements happen?  I have seen Leprof 7272 in those disagreements before and this editor has done tons for wikipedia that even I would not have lifted a finger for, and given my contributions that is saying something for Leprof 7272 that I can't say for more than 3 or 4 other editors.  People that can make this encyclopedia a place we are all proud of sometimes read these current threads and think better of it, polices/guidelines need to be followed and applied equally, sometimes we just need to step back and realize what exactly that means.  Thank you for the time.  Market St.⧏ <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;"> ⧐ Diamond Way   05:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The problem has little to do with biographical sources (I looked and there is rather little cited from Taleb's website that is not found elsewhere). It is the disruptive behavior of the editor and the type of editing. I am myself biased against self-citation except when it is a quote. There are false claims by editor Leprof who removed sources, made claims that the New York Times and the Financial Times were not good sources and created incoherent verbose narratives. It is very bad when people accuse others of bad faith and pour random abuse on editor's pages and, in two years of editing, the first time I experience that here. Limit-theorem (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I first edited this article around two years ago and it's on my watch list, although I've made less than ten edits since then. First off, there are not 7 reverts. It's at most 4 by my count. Second, neither Limit Theorem nor LoveMonkey have clean hands in this matter. They've both shown some ownership behavior in the past and undone well-explained reverts without resolution of the policy-based issues on talk. I'm not familiar with the details of the current interaction, but I do believe that from what I have seen of LeProf's editing on this article, he is trying to correct undue and primary-sourced content which unencyclopedically promotes or misrepresents the subject. SPECIFICO talk  13:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifco is under topic ban. So the same set of rules apply to Specifico as I can contest and possibly edit on articles I have agreed not to, however none of my actions have triggered ARBCOM sanctions where as Specifico editing has. LoveMonkey 13:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Per his comment above, User:Leprof 7272 is accepting a two-week self-imposed topic ban from Nassim Nicholas Taleb. This requires him to stop editing the article, and to cease commenting on the article or on the other editors on all pages of Wikipedia, including noticeboards. He is accepting this in lieu of a block for the 3RR violation.  EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dr.Ted Rothstein DDS PhD reported by User:Agtx (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Further reading */  Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
 * 2)  "/* Further reading */  Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
 * 3)  "/* Further reading */  Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
 * 4)  "/* Further reading */  Citations supporting dental professional's new role in providing services to the obese/ compulsive overeater as part of a healthcare team."
 * 5)  "A new citation in Further reading: Ref article in Medium.com: Dr.Ted Rothstein dentist/orthodonist  encourges dental professionals  to offer their services to control compulsive overeating as part of a "healthcare"  team."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "3rr warning"


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


 * – EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lukaneville2012 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661879240 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 661879490 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 661879815 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 661880267 by NeilN (talk) McDavid is going to be drafted by edmonton"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 661880745 by DVdm (talk) connor macdavid will be drafted by edmontomn"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661879815 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 661880267 by NeilN (talk) McDavid is going to be drafted by edmonton"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 661880745 by DVdm (talk) connor macdavid will be drafted by edmontomn"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Connor McDavid. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Connor McDavid. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

BLP exemption for me. The 2015 NHL Entry Draft is on June 26-27th <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the editor is willing to stop. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . I blocked before seeing this report. If they post an unblock request agreeing to cease edit warring and acknowledging they understand why they were being reverted I am willing to consider unblocking. Tiptoety  talk 18:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:DVdm (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:, 25-Apr-2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), 27-Apr-2015, reverted by user
 * 2), 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user
 * 3), 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user
 * 4), 28-Apr-2015, reverted by user
 * 5), 10-May-2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1), 29-Apr-2015, user
 * 2), 10-May-2015, user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1), 29-Apr-2015 on article talk page, user
 * 2) User talk:Monochrome Monitor

Comments:


 * I wouldn't really call making the same edit weeks apart "edit warring". Also, the issues I raised weren't resolved at all. He's in the category "Jewish atheists", why not the category "Jewish physicists"? The category "American people of Jewish descent" is inappropriate according to its own definition. "Listed are American people for whom reliable sources have been found indicating partial Jewish ancestry, but who are not adherents of Judaism." He had fully Jewish ancestry, not partial.--<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  13:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If indeed you feel that the issues you raised weren't resolved at all, you should probably set out to resolve them on the talk page. Waiting a few weeks and then coming back to silently revert against (or with absence of) consensus, is i.m.o. edit warring—slow edit warring in this case. - DVdm (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I understand. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New><small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  15:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I really didn't want to find you at the drama boards MM. I asked you to leave it be and only go back to the article TP when you had marshalled your arguments. Please can we close this as resolved. MM please take a short break from any Jewish-related material and do some quiet stress free gnoming for a few weeks. I am meant to be your mentor. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned for technical violation of the ARBPIA WP:1RR at Israel. The pattern suggests this editor often gets into trouble. Did you have no idea that adding the category 'Jewish physicists' could be controversial? We don't identify people as adherents to a religion against their will. I hope this pattern doesn't continue. People seem to be cutting her some slack on grounds of being new.  This can't go on forever. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: User agreed to remove the POV tag)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

Getoverpops just returned from a 48 hour block for a 3RR violation. Twice since he returned he has made the exact same reverts that led to the block. The blocking editor stated the following to justify the last block (:


 * Blocked – 48 hours. Long-term edit warring at Southern strategy. User:Getoverpops and his IP have been at AN3 before on the subject of this article. He tenaciously keeps restoring the POV tag while making little effort to advance the talk page discussion toward resolution. See:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive275
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277
 * His IP has been blocked in the past for personal attacks.
 * He first added the POV tag in March. It sounds like he intends to keep the POV tag there until the article is changed to a version that he favors. Tags, like any other article content, need consensus. If your concern is still not addressed, open an RFC on some well-defined question, and leave it up to the consensus as to whether a POV tag is merited.

It seems like further action is needed. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said the first time the neutrality dispute went stale because I was unable to post for a while. I have since brought it back because I'm back. Until the moderators say the case should be closed why should the dispute tag be removed from the article. I've also asked for further information on your previous review because I see that you were posting information on your talk page rather than on the public page where I could make my side of the story hear. Isn't the better plan to either get a neutrality ruling or let the process work it's way out?Getoverpops (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: In my opinion Getoverpops should be blocked for continuing the war. But we could close with no action if he will promise to refrain from restoring the POV tag at Southern strategy between now and June 30. EdJohnston (talk)
 * I know I'm not in a position to ask but could I ask to amend the terms to "will not add it back without reviewing with you first"? As I asked before, I think NS is trying hard to avoid discussing the issues with the article.  Also, can I ask why an active neutrality discussion should not have the tag?  I thought that was the standard protocol?Getoverpops (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's my offer. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. I disagree that I am engaged in an edit war as I have made very few changed to the article and most of those changes have stood.  Can you explain why it is incorrect to have the neutrality tag given that a discussion is on going?  Doesn't having the discussion make the tag correct?  Getoverpops (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Under your theory, any single editor would be able to keep a POV tag on an article forever regardless of others' views. All that would be needed is for that person to keep posting regularly to the dispute thread. EdJohnston (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm moving future discussion to your talk page. Getoverpops (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Getoverpops has removed the POV tag to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this is sufficient. Getoverpops removed the POV tag but has now taken to inserting his POV into the article without garnering consensus from the NPOV Noticeboard or finishing dispute resolution. You can also see here that he is changing the lead to suit his POV by asserting a false debate.  So instead of edit warring over a tag, he's now just going to bypass the tag/dispute resolution process and insert his POV directly into the article. I believe a topic ban is appropriate since he just attempted to "move the goalposts".Scoobydunk (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This has now been [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Getoverpops#Continued_edit_warring_at_Southern_strategy_after_previous_block.2C_two_AN3_discussions resolved per a discussion elsewhere]. Getoverpops has agreed to a voluntary topic ban from the Southern strategy on all pages of Wikipedia until June 11. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Onasloga reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (same revert twice in April)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Reinstates incorrect election results into the text and the results table
 * 2)  Reinstates incorrect election results into the text and the results table again
 * 3)  Belatedly realises that the source he is using refers to the new seat totals following by-elections in 2014, but still reinserts the text to the results section (now meaning the text in the results section talks about seat totals as a result of the 2014 by-election rather than the 2013 elections, and now contradicts the results table)
 * 4)  Reverts the misleading text back into the article

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kuwaiti general election, 2013 (not a diff, but you can see the various attempts I have made to explain why his edits are wrong)

Comments: I am now up to three reverts on the article, so could someone else remove the incorrect text that has been re-added? Thanks, Number   5  7  21:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for 3RR violation. The article is called Kuwaiti general election, 2013. It is unclear why 2014 results need to be included in the totals. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Excipient0 reported by User:Human3015 (Result:Blocked 3 days)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  reverted  Revision as of 22:17, 10 May 2015
 * 3)  reverted anti-Vandal bot  Revision as of 22:22, 10 May 2015
 * 4)  reverted  Revision as of 23:33, 10 May 2015
 * 5)  reverted  Revision as of 23:41, 10 May 2015

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

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

Comments:

User is involved in edit war with 3 users including a anti-Vandal bot. -- Human 3015  talk • 18:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? when did you try and resolve anything? you know this is original research and it will be removed eventually I just had to bring this topic up so others can see this pov garbage and synthesis on the article which users like you support knowingly. Excipient0 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * He again done some reverts on same page, in last 2 hours he got notice of 3RR by 4 users and one notice by Anti-Vandal bot regarding issue related to same page.See here. -- Human 3015  talk • 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * He has been blocked by admin of Vandalism noticeboard for 3 days. So I take my this report back. Thank you. -- Human 3015  talk • 23:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * by MaxSem. only (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Travelbybus reported by User:117.53.77.84 (Result:2 weeks for both)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He has been no responding the warnings.

Comments:


 * Totally uninvolved user here, but I just took a quick look at this, and good grief. 3RR hasn't been violated recently, and the things the IP cite here are not from the same article, but this edit war dates back to the 30th of April, and I should note that Travelbybus was blocked previously for edit warring across multiple articles (1st May, 48 hour block). Since then, I count three reverts on the Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War article, three on the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), and potentially others across other articles. Given the previous block and the fact that they only seem to edit-war on political and war articles, my personal recommendation would be an indefinite block, until such time that Travelbybus learns not to edit war. The IP is clearly not blameless either, but they were, at least, reverting to the status quo, and they did at least leave talk page messages.  Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Travelbybus might need an indefinite eventually, but I'm just giving the 2 weeks for now as the account's second block. only (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result:6 month block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 661901367 by Chasewc91 (talk) It is reported, speculation does not belong, I repeat. Unless Taylor confirms it herself."
 * 2)  "/* Writing */ I understand that reliable sources post it, but speculation does not belong."
 * 3)  "/* Development and release */ no source for this. Yes, I know it's true, but even stuff that is true needs a citation."
 * 4)  "unsourced genre."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 661841933 by 90.205.252.38 (talk)"
 * 6)  "still, no source"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 661787192 by 2602:304:1066:BC59:C9B0:F213:D91F:1D04 (talk) unsourced"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Katy Perry addition */ new section"


 * Comments:

User was warned and immediately continued his revert spree across various articles including All That (Carly Rae Jepsen song) and Drake Bell. Continues to fail to understand the exemptions of 3RR as seen on the user's talk page. User has been blocked multiple times in the last few months for edit warring and at one point was under a 1RR restriction. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: User was notified of this discussion, but blanked the notification. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removal of unsourced content, what am I supposed to do? Just leave it there? And I'm sorry if I don't have the right piece of mind and under severe stress and try to continue editing anyway. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is a problem, someone else will surely remove it. 3RR exempts the reversion of BLP violations (and other legal policy violations), contributions by banned users, and vandalism. That's it. Unsourced content, unless it is controversial information about a living person, is not included. How have you been blocked multiple times for this and you still don't understand that? –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph, please use the cn tag for things that aren't sourced but not libelous, vandalism etc. You can also check for yourself; stuff like this is easily sourced. Calidum T&#124;C 22:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph's month long block for edit warring expired a week ago and he's resumed the same behavior of revert, revert, revert without heeding what other editors are saying. I advised him to edit cautiously but it seems that went unheeded. He has time to revert, but not enough time to participate on talk pages. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to Joseph's editing prior to this week, because as far as I know haven't interacted with him before this week, but I have noticed recently Joseph was warned on his talk page for what seemed to be completely reasonable revert, where another user had been warring against multiple users to change the opening sentence of Meghan Trainor discography, despite not having consensus to change this longstanding article content. . This was one of the Trainor articles subject to recent disruption, and I get the feeling some of the dispute might have something to do with recent issues brought to WP:AN , --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is completely unrelated to that discussion, please stop following me around everywhere and making bad-faith accusations against me. Regardless of the intentions, the examples provided in the report are a serious and blatant 3RR violation. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Chase, I am not following you around. Seems ironic that you'd say that considering mutliple users have described your interaction with certain editors as houding. I've had wp:an3 on my watchlist for a long time, and I added the Meghan Trainor articles to my watchlist after the flurry of ANI's, RfC's etc. From my limited observation of Joseph's editing and the warnings he has received, this dispute appears related to the general Meghan Trainor disruption which is why I referred to wp:an discussion.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "A certain editor" ≠ "certain editors". And since when are Bad Blood (Taylor Swift song) and Drake Bell Trainor-related articles? Get a grip, and stay on topic. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with, and not because of anything other than what I'm seeing here from you at this noticeboard, . You seriously need to stop with the bad faith by bringing up other shit and trying to insert it into discussions as if it's relevant to the discussion at hand.  In no way is what you've carted over here from previous discussions related to anything in this one.  Please, do us all a favor: drop the stick and -- as Chase said -- get a grip. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And might I note that there was 3 reverts on Drake Bell by an editor as well, so there should be something on as well. And I'm sorry if I don't have all that much time to look for sources or do all that much right now.  -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN has only made one revert to that article in the past 24 hours. You are far more likely to avoid a block if you accept and acknowledge that what you did was wrong instead of making excuses or trying to shift the blame onto others. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't have time to look for sources for material you want to add then don't add the material? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yet I had sources. There is a section on Philanthropy in the article. I don't have much time to add sources, most recently, actually the past couple of minutes. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And again, that "source" is a press release. If you don't have time to participate in the discussion, leave the contentious material out, and come back when you do have time. Just reverting and refusing to participate by saying "there's no time limit" is not really on. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Joseph, you need to read WP:PRIMARY and see what constitutes acceptable use of a primary source. Please especially look at WP:EXCEPTIONAL. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When a talk page discussion is opened, the article is reverted to the version before the revisions started, that's all I was doing there. Oh, and I like how you both reverted my edits on the certain pages. Tag-team, anyone? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I can determine, the label was introduced by a now-blocked sock at the beginning of May and then you reintroduced it. You've been editing for the past couple days. Why have you not posted anything on the talk page to justify your last two reverts? Do you take "no time limit" to mean you can ignore the talk page forever? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said I was ignoring it. I haven't made that many major edits, and that's easier than a giant talk page discussion like this one. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - Only two of the diffs appear to be clear reverts, the rest appear to involve removal of unsourced content which I'm not sure we want to discourage.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsourced content, except for BLP violations, is not included at WP:3RRNO. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Mentorship has failed. 1RR has failed. 5 blocks have failed. Since Joseph's last block was for one month and he continues to argue instead of learning from his mistakes, I would suggest a block of at least 3-4 months as a final warning. –Chase (talk / contribs) 22:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Might I note that other editors seem to always get leeway? See #3 on this page for an example. And it says blocks are not supposed to punishment? From stuff like this, it certainly seems so. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold yourself accountable for your own actions and quit comparing your circumstances with others'. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but they are supposed to be preventative of disruption to the encyclopedia. Seeing as you have been blocked 5 times previously for edit warring and are here again for an obscene 3RR violation, continuing to argue and refusing to acknowledge the problems with your edits, and the fact that you continued to revert on other articles after being warned against edit warring: you're clearly going to continue disrupting the project if you're not blocked. –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do anything differently in the future? Your past history is troublesome so it's kind of hard to see you changing. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether Joseph is blocked or not, I would like to know myself what he would do differently in the future here. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd offer to assist mentoring after any block, if it was okay with SNUGGUMS. Suppose we block for another month, maybe two months max. More would be punitive, IMHO. Let Joseph get his head together. He's very young. Then keep the 1RR in effect for say 6 months. And I work with him. If Joseph actually wants to learn something, I can help. He seems potentially a valuable contributor. Alternatively, he admits right now he's been hot headed and promises to abide by the existing 1RR AND work daily with his mentor(s). Possibly even offer to work in completely different pagespace. Definitely stay out of this pagespace. He would have to say it right now and prove it by keeping to it. Would that satisfy User:Chasewc91? BusterD (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, BusterD. While I'm no longer Joseph's mentor, I'd still be willing to help him and give advice. <b style="color:#454545">Snuggums</b> (<b style="color:#454545">talk</b> / <b style="color:#454545">edits</b>) 00:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My only problem is that Joseph has done mentorship and 1RR in the past and failed to change his behavior; I'm not sure what going through these rounds again would do. Age is no excuse since we have a number of young editors who mostly steer clear of edit warring and other disruptive behavior. Ultimately, an admin who reviews this gets the call on what to do, but I would very much prefer that regardless of the length and/or conditions of the block, that this serve as the last warning for Joseph before he's blocked indefinitely. He's had many chances and he needs to take this one seriously; hopefully knowing that this could be his last block before he's out of here for good will encourage better behavior. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Why do you want this user blocked indefinitely? Chase, this seems like similar overkill to recent wp:an. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think he should be indef blocked now, but he's been blocked 5 times for the same behavior and if he continues to edit war after a 6th block, there's really no need in keeping someone around who's just going to resort to the same disruptive behavior. Blocks increase in length and if the user doesn't learn then they're blocked for good. It's how Wikipedia works. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That seems sensible to me. While it's not up to me about the length of any block or whether this would be the final warning, I'd be willing to work with Joseph if he'd be willing to come clean in this thread. No excuses, no comparisons to how others are dealt with. Joseph, do you want to be a wikipedian, or is this just something else you're getting tired of doing. You've got a number of accomplished editors willing to support you if you're willing to see this in a fresh way. BusterD (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Looking over the current report and what I can gather from the history, a 1RR restriction for Joseph seems like a workable option. I'm not seeing a solid case for longterm block. This current report does appear to be a 3RR violation, but mostly removal of unsourced content. I'm not sure how it would benefit WP to block Joseph long term, especially given multiple editors expressing willingness to help this young editor.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment is correct: nothing, so far, has worked to keep this editor from edit warring and editing disruptively.  I'm far from perfect, have made plenty of my own mistakes in Wikipedia, and have done and said some stupid things.  But really... Coming off a month-long block just days ago and edit warring in the extreme.  Again?  Ridiculous.  I nearly reported JP a couple of days ago for edit warring at the Meghan Trainor discography article here  and here  not because it was 3RR but because the edit warring behavior had obviously begun again - especially with the uncooperative and smart ass edit summary "Why am I always the one having to?" in reply to my suggestion he go to the talk page after a discussion had been started.  He is disruptive and doesn't care he's disruptive.  He edit wars because he thinks he's right, he doesn't want to discuss on article talk pages, he completely ignores WP:BRD and doesn't even make an effort to remember BRD.  I am not interested in seeing him punished or sanctioned or indeffed.  I'm just interested in seeing -- at the very least -- some maturity gained after he comes off a block.  It has NEVER happened yet.  Not once.  A seriously longer block with an agreement to being mentored and 1RR when he returns from the block is, in my opinion, the only thing that's going to make an impression on him. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  00:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Winkelvi, those are actually diffs from an ongoing edit war that you started on Meghan Trainor discography, where you reverted multiple users in your attempt to change the opening sentence of the lead. You were repeatedly reverting longstanding article content, absent consensus to make those changes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha, telling me for edit warring when you did the exact same thing, but got off scot-free. I'd agree to what the other suggested, but  just aggravates me to no end, has been there since my first block when I was a new editor and didn't know much better, and reported me about three more times, getting blocked every time. All other editors seemed understanding to me, except for him. Is there anyway I can prevent him from being anywhere near me? He is an obvious Hound. I don't know, what's that thing called, an IBan? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BusterD's condition was I'd be willing to work with Joseph if he'd be willing to come clean in this thread. No excuses, no comparisons to how others are dealt with. Complaining about Winkelvi's behavior in a thread about your own isn't following that condition. If you want to agree to BusterD's suggestion, you need to demonstrate that you know what the problem with your edits is. Don't just say "oh I know, I agree" or say whatever will prevent you from a harsher sanction. As a non-admin, I can't force you to do this, but I would highly suggest that you thoroughly look over WP:EW and WP:BRD and explain in at least a few paragraphs what edit warring is, why it is wrong, how much you can revert in 24 hours, what is exempt from 3RR, and how you'll avoid edit warring in the future. It would show editors that you take this seriously and are willing to change. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I still want an admission of responsibility. There's that other thing where responsible human beings decide to honor each others' space and voluntarily not frack with each other. I know I can trust Winkelvi with such an agreement. Nobody wants more anger or resentment. Not even the editors who disagree with you Joseph. All we want is a civil workspace where we each can get things done without too much heat. Even you want that. All we have to do is back the frack off, get some sleep and meet tomorrow afternoon to get started. If the admin deciding this chooses to put a block on you, well, even you thought you had one coming. What if, instead, we don't block anybody. We end up thanking each other for being humans and occasionally getting hot, and promise to try to do better tomorrow. It all starts with what Joseph is willing to do. If we find he and I can't get along, well we know we'll see each other here soon. Let's just this one time, give Joseph a break. Tonight. He closes the browser and gives himself an 18 hour wikbreak, as a show of good faith. BusterD (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree to an 18 hour wikibreak, . What would that be, about 12:30 tomorrow? Cool, I'd be at school anyway unless I'm sick still like today. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do understand,, that this 18-hour break is not necessarily in lieu of any blocks or other agreements regarding 1RR and mentoring when you return? An administrator reviewing this still may block you.  This is just something Buster is suggesting as a cooling-off period so you can get some perspective and come back to take responsibility and stop blaming others for your bad choices.  You DO understand this, right?  Because, with you counting the minutes to when you would return after 18 hours expires, it doesn't seem to me that you really do understand what's going on, what's being suggested, and why it's being suggested.  What you need to be concentrating on is not when you return but what you should and shouldn't do when you return. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent start. Let's accept Joseph's willingness to impose a break on himself as a step in the right direction. Tomorrow Joseph and I will draft a statement for the top of his userpage which will meet the requirements users (including myself) have offered here. If by this timestamp tomorrow night we haven't written something accommodating users' legitimate concerns, even I will endorse this block request. Until then, let's all sleep on it. I'd appreciate users voluntarily avoiding interaction with the editor, instead communicating with me on my talk. That way less harsh exchanges. Joseph will not edit pagespace using his account or any other (or ip address) until he and I set up some ground rules for the mentoring. Can everyone live with that? Can Joseph accept this?BusterD (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually can accept it. We will see how this goes when it gets taken care of, then go from there. The only pages that I will edit is my talk and user page if I must (if I get messages or something) -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good way forward. I'd recommend any reviewing admin hold off action. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What Wikelvi said above. Stay off Wikipedia until after school, then send me a message on my talk so we can set up a draftspace and a time to meet. Until then, do your homework and I'll do mine. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I will. But just in case an admin does decide to take action anyway, something to note. Let me say one more thing. Per policy on unsourced content, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Just something to note cause it is policy. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A very ungentlemanly way of saying goodnight. Go to bed Joseph, we're watching your contribs. BusterD (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see the grounds for optimism here. By the time somebody has been blocked five times they have probably become a net drain on the encyclopedia. Too much of their time is just wasted in struggles with others. The last block only expired on May 4th, yet here we are again. Though User:BusterD has sensible ideas about mentoring they seem unlikely to work. The editor's talk page shows little has changed since people first tried to assist him in late 2014. He was placed under mentorship on April 1 but it failed almost immediately. If mentorship is adopted this time around, who wants to take bets on how fast he will be back here at AN3? I favor an indefinite block. Joseph has revealed his age on his user page. He might consider returning in a couple of years. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and the continued arguing about "unsourced content" being a 3RR exemption (it isn't) isn't promising. –Chase (talk / contribs) 01:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was ready to say to that I would be willing to give him one more chance...and then I was stopped in my comments with edit conflicts.  Which, as it turns out, is a good thing because of this "Let me say one more thing..." comment from JP about policy.  He's still not dropping the stick.  I'm not a proponent of indef blocks by-and-large and am big on giving editors more than one chance because the internet is a weird place where people do stupid stuff they wouldn't do IRL, but -- it seems he still just doesn't get it.  I'm going to come down on the side of agreeing with  on this.  Joseph can give it another try in a year or so.  He's not ready or willing to make it work at this time. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  02:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still willing. There's no doubt it was an unwise thing to say. It demonstrates the user doesn't understand that we're required to resolve our differences by measuring consensus. Often both sides have legitimate reasons to claim they are right per policy. I've participated in two lengthy formal processes lately and it's unlikely my position will prevail in either close. That said, I have benefited immeasurably by making new friends and gaining respect for my "opponents" in each process. Had to screw up a lot around here to gain that insight. BusterD (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My rationale is at his talk page; I just can't foresee someone who's been blocked now 6 times since January with the most recent being a month long block that expired a week ago being a net gain in the near future. only (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can certainly understand only's rationale for a lengthy block considering block history, but given the young editor here had BusterD willing to work with him, it also seems important to note that the initial report above is inaccurate. It might not matter now, because Joseph Prasad has indicated he doesn't plan on returning after block or requesting block be reviewed/shortened, but it seems relevant that this statement from the OP isn't true: "User was warned and immediately continued his revert spree across various articles including All That (Carly Rae Jepsen song) and Drake Bell", but the article history shows Joseph did not edit the Carly Rae Jepsen song after being warned. He did make a revert on Drake Bell after being warned regarding the other page, but I think it's misleading to admins reviewing this report to describe this as a "revert spree" after warning. It also isn't clear in the OP, that after Joseph was warned by Chase to stop edit warring at the Taylor Swift song, Joseph stopped editing that page. This is just my personal opinion, but in the future, I think it might be helpful if Chase tries requesting that the editor who violated 3RR self-revert, and then file at AN3 if that request is refused.  This is my standard policy with respect to 3RR, especially if all reverts were not clear undos and include things like removing unsourced content with the offending editor perhaps not realizing they violated 3RR until too late. In my opinion, there is too much drama swirling around the editor who filed this report and various other young editors who work on Meghan Trainor articles of which Joseph Prasad was one. ,--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Listen, you REALLY need to drop the stick and stop spreading the lie that I have a vendetta against young editors (I am only 20 myself) or contributors to Meghan Trainor articles, because it isn't true and you just look desperate for me to look like the "bad guy". You're the one trying to stir up all the drama. Fact of the matter is, regardless of whether or not Joseph stopped at the Taylor Swift article, he could have been blocked for that alone with or without a report. But coupled with restarting an ongoing edit war at another article immediately after being warned and he most definitely deserved the block. Instead of trying to create drama through your repeated bad-faith assumptions which don't even come close to being the truth, you just stop defending people who don't need to be defended for their bad behavior? –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Chase, everything I've written here and at wp:an is verifiable and backed up by time stamps, edit histories, and diffs. My concern here isn't making you look like the "bad guy" but rather the ongoing battlefield in the topic area.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.148.76.220 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 2 weeks )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* NATO war crimes */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Third report. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to note that this IP has been edit warring on a number of other articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * for consistent POV edit warring. Tiptoety  talk 20:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

User:91.122.11.68 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), after 3RR warning on user talk. More of same.
 * 6)  and again
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP is repeatedly adding nonsense, based on original research of (questionable) source. Discussion at Talk:Binding_energy with alarming statements like "Desist. I am reverting your changes (again) as unreferenced."

Note - Additional similar re-reverts with same content in articles Synergy and Minimum total potential energy principle. - DVdm (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 72 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mogism reported by User:3gg5amp1e (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 662039847 by 3gg5amp1e (talk) Don't be ridiculous. What part of the speedy criteria are you suggesting this meets?"
 * 2)  "This is not a BLP, it makes a clear association of notability, and is fully referenced – inline referencing isn't and never has been compulsory on Wikipedia. Quit being disruptive."
 * 3)  "Knock it off. You don't get to make up a bunch of policies and demand an article complies with them; that a company article mentions the chief executive doesn't make it a BLP. Let the AFD run its course."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* A barnstar for you! */ new WikiLove message"


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


 * Comments:

I would like to have an uninvolved editor or administrator look into this further to prevent a 3RR situation. I believe that those tags apply and Mogism seems to think they own the page. Thank you. 3gg5amp1e (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Two removals of a bunch of misplaced tags (and the removal of a ludicrous misuse of speedy tags, since there's no conceivable way something including the sentence "it became a major software industry in China and later started to gain partnerships with international companies such as IBM, Intel, Elgato and Paradigm" meets WP:CSD) is not a edit-war. You've already taken this to AFD – if it's deleted, whether it's tagged or not is moot, and if it's not deleted then it's a fairly good sign your concept of "notability" is flawed. Forum-shopping here because you don't like what you're being told elsewhere is a waste of my time, your time and the time of whoever has to close this. Mogism (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – Each side is up to three reverts. A further revert by either one would push it over the edge. Let's wait and see how the AfD comes out. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:TheGracefulSlick reported by User:Toe of the Almighty Camel (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

User is being unreasonable. Has reverted without explanation. Has threatened to report me. I've done all I can to decipher user's intent which can only be described as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The info was either irrelevant or explained in the article as I said in my reverts. The user, as I told him/her, should have gone to consensus, but refused, so who really is being unreasonable?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. this user has, in their brief time, been involved in editing controversary, so they have no room to accuse others, especially when they were only looking in the article's best interest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've solicited help on the talk page. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) And offending user didn't say the material was "either irrelevant or explained in the article." The offending user said the material was "not helpful," "unhelpful," and "irrelevant to the timeline", for which the latter I corrected to avoid conflict. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but after the fact to cover your tracks, so this AN/I action is completely unnecessary. I won't revert your edits if they meet consensus, like I said already.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They are undisputed. Why would this need "consensus?" Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Add can you please explain which wiki policy you are citing to decide what's "unhelpful" in your mind. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful because you refused consensus. Info that is confirmed isn't always relevant. A fake illness and info already explained, not significant.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe the material is redundant, which it most certainly is not, then provide examples to back it up. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User is at 3RR and warned. Please stick to the discussion on the talk page. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * is also at 3RR and warned -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * False. I'm at 2 reverts  and was erroneously warned. Toe of the Almighty Camel (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not applicable, ArbCom's warning is visible when editing, and states no further warning is needed

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ''Not applicable. I'm not involved, and ArbCom's rule is absolute, any violation of the 1-RR leads to a block''

"Only" two reverts in 24 hours but Israel is under very strict 1-RR imposed by ArbCom. Whenever editing the article, there is a warning to this effect, coupled with the clear statement that no further warning is needed. By twice reverting back to insert the claim about 1000 casualties in less than 24 hours, the user violated the absolute 1-RR rule. Apparently warned for this kind of behavior just two days ago, with closing admin noticing the user is on a worrying path. Apparently didn't help. 

Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that counted as a revert. The two edits were different, though similar. I figured if they deleted all of the information than there could be a compromise and I'd only put in some of it. Regardless, the 1RR rule (which I actually didn't know about, I didn't read the disclaimer and assumed it was the usual prohibition on 3RR) is not meant for these kinds of edits (good faith). It's meant for unconstructive edits and vandalism. At least it certainly should be. --<small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monochrome _ <small style="font: 13px Courier New">Monitor  21:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're saying you've edited Israel 35 times and never once read the big bright warning that comes up whenever editing the article? And you're wrong, ArbCom's decision is precisely for this kind of situation, as both "sides" in the conflict tend to edit war exactly like you did. Last but not least, you were strongly warned about this exact 1-RR rule by an admin for similar edit warning just a few days ago. I'm sure, but your insistence you did not know is not credible and I'd take that into account if I were the closing admin.Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I did my best. MM has left WP and posted a message on my page. She has had the grace to admit her failings and to leave with self-regret, and to apologise. She has shown a damn sight more self-awareness and self-reflection than many an editor I can think of with twenty times her tenure on WP. Yes I am aware of the rules and the minefield of I/P and MM's inability to control herself when it comes to Israel and Jewish-ethnicity related issues. I still have a bad feeling that we as a community did not handle this well. I attempted to mentor a young female editor, a relatively rare type of editor. I failed. However, apart from User:Nishidani and User:Liz, she received no positive helpful advice or encouragement. We failed. Message ends. Irondome (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A filing at this board is not something one quits over. It's a teachable moment and no one failed, not even MM. I doubt that there is any editor who hasn't received a warning or two (or many more). The reaction shouldn't be, "I quit" but, "I didn't know about that rule but now that I know, I will abide by that policy". There are many talented, productive and prolific editors who have been reported on this page, usually a) there is no sanction, b) both parties are sanctioned, c) one party is sanctioned. But they are typically short blocks, not indefinite blocks. MM could have gone to the Teahouse or WikiProject Judaism if she had questions. I hope she chooses to return but when she does, that she will discuss her sometimes bold edits with other editors a bit more than was her habit. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * She quit because she thought she was becoming a burden. I have never known an editor to do that. It shows a deep respect for the project, or certainly the individuals that make it, and a precocious dignity. Certainly she feebly rails at WP "bullshit", but don't we all sometimes. Her failings can be fixed in time. Her leaving is a net loss to the project. I want her back as a productive member. She has potential. I would advise the mildest sanction available and a renewed approach to mentoring, as suggested by Liz above. Her behaviour patterns do not indicate any vicious or vindictive mentality, no battleground approach, and no snarky rancour. She is just a harmless impulsive, and very often her edits reflect an insecurity as to her ethnicity. She has never vandalised or caused more than a few pinpricks of "damage" as far as I can see. Closing admin, I would ask for a dose of kindness in your judgement. Irondome (talk) 01:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. The advice given to this editor is well-meaning but is not having much practical effect. She has been warned for a previous 1RR violation at Israel per an AN3 report just five days ago. People who respond and clearly acknowledge the problem are usually not blocked. Her response above indicates she doesn't understand what the 1RR is, and feels that her edits are OK. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:118.93.75.131 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 662155204 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk).  Then refine them instead of putting them back."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 662249087 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk) Tell me why?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 662249318 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)  they are no vali\d"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 662249648 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* April 2015 Nepal earthquake */ new section"
 * 2)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on April 2015 Nepal earthquake. using TW"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on May 2015 Nepal earthquake. using TW"


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

Was unwilling to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page. The user has removed categories from the article that are sourced (it's plain to see in the infobox of the article(s)). I've been clear (and reasonably-spoken) in my edit summaries and I don't feel like the article has been improved by this person). Their edit summaries have been combative and disrespectful and that only solidifies my stance. This person is just a little uncertain how things work. I have restored the categories three times on each article. These are categories that you'd see on a typical WP earthquake article. Dawnseeker2000  03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

u don't know how categories work do u. 118.93.75.131 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Dawnseeker2000 does not not seem to know how WP works. or should work. 118.93.75.131 (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You both are equally guilty of edit warring here. If either of you revert again, you will be blocked for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for bringing this here. Not my best work, but thought for sure he'd get it any moment but that never happened. Have a great night, Dawnseeker2000  03:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 118.93.75.131 has been for continuing the edit war after my post.   please use better judgement next time - edit warring over the removal of a few categories is definitely in WP:LAME territory.  Revert once or twice, then move on - someone else would have restored the categories soon enough if they are important.  Repeatedly reverting gets you nowhere. (Bringing it here is nothing to apologize for, though.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Violinmaster90210 reported by User:220 of Borg (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Header"
 * 2)  "header"
 * 3)  "life and education"
 * 4)  "Life and education"
 * 5)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Chestere baring. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Chestere baring. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Chestere baring. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Contested deletion */ cmt"
 * 2)   "/* Edit warring */ cmt re ongoing edit war"


 * Comments:

Editor has removed CSD template 4 times, at least three times after being warned. Also removed valid maintenance templates at least twice. Made only one relevant comment on Talk:Chestere baring. No replies on their talkpage despite many messages. ‎ 220  of  Borg 04:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 220  of  Borg 05:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 220  of  Borg 05:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Snackbag reported by User:Qed237 (Result:24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It was correct and is now out of date. Nobody has challenged it since that was pointed out. Two corrections is not edit warring !"
 * 2)  "He WAS part of the organisation in 2007 and afterwards but is no longer. He is now only a "supporter". A Chelsea supporter is not part of Chelsea FC"
 * 3)  "Beckham is no longer part of the organisation plus revert two other unsubstantiated reverts"
 * 4)  "Present home is not actually in Kensington"
 * 5)  "He is not part of the Malaria no More organisation. He has no official authority, role or income concerning MnM."
 * 6)  "its not in Kensington"
 * 7)  "According to ImDb - only a 10 minute sketch playing himself - that does not constitute actor !"
 * 1)  "its not in Kensington"
 * 2)  "According to ImDb - only a 10 minute sketch playing himself - that does not constitute actor !"


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


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


 * Comments:

Not the first time this editor editwars on this page, this time against several editors. <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> 17:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You are being deceitful. The reverts have been accepted. You object because you are a Beckham fan and have tried to impose false or irrelevant information to suit your needs. For example, "he is and always be a footballer". He is not a footballer and obviously won't always be one.--Snackbag (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not a Beckham fan and even if I were I does not give you right to edit war against me, User:Egghead06, User:PeeJay2K3 or any other user. The content you insist on removing is sourced and your edits without any discussion is dirsuptive. <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> 18:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, Snackbag, the reverts have not "been accepted" - I see multiple editors (disregarding myself here) who have reverted you, and a distinct lack of anyone taking your side. You have a history of edit-warring on this article, which is as plain as the nose on my face, and you have used the Daily Mail as a source in the past for some of your changes... which is obviously in violation of WP:RS. Not sure what your beef is with Beckham, but stop mucking around with the article. Oh, and by the way, he is a footballer, just one who is retired from professional football. Also, you've never once attempted to source your claims about Beckham not being part of the organization. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

You are being deceitful. If somthing is justifiably corrected twice you call it edit warring. He retired from football two years ago. So he obviously is NOT a footballer. According to your reasoning Muhammad Ali IS a boxer even though he hasn't boxed for over 30 years. If you disagree with anything simply take it to the talk page, instead of edit warring, which is what you are doing where it will be responded to. However, you don't have any opposing evidence at all. --Snackbag (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)--Snackbag (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * He retired from professional football, but he does not magically stop being known as a footballer just because he stopped playing professionally. And, yes, Muhammad Ali is known as a boxer. Quite what the other waffle you've written there is on about is beyond me. Either you're trolling, or you're failing WP:CIR - I don't know which. You're proposing a change, and yet you cannot source your change, whilst there is no source online that supports your change. And yet you still say that everyone else has to present opposing evidence - sorry, that's not how WP:BURDEN works. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't you understand the difference between was and is - past tense and present tense ??? Ali is no longer a boxer and Beckham is no longer a footballer. --Snackbag (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Luke, I think you're twisting words. Snackbag is talking about what Beckham is, you're replying with what he's known as . Being known as a footballer is not the same as being a footballer. That said, edit-warring is not the right way. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Snackbag started ranting about that as a totally irrelevant distraction technique, right? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I just take the posts here as I read them. But, as I said, edit-warring is not the answer. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then I should make it clear that this wasn't even what was being edit warred over. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Penelope37 reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked for 36 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Assuming that the editors are male is sexist, and clearly your reason for the removal. Dictionary refers to vernacular, which is circular reasoning. Talk section demonstrates this addition as inherently sexist, as benevolent sexism is sexism both ways."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 662243874 by Penelope37 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Assuming that the editors are male is sexist, and clearly your reason for the removal. Dictionary refers to vernacular, which is circular reasoning. Talk section demonstrates this addition as inherently sexist, as benevolent sexism is sexism both ways."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 662246526 by NeilN (talk) There is no consensus on Talk supporting the claim of especially women, so it should be removed. If you want it included get a consensus."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 662287769 by NeilN (talk) Not the way it works. Things need to be proven from their sources to be on the page."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 662301738 by Fyddlestix (talk) There is not consensus in the Talk page."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 662301738 by Fyddlestix (talk) There is not consensus in the Talk page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Sexism */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sexism. (TW)"
 * 3)  One more
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * Penelope37 continues editwarring (now at 7 RR) despite warnings . Time to put a stop to it, please? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Another --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even More! Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- GB fan 16:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jkrdsr reported by User:Alakzi (Result: Indef blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 14 May 2015 */"
 * 2)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 662323623 by Peter238 (talk)"
 * 5)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 662323322 by Peter238 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 662322968 by Alakzi (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 662322797 by Alakzi (talk)"
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 662323322 by Peter238 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 662322968 by Alakzi (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 662322797 by Alakzi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Template:Infobox Korean name. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The editor has been edit warring to remove portions and blank a SPI against them. Alakzi (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The same happened to my talk page - see . Peter238 (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  Acroterion   (talk)   17:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mariolyrics4evr reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Resolution at Talk:List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes. User only adds unsourced info. Basically vandalism only account.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What's more, the user knows the info is speculation, admits it, and continues to do it (see here). Problems with this have been explained to the user on User_talk:Artemis_Panthar and on the article talk page.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: The user has also been reported to ANI for repeatedly vandalising User talk:EvergreenFir. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Writ Keeper for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

User:202.69.11.16 reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 662308968 by Sitush (talk) Teri maa ka phuda benchod.... saray sources available nahi hoty"
 * 2)  "fix"
 * 1)  "fix"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The I.P. used abusive language using Hindi words that really mean a very dirty thing. The I.P. is not fit for wikipedia and be indefinitely blocked. MahenSingha (Talk) 18:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected. IP warring to add an unsourced infobox. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:180.214.232.73 reported by User:Barek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User repeatedly inserting speculative claims related to Android version M, which is expected to be announced May 28/29, contrary to WP:CRYSTALBALL. As yet, nothing is confirmed, and even the source they eventually began providing disputed some of their earlier posts and makes clear these are anticipated feature changes, not confirmed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User also blanked this report. Calidum T&#124;C 04:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   04:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Csquadforever reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"
 * 1)  "Fixed Typo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Jackie (Ciara album). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jackie (Ciara album). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User continues to ignore their warnings for mass-changing of genres and their warning on edit-warring; it's clear they are acting from a fan point of view only and are likely not here to contribute in a non-disruptive manner.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 13:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Xenoworker91 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed factually incorrect and irrelevant material"
 * 2)  "/* 2013 election campaign */"
 * 3)  "/* 2013 election campaign */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Conflict of interest on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Warning: Edit warring on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Nick Xenophon. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Removing sourced content, claiming it's incorrect, despite being supported by sources. tried to start a talkpage discussion, but they're ignoring it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . No edits in almost 15 hours. I have semi-protected the page for three days. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ramiericson reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also pages Khuzaima Qutbuddin and Mufaddal Saifuddin. User has been warned before about edit warring and has previously been blocked for sockpuppetry. It seems the user has taken up their old stance in the 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra), without presenting any evidence in the form of reliable sources that one side or the other has won the relevant lawsuit. Ping,. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 17:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . One edit on List of Dai of Dawoodi Bohra and Mufaddal Saifuddin plus tw consecutive edits on Khuzaima Qutbuddin are not evidence of an edit war. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Herbie_keys reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  -- while logged out, meets WP:DUCK (some identical phrasing on the unsourced material, IP locates to country admitted at User:Herbie_keys)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User seems to have trouble understanding that we stick to the sources, and do not create artificial balance for WP:FRINGE positions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . In part because the report is now stal but I see that Herbie keys is using the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquapess reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Deliberate attempt to prevent use of peer reviewed references"
 * 2)  "Deleting peer reviewed references and reporting of news events is stifling of freedom of speech"
 * 3)  "Referencing peer reviewed articles are not POV. Reporting of news events regarding prominent naturalists are facts"
 * 4)  "Updating with latest opinions and discussions of topic from conferences of the last 2 years"
 * 5)  "Deleted the header change, but retained the journal article references. Publication in palaoanthropology journals means that it is being discussed in the scientific community"
 * 6)  "Bringing the topic up to date with references from within the last decade"
 * 7)  "Link to wikipaedia's page of infant swimming added, so that people who are interested in this special feature of humans could read more about it"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Clear edit warring with battleground mentality- see the aggressive edits summaries, and their posts on User talk:NeilN Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * De728631 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:77.66.189.70 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: no admin action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Scarlet Gruber */ new section"
 * 3)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* Scarlet Gruber */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

The ip ignore messages that I have left. And continues to add information without reference to the article of Scarlet Gruber, in fact in the same article there is a hidden text which also ignores.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 15:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP is now at 3 reverts and has moreover stopped editing after your warnings. De728631 (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:96.229.32.26 reported by User:Frietjes (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:NOW_music_albums&type=revision&diff=662401038&oldid=662380017]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:NOW_music_albums&type=revision&diff=662379928&oldid=662365431]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:NOW_music_albums&diff=prev&oldid=662365121]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:NOW_music_albums&diff=prev&oldid=662341196]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:NOW_music_albums&type=revision&diff=662305591&oldid=662270580]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A96.229.32.26&type=revision&diff=662341396&oldid=660950464]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:NOW_music_albums with link to Talk:Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!

Comments:


 * De728631 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Truthman633 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: user warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I worked with Jason early in his career and was the family friend that suggested the name change. I helped put Jason's first album together. Plus some..."
 * 2)  "/* Musical career */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 662233648 by Caldorwards4 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Attempts have been made asking them to go to the talkpage, but instead they continue to make reversions, claiming themselves as a source, despite being told they need reliable sources Joseph2302 (talk) 11:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is when he was actually notified about the edit warring. The welcome message does not say a thing about edit warring or 3RR.  Since I gave them the actual warning about edit warring he has not reverted again.  -- GB fan 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * by GB fan. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SleepCovo reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Protected)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #EDEAFF; padding: 0px 10px 0px 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page:

User being reported:

I am not sure whether this meets 3RR, but it is blatant edit-warring, which has continued despite repeated requests to WP:BRD.

Basis point: List expanded by BrownHairedGirl, 10:30, 15 May 2015‎

Edit history, interspersed with my attempts to resolve discuss:


 * 1) 3 consecutive edits by SleepCovo 14:18–14:25, 15 May 2015‎
 * reverted by BrownHairedGirl 15:03, 15 May 2015‎, with request to discuss at linked, pre-created Talk:List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
 * Talk page discussion section created with holding comment BrownHairedGirl 15:02, 15 May 2015‎
 * Substantive comment on talk page 15:15, 15 May 2015‎ BrownHairedGirl
 * 1) 15:14, 15 May 2015‎ SleepCovo reverts the revert, reinstates contested content, without replying on talk
 * BHG reverts with further request to discuss 15:17, 15 May 2015
 * First comment on talk page by SleepCovo 15:18, 15 May 2015‎ SleepCovo
 * 15:26, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl reply on talk page, further request leave the page at the status quo ante pending discussion
 * 1) 2 edits 15:20– 15:22, 15 May 2015 by Sleep Covo, reinstating substantially the same content as the first edits
 * 15:24, 15 May 2015‎ BrownHairedGirl reverts, with edit summary "Per WP:BRD, please stop edit-warring. DISCUSS on talk page, not in edit summaries. Revert to staus quo ante pending discussion"
 * Talk page 15:26, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl further request to restore SQA and discuss
 * 1) 3 edits 1525–15:30, 15 May 2015‎ SleepCovo, reinstating most of the disputed changes
 * Talk page 15:32, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl further substantive reply
 * Talk page 15:42, 15 May 2015 SleepCovo substantive reply, still no acknowledgement of request to WP:BRD
 * Talk page 15:59, 15 May 2015 BrownHairedGirl reply ... and final request to restore the status quo ante
 * Talk page 17:02, 15 May 2015 SleepCovo reply, still no acknowledgement of request to restore status quo ante

At 15:38 I life a request on SleepCovo's talk page to "stop edit warring and restore the page to the status quo ante while we discuss your concerns on the article's talk page".

SleepCovo replied at 15:40, 15 May 2015, still with no acknowldgement of the request to revert while we discuss.

Note that this is related to Talk:List of elected female political office-holders in the United Kingdom, where SleepCovo had repeatedly reverted to a version several weeks old, before sections had been split out and massively updated elsewhere. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have already pointed out that some of your edits were incorrect, such as Kate Osamor being put as a Conservative when she is in fact Labour and since you wanted to do it alphabetically via surname I changed where she was placed as O does not come in-between J and L but after. Also earlier in the article Dawn Butler and Joan Ryan have already been mentioned when they were previously elected in 2005 and 1997 respectively, so I put 2015 next to their names, as every politician in that article who has ever lost and been re-elected has had that format so I was unsure as to why you were trying to change that by adding their names in a new column as though they were a new MP. Also due to three MP's crossing the floor, because of the way BrownHairedGirl had changed the layout in this article it meant that they had their names mentioned twice rather than having it showing their defection. Even though my edits had been correct the editor BrownHairedGirl seems to be quite aggressive in her approach towards me which I am quite shocked by! SleepCovo (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * SleepCovo, the issue here is not the perceived "correctness" or otherwise of the edits. This is not the place to discuss that.
 * The issue at stake is your insistence on edit-warring rather than discussing the issue on the article talk page. How many times do you need to be asked to read and follow WP:BRD? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The only person who is edit-warring is you since you continuously tried to revert my edits even though I had sorted out quite a lot of the issues that you had caused. SleepCovo (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You really haven't read WP:BRD, have you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . Both of you seem to be edit warring. So I've reverted to before it began and protected the page for a week while you both sort this out. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a pity, CambridgeBayWeather.
 * As you can see from the links above, I have been trying unsuccessfully to engage SleepCovo in discussion about the disputed issues, but SC's response has been to partially reply and then keep on editing. I followed the recommended procedure of reverting a bold edit, and starting a discussion ... but there is not much that can be done when the other simply reinstates without seeking to resolve the disputed issues :(
 * Unfortunately the reversion you have made has removed all the updates of new MPs elected in 2015, which are uncontroversial between us diff of updates.
 * Please can you restore the version dated 10:30, 15 May 2015, which provides the startring point for the discussions which were underway? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with CambridgeBayWeather, as it 'Takes two to tango' so if I was edit warring then surely you must realise that you were also doing the same! You keep saying that you wanted to start a discussion but when you went about making all the changes in the first place, you did not engage in any discussion. The only person who seems to dispute me putting 2015 next to the previous Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler is you, yet if you look at the article every single MP who has lost and then been re-elected has that very same layout so why do you want to change that? SleepCovo (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I realise that a discussion was started on the talk page but you were both reverting back and forth. Blocking either one of you means a complete halt to the discussion. That's something I don't like doing when it appears that both editors are acting in good faith. If you can get User:SleepCovo to agree to that version then I will restore it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, if Brown HairedGirl lets me use the same format that has been used on many different articles for when a politician has lost and then been re-elected, as I want to do with Joan Ryan and Dawn Butler in this article then there won't be any problem as until now no one has ever complained about that method yet she does! SleepCovo (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong page for a discussion on the page layout. Is that a yes or no to the proposal by BHG, here? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes SleepCovo (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I shall point out that there are now mistakes in the article which I had rectified! SleepCovo (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:BrownHairedGirl requested a third opinion. On the one hand, this wasn't exactly a proper case for third opinion, because there were already three editors involved, since User:NeilN already agreed with BHG.  However, my fourth opinion is to agree with BHG and NN.  If there are errors in the split list, User:SleepCovo can identify them at the talk page while the article is locked, and an uninvolved administrator can make the edits if there is agreement.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realise this is about a different article right? If the split is to go ahead on the other article then so be it but I am concerned about things that have gone on in this article. So your 'fourth opinion' doesn't involve this article! SleepCovo (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Can we just agree the split is fine and now fix any factual inaccuracies? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , this discussion here is not about the split. It is about the content of one of the pages which was created as a result of the split: List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
 * As I set out above, with diffs, SleepCovo made a series of changes List of female Members of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, which I contested. So per WP:BRD I reverted and launched a discussion.
 * All I ask is that SleepCovo discusses the contested points to reach a consensus, as I have repeatedly asked. Instead, SleepCovo simply comments and then reinstates the contested changes, before a consensus has been reached.
 * Please can someone else try to explain to User:SleepCovo how the WP:BRD cycle works? I am having no success in doing so, which is why we have ended up here. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl you need to stop repeating yourself by going on about WP:BRD, the edits I made were because that is the layout for all the other politicians who had lost and then been re-elected! So I do not understand why you think that it should change when both Dawn Butler and Joan Ryan have been mentioned earlier in the article! Also Kate Osamor is Labour not Conservative!! SleepCovo (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment is exactly the reason why we are here. You believe that your edits were justified, and I disagree. That's what WP:BRD is all about: disagreements like this are common, and when such a disagreement occurs, the edit is reverted and discussed.
 * All I ask is that when an edit is contested, you discuss it on the talk page of the article concerned. Instead, you are trying to make the substantive argument here ... and the points you make here are largely unrelated to the edits which I reverted.
 * Instead of allowing the discussion to run its course, you have been piling contested change on top of contested change. That's why I will continue to cite WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD WP:BRD until you actually read that page and follow it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

User:72.185.164.97 reported by User:TheTMOBGaming2 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), User is providing a link to a tweet, claiming a new artist has joined the roster, but the account is not verified by Twitter as an official account.
 * 2), same
 * 3), User fails to comply with WP:USERGENERATED, which explicitly states that tweets are not acceptable.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Unable to do so

Comments:

Clear violation of WP:USERGENERATED; adding an unsourced artist not listed on the main website or verified through a verified Twitter account. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IPs have been warring to add unsourced content. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:72.182.109.178 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Block, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reversing vandalism of page. This user is promoting his own page where he is trying to distribute his own virus exe file which does damage to a computer, and is promoting it as a computer cleaner tool. Please block him or lock this page from edits."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 662672022 by Winner 42 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Repeated vandalism - promoting his own dangerous software that claims to be a computer cleaner. Would any of the edits dare to install the exe he is promoting on his page?"
 * 4)  "This revision has two problems (1) it references a low quality source (2) it references a page in position #1, whose main purpose is to get the user to install and exe. Both these make the reference bad for wikipedia. Sorry for unclear reason earlier."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 662674485 by Winner 42 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 662676273 by Wtmitchell (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Protection request (May 16, 2015) */"

Haminoon: I am merely reversing their edits they are adding without explanation. You were part of the talk and delete page discussion and were pushing for a high bar for noteworthiness of references.
 * Comments:

Haminoon: What about the other guys making edits to the page and clearly not passing the bar for references established in the talk and delete pages.

Please look at the other two users also who seem related and seem hell bent on distributing this reference link.

The link contains the following text at the bottom and pushes you to install an exe. http://www.virusresearch.org/spyhunter-installation-instructions/ Why was this above link removed? That was precisely the link promoted from the reference page. If this is too unsafe for this page, it safe to say it's unsafe to promote it from a wikipedia page as well? If this link is too unsafe to keep here, please block the other two users from making disruptive edits or protect the page. If this link is safe, click on it by all means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.109.178 (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Flipora article semiprotected one year by User:Huon. The IP who filed this report was blocked 72 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:HappyWaldo reported by User:Gts-tg (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662524295&oldid=662498583 this isn't done for aus-born and raised directors of west/north European ancestry. go further south and suddenly it's notable?
 * 2) George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662552722&oldid=662552147 'MOS:BLPLEAD "Ethnicity ... should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.'
 * 3) George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662553899&oldid=662553077 nothing to discuss. you are violating wiki guidelines


 * Diffs of edit warring:
 * 1) George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662554848&oldid=662553899 unsourced
 * 2) George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662627657&oldid=662624479 Greek-Australian" isn't a nationality. you are confused about the distinction between nationality and ethnicity.the former belongs in the lead, the latter in miller's case doesn't
 * 3) George_Miller_(director)&diff=662629571&oldid=662628066 you have made contentious edits. i reverted them and explained why per WP:BRD. you haven't backed your edits with any policy or guideline, just a belief that greek parentage is special. an admin needs to resolve this

User_talk:HappyWaldo&diff=662632757&oldid=661711395 Warning on edit warring
 * 3RR warning


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662552942&oldid=661621765
 * 2) Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662554319&oldid=662554096
 * 3) Talk:George_Miller_%28director%29&diff=662627582&oldid=662626645

User:HappyWaldo insists on reverting and edit warring without discussing first, in one of his reverts he even mentioned that there is nothing to discuss. Furthermore, he removed some extra content(that was not part of previous edit warring) citing it as being unsourced, I added sources and a few more info backed by extra sources as well, and he removed this too saying that it is not allowed by policy(the same part of content that he previously removed as being unsourced). I have asked him repeatedly to discuss in good faith in the talk page, but apparently he prefers to be discussing via edits and reverts, his latest edit/removal of contents is simply mimicking what I told him which was that I will have no option but to report him if he continues to remove content and sources Gts-tg (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Also, the article is essentially locked as if I try to add info such as birth name and ethnicity which are backed by sources, he is going to remove them again. The rationale for my edits is fully explained in the talk page of the article and does not correspond to what the user claims in the summary of his last edit warring edit. Gts-tg (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Finally, the user's talk page shows that he has a long history of similar behavior(e.g. this one and this one and this one among others Gts-tg (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I was agreeing, not "simply mimicking", that an admin needs to intervene. In most cases I've come across, if contentious content is added to an article, it is reverted and then discussed; it doesn't stay up while the discussion is ongoing. My case for reverting is based entirely on Wikipedia guidelines. There's nowhere else to go. Perhaps I was too dismissive, but I thought it was poor form to keep adding back the material when no consensus had been reached. As for the "long history" of similar incidents: the first example involves an inexperienced user (evidenced by not signing name) who overcrowded the Ned Kelly article with images; second example is a case where all other users were in agreement with me; third example was an entirely friendly exchange, read the user's talk page. - HappyWaldo (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There were at least 3 warnings from me that you have to stop reverting before discussing otherwise this will need to be moderated, I don't see any 'agreeing' in your last edit summary but just making it look as if you are the one requesting an admin. As for 'most cases you've come across' and 'contentious content', sorry you don't get to remove something and then sit on top of it for ever, the content was already there. You mention reaching consensus but how is consensus going to be reached when you keep removing and reverting? As for your long history, the links are there for anybody to read whether there were issues created by enforcing your viewpoint through removing of content and sources, against 'friendly' or not, 'inexperienced' or experienced users, same as the article in question here Gts-tg (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. The alternative was to block both parties for edit warring. See WP:DR for how to get more opinions on this. At first sight, HappyWaldo's comments about mentioning ethnicity in the lead appear more in accord with the usual Wikipedia practice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Serendipodous reported by User:JasonAQuest (Result: Full protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I do not understand. We have moved the discussion to the talk page, as I repeatedly asked. Why are you doing this now? As long as neither of us make any edits until consensus is reached, there is no edit war. Is your POV so important to you that you would prefer to get your opponents blocked then to deal with them civilly?  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  13:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As a totally uninvolved party, I likewise do not understand. This is a content dispute, and IMHO this dispute was provoked by this edit on a Featured Article with no edit summary by User:JasonAQuest. Jason has a bad habit of occasionally not using edit summaries, and this case, it caught up with him. User:Serendipodous, the major contributor to the FA, quite naturally reverted per BRD, edit summary pointing out no reason was given for the change. Instead of creating a talk page discussion, JasonAQuest started an edit summary discussion, IMHO a poor place to discuss complex subject matter. What followed was a revert war in live pagespace (a very poor choice for both users) and the discussion in edit summary. Talk page discussion was not begun until both users were well into 3RR territory, and after Serendipodous had implored JasonAQuest (in edit summary) to commence such discussion. In Jason's first edit to the talk page discussion itself, he uses dismissive language ("I realize that the IAU ruling looms large in astronomy geeks' minds") to defend his position and in personal talk page discussion accused Serendipodous of page ownership. Both users are at fault for not immediately commencing a discussion on talk, but Jason, by making a substantial edit to the lede of a FA with zero edit summary, certainly provoked the dispute and then made poor choices in not assuming good faith. I'm not an admin, but if I were I'd dismiss this report and admonish both editors for poor choices. If anyone deserves a negative consequence, it's the reporter here (for repeatedly failing to use edit summaries), but seeing as how both sides (generally very worthy contributors) are discussing this on talk, I don't think there's any reason for administrative action. Perhaps JasonAQuest would consider withdrawing this complaint. BusterD (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . You both appear to be edit warring so I either block both or protect the page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Deadwords reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 0 22:04, May 15, 2015. Added primary source interview saying the band considers their new album "post-punk". Not a revert.


 * 1)  22:43, May 15, 2015. Added "post-punk" and "rock" genres. Removed "funk metal" genre, saying the band "opposes this label."
 * 2)  23:11, May 15, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
 * 3)  07:03, May 16, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
 * 4)  23:14, May 16, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
 * 5)  02:31, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
 * 6)  03:10, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.
 * 7)  03:15, May 17, 2015. Reverted to preferred version.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:05, May 17, 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Deadwords is effectively a single-purpose account focused almost exclusively on the band Faith No More. Deadwords has very often taken a battleground attitude at the article, reverting other editors such as in 2013 and   in 2014. Arguing with in 2013, Deadwords warred to insert primary-sourced text. The current argument stems from an overreliance on primary sources, and too much consideration given to the band's own statements rather than WP:SECONDARY sources. Binksternet (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Response by Deadwords:

I am truly dumbfounded. All of my contributions have been properly cited. I have complained about vandalism to the Faith No More page multiple times since many of my recent edits were deleted. I have provided sources to support all contributions. More recently, I attempted to clarify the band's genre. My claim is that Faith No More is absolutely a rock band. It is in their printed bio, & they are also referred to a rock band by the Billboard Magazine link I provided. I submitted TWO separate sources supporting the perspective that FNM is also considered post-punk: 1 from the actual artist (primary), the other from a well published music critic/author (WP:SECONDARY). Why would this information be consistently deleted by anonymous users &, more recently, ? Binksternet ignored the recent secondary source supporting the post-punk clarification. Battleground approach is nonsense. I've always attempted to provided clarifying, & meaningful, content with solid sources. This is a case of sour apples. Furthermore, I have warned others recently that they are engaging in an edit war/vandalism. There is no reason for the information I've added recently to be consistently deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadwords (talk • contribs) 06:32, May 17, 2015
 * Other editors who have a good faith interest in improving the article are not "vandals" even when they disagree with you and remove your work. I'm sure you will agree that the band is difficult to categorize. You should give other editors some slack as they attempt to summarize published opinion about the band.
 * Of course FNM is a rock band, because the very large rock genre is an umbrella for many subgenres; heavy metal is rock, alt metal is rock, hard rock is rock, funk metal is rock, experimental rock is rock, etc. The problem was that your Rolling Stone source did not say that the band's genre is rock, instead, it says they are "rock's most contrarian band" which doesn't distinguish them by musical genre. The headline continues by describing them as "alt-metal superheroes".
 * Another problem comes from when the band's songs or albums are described as this or that genre. A band's own genre may be independent of the genres of the songs and albums. For instance, a widely popular singer who has recently contributed to a children's album is not suddenly a children's artist. In that vein, your second source (which appears to be a copyright violation of some magazine page) quotes a band member saying that the latest album is post-punk. If a band's 7th album is post-punk that does not mean the band is suddenly post-punk. Wikipedia requires its facts to be verifiable, so a band's genre must come from descriptions of the band, not descriptions of the songs or albums. Furthermore, a band member is never the definitive arbiter of the band's genre; we need WP:SECONDARY sources describing the band's genre. If your second source could be cited (if it's not a copyright violation) then the reporter describes the band as having an "innovative mix of heavy rock with rap, electronica, jazz and more... alt-rock scene." So this source would support a genre of "alternative rock".
 * A final problem comes from using one or two outlier sources to misrepresent the wide array of published opinion. We should instead select published sources that are representative, such that the genres which are used most often by reviewers are represented most strongly in the article. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Response by Deadwords:

>>"Other editors who have a good faith interest in improving the article are not "vandals" even when they disagree with you and remove your work... You should give other editors some slack as they attempt to summarize published opinion about the band."

- This philosophy could also be applied to my attempts to add to the page.

>> "Of course FNM is a rock band, because the very large rock genre is an umbrella for many subgenres;"

This is the exact same language I used to support my original edit, which was cited. They were refered to as a rock band in the Rolling Stones article. You want to argue semantics. Very petty. There are several lists published which rank FNM music along with other rock songs. Here are a few examples: 1. http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/02/faith-no-more-announce-sol-invictus-the-seminal-rock-bands-first-album-in-18-years/ 2. http://ultimateclassicrock.com/faith-no-more-songs/ 3. http://www.itunescharts.net/us/charts/albums/rock/ (FNM on "Top 40 US Rock Albums" iTunes chart)

>> A band's own genre may be independent of the genres of the songs and albums

Independent, fine. But it should be recognized and validated.

>>"we need WP:SECONDARY sources describing the band's genre."

I provided a proper secondary source, & mentioned this above. "BEST SELLING AUTHOR JOEL MCIVER TALKS FAITH NO MORE... 'Bill Gould was an instant hero because of the effortless way he inserted funk riffs into bass-lines which I thought owed much more to post-punk...' " Here is the link once again: http://www.faithnomoreblog.com/2014/10/best-selling-author-joel-mciver-talks.html

Regarding the Funk/Funk Metal label: If the label is to remain in the sidebar, it should be noted that it is controversial. The band refutes and avoids this label. This should be properly documented in the band's wiki. http://www.faithnomoreblog.com/2012/08/its-itwhat-is-it-focus-on-song.html Quote from articke: Roddy (1992): “This whole funk metal thing is really disgusting! The last thing I want to be in is a funk metal band – we’re gonna try and be anything but that!”

Lastly, recently made additional edits to a separate section of the band's wiki, removing a valid quote from the band which was properly cited: "In a 2010 interview with Bizarre Magazine, Mike Patton spoke about the conflict, stating: 'It’s not worth talking about. I’ve no idea what it was about then and I don’t know now. But I bet we’d have a warm embrace if we saw each other now.' " Source: http://www.laweekly.com/music/do-faith-no-more-and-the-red-hot-chili-peppers-still-hate-each-other-5508133 - Why attempt to reach so far by deleting meaningful quotes, which I recently added, during this time? Is this a case of bullying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadwords (talk • contribs)


 * Joel McIver's opinion about post-punk "bass-lines" does not define the band. First, he's talking about some songs from the album The Real Thing, not the band as a whole. Second, Joel McIver says in that same interview that he understood the funk metal label "to an extent, perhaps because I’m a bass player and the funk in FNM came largely from Bill’s bass." Lastly, you've selected an outlier which does not represent the mass of published opinion.
 * Again, you are giving the band's opinion too much credence. We can tell the reader about the band's own assessment, putting such information in the article body, but their opinion is not definitive. Wikipedia prefers third party opinions over the artist's own opinions. The band's opinion does not belong in the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Chab-khaled reported by User:Stéphanie Renaud (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User:Chab-khaled continues edit warring (7 RR and counting) despite multiple warnings. Stéphanie Renaud (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of these reverts were yesterday, but there's no question that this user has been problematic (this many reverts is rarely acceptable, and certainly not adding in this kind of commentary). They're also a SPA. For fairness, I should note that Stéphanie Renaud is also a brand new account with a surprisingly strong grasp of Wikipedia policy, but I see no issue with any of their three edits on this page. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

User:174.60.194.10 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

IP is adding spinning gifs to drug article. WikiProject Pharmacology has said "no" to these, see this discussion. IP isn't talking, just edit warring. I left the spinning gif to avoid edit warring myself. Please block and consider semi-protecting the article. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * for one week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 14:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The exact same reversion has started following the protection by, []. This is the first edit by this account since 2012.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Since the edit war has continued, an SPI case has been raised. (See Sockpuppet investigations/Skullballoons).  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)