Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive282

User:Scytsari reported by User:CompliantDrone (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacha_bazi&type=revision&diff=662833499&oldid=662524891 Diff #1]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacha_bazi&type=revision&diff=662834334&oldid=662834054 Diff #2]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacha_bazi&type=revision&diff=662836881&oldid=662836472 Diff #3]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bacha_bazi&type=revision&diff=662840344&oldid=662839938 Diff #4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScytsari&type=revision&diff=662842447&oldid=662842136 3RR warning] Removed within two minutes and resulting in a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACompliantDrone&type=revision&diff=662842658&oldid=662842625 Drive-by comment on my talk page]: Nobody is edit warring, I'm fixing what needs be fixed, why do you care so much?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bacha_bazi#northern_afghanistan_vs_pashtun_regions Failed attempts at consensus on the Talk page]

Comments: This entry has been plagued recently by nationalist editors who unilaterally edit and will not discuss the subject (primarily concerning sexuality in the Pashtun belt of Afghanistan and India) or contribute other than deleting material they subjectively disagree with and leaving snide commentary in the edit summary. The page has received temporary semi-protection a few times as a result, and myself and other editors are beginning to suspect sock puppetry based on patterns of behavior.

CompliantDrone (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet, I'm a newcomer to wikipedia hence the 'driveby' but you sir are very uneducated and misinformed. Get a life and leave such matters to people who know a thing or two, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scytsari (talk • contribs) 01:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to see how often edit-warriors accuse those who revert them of having a POV agenda. Is it a Freudian slip? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Semiprotected for one year by Callanecc. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Neda Safarzadeh reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "added"
 * 2)  "Added content."
 * 3)  "Added content"
 * 1)  "Added content"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notice: Adding inappropriate entries to lists on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on List of companies headquartered in San Diego. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

On my talkpage, they referred to the company they were adding as "us"- clearly only here to promote their company Joseph2302 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

User:97.90.29.29 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:


 * Ongoing removal of content, despite warnings. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected three months. Edit warring by mutiple IPs and non-autoconfirmed accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Pahlavan Qahremani (Result: Full Protection)
Constant edit warrior 3R on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster

refuses to discuss on talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlavan_Qahremani
 * Full protected for 24 hours. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ; the user being reported removed the notice one minute later:

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

Comments:

When I noticed the user making the change, I reverted the change, noting that, as per BRD, the user should use the talk page to seek consensus for the drastic alteration to the article. . The user simply reverted. I put the article back again, noting that the user has misapprehended the policy they were using as defense and stressing the need to use the discussion page and not an edit summary to seek consensus. At that point, i initiated a talk page section about the matter. While I was doing so, the user reverted yet again; their 3rd revert. I took the time to send them a comment to their talk page, advising them to use discussion and stop reverting. The user removed the post less than a minute later. I undid the revert for the third (and my last) time, noting that if they continued to edit-war and avoid discussion, I wasn't going to have any choice but to file an edit-war report. They reverted less than three minutes later. The user is convinced he is correct and discussion isn't worth his time. I've done everything I can. I'd ask for one of two resolutions:
 * that the article be reverted back to the previous version and be protected for a week, until AlexTheWhovian understands that edit summaries aren't going to magically create consensus where dissent clearly exists.
 * In the alternative, perhaps a block of AlexTheWhovian is required, to protect the article. The user was warned more than once; they know the potential penalty for continuing to edit-war. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Diff of user notification: - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment #4 (listed above as #4, actually first one chronologically) wasn't actually a revert. There's no overlap in the text that Alex and the IP edited. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  04:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, it would appear that there were only three reverts, the fourth one being a revert of a much earlier edit. Look, I'm not on a witch hunt here. I brought the matter here because 3RR doesn't necessarily require four reverts, but instead a pattern of disruptive editing. AlexTheWhovian makes a bold edit. When reverted, his next course of action is to head to article discussion, as per BRD. This did not happen. Instead, the user escalates the matter by reverting three times after that. That sort of behavior destabilizes articles. That is the problem that should be addressed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Splendid. I'm sure Alex will be back, since you've decided that his behavior is just peachy. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:StAnselm (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (IP edit which he has acknowledged as his own )

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user had previously added a controversial claim; these reverts include reverting another editor's tags regarding the claim, and then reverting my removal of it. So far we have not been able to come to an agreement on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I did not add a claim to the article, it was already there and StAnselm removed it and I reverted his removal. He should then have gone to discussion on Talk and let the original version stand. Let me say that I've had a fair amount of interaction with StAnselm and have a great deal of respect for him - I think he's made an honest mistake about what was original. I also think it's time we took this to some form of dispute resolution - perhaps RfC as a first step. I'll leave that to him. PiCo (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you did - you added it here. That was one of the first things I checked when I saw the claim had been tagged. StAnselm (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I only added it to the lead, it was already in the body of the article. Anyway, I've now accepted your latest edit-out of the word "fictional" and added a clause more or less quoting Collins' wording (scholarly consensus is that Daniel never existed). Perhaps you can accept that.PiCo (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't find the word in this revision, for example. When was it removed from the body? But thanks for removing it - the current wording is what I have been arguing for. StAnselm (talk) 07:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. This seems to be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH reported by User:Apparition11 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Revision as of 11:20, 2015 May 16


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 662820439 by Huon (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 662914591 by Noq (talk)"
 * 3)  "sourced material"
 * 4)  "Sourced material"
 * 5)  "Apparation11 is removing sourced material"
 * 1)  "Sourced material"
 * 2)  "Apparation11 is removing sourced material"
 * 1)  "Apparation11 is removing sourced material"
 * 1)  "Apparation11 is removing sourced material"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Population */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Population */ again"


 * Comments:

ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH is continually changing population figures without providing sources that actually backs up the content. While this is taking place on numerous articles, Sargodha is the one that they have warred the most on. They apparently have no desire to engage in discussion. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 13:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. User:ALSHEIKHULSHEIKH is constantly restoring his preferred version to the article, complete with red warning messages in the reference section due to missing information. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a relevant RFCU request open regarding this matter as well, please see Sockpuppet investigations/Zalingeishahpur. Regards, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no discussion or reference to policy"
 * 2)  "1872?"
 * 3)  "Non-anti American rationales is by far support"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on In the news/Candidates. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* [Ready] Waco biker gang shooting */"


 * Comments:

It shocks me that a well established editor like this is engaging in petty edit warring over an ITN nomination, but that what is happening. No attempt by M to engage in discussion with even when K posted twice, once with a flaw in the blurb and once about M edit warring. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That does look like bad edit-warring. It's extraordinary how much heat is generated at ITN. It's not a pleasant place at all. --Dweller (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this behavior somewhat upsetting and certainly inappropriate for ITN/C, but I don't know that there needs to be any sort of disciplinary action beyond maybe a warning. I would have preferred that Medeis recognize that marking the item as "ready" was not a consensus action nor an action that should generally be taken by the nominator. That being said, there was no 3RR violation, which is generally the standard for a temp block. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kudzu1, I am only seeing this warning this morning, and didn't realize I had made two reverts.  Basically, my opinion is to let consensus prevail, and I'll be happy to see what happens without further action on my part. μηδείς (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Three reverts on top of the original change actually. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll stipulate that (I was going by your diffs), three reverts before any warnings, none since, and no more intended. This isn't a content dispute or ongoing, and an admin will either post or close.  I see how you could want to warn me for 3rr, but I am not sure what problem you are trying to stave off at this point.  Looking at your edit history I see you "warned" me, filed this complaint and "notified me" all between 201 am and 209 am, almost an hour after I had gone to sleep. μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned User:Medeis. The war is not continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:80.246.133.64 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "his is not wikipedia this is antisemipedia the herut was never a major party you forgot that herut as a party was never the israeli government? and i gave you this fucking reliable source that you so wanted."
 * 2)  "how is the herut was the major party if it was never the israeli government make sense? major party mean it was part of the israeli government if you didnt knew antisemipedia."
 * 1)  "his is not wikipedia this is antisemipedia the herut was never a major party you forgot that herut as a party was never the israeli government? and i gave you this fucking reliable source that you so wanted."
 * 2)  "how is the herut was the major party if it was never the israeli government make sense? major party mean it was part of the israeli government if you didnt knew antisemipedia."
 * 1)  "how is the herut was the major party if it was never the israeli government make sense? major party mean it was part of the israeli government if you didnt knew antisemipedia."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor also appears to be making the same edits using IPs 87.69.198.92 and 85.65.121.88, and new account Morbenmoshe Editor also made an offensive personal attack on my talk page after I submitted this report. RolandR (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked the primary IP being reported 31 hours for NPA violations. As they appear to be jumping IPs already, I'm not sure if stacking anything on top of that will be productive, but I have no objection if another admin wants to. Monty  845  20:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mr305worldwide reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  -> Here the user simply blanked the page with "Take that Zackmann08"
 * 6)  -> Blanked the page again
 * 7)  -> and again...
 * 8) Ok just look at the history because the user continues to delete all content from the page...


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Florence Fire/EMS Department. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted edits so as to have "their" version of the page. I have attempted to discuss with them and have conceded that they are correct on a couple of issues. Rather than working with me and assuming WP:GF they simply copied and pasted the "unconstructive edits" message I had left them (which is what started my attempt at a dialogue with them) onto my talk page and continue to revert the edits. Zackmann08 (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The above user has falsely reported me, as I removed information that was incorrect. User has also reverted the changes I made, in order to have "their" version of the page. Rather than working with me and proposing a method of resolving the issue, he reported me. I haven't reverted the last two edits he has made to my page. Mr305worldwide(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I would like to point out that after I reported the user, they took it upon themselves to remove all cotent from the page (see this edit) and replaced it with simply "TAKE THAT ZACKMANN08". --Zackmann08 (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Mr305worldwide formally requests the page be nominated for speedy deletion — Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article no longer qualifies for deletion as author request, as others have extensively edited it. Please go to the article talk page to hash out the content dispute. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * user Mr305worldwide to stop blanking. He now understands and has agreed to cease Diannaa (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Clippityclop reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Appaloosa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse! */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Appaloosa. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Appaloosa. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Some discussion at User talk:Clippityclop, however they have called me biased (despite the fact 2 other editors have reverted the same edits), and refuses to listen to the important points, that their edits were unsourced and promotional. Violated 3RR and appears to have no intention of listening to the advice of other editors Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is my first visit to add anything to Wikipedia. I added what I thought was good information to the Appaloosa page.  It was deleted as promotional so I put it back and wrote a note - not sure if it got to the person who deleted my text or not - that it wasn't promotional.  So the next time it was deleted I edited the text TRYING to comply with the complaint and make my additions seem less promotional though I did not view them as such.  The third time I did the same thing and added the second registry alternative that is out there for the breed with links to both websites.  I've asked repeatedly for what the editor would consider a viable "source" but do not get any productive response.  I asked that someone unbiased look at my last edit because it was deleted before enough time had passed to even read it.  I am not trying to "war" with anyone.  I am trying my best to comply but am not getting anything helpful.  In addition in my last 2 edits I only added information to the existing page.  AND I made a separate category for registry alternatives and it was still deleted. This information is viable to the breed and a natural progression.  People deserve accurate information in my opinion.  One final point is that there has never in history been a purebred Appaloosa and so I am asking again WHAT do you guys consider a viable source?  Thank you for any help you can provide.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clippityclop (talk • contribs) 22:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried discussing the issues at your talkpage, but all you did was call me biased- despite the fact that 3 different editors had reverted you. As explained on your talkpage, your edits did not adhere to WP:NPOV but were WP:PROMO, and were not supported by reliable sources. I was trying to help, but all you did was say I was wrong, and a biased editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302.. I did not see you trying to discuss anything. As I said I changed my edits TRYING to comply but you were simply laying in wait for me to make any change to the page and deleting it. You didn't even read what I wrote. My thoughts were that if you couldn't take the time to even read what I wrote how do you know it is promotional or not? That lead me to assume you were biased because you did not consider my changes at all. The first delete was not of what I added about ICAA but a delete of what I added to the ApHC portion. I did not re-add that. I am not warring with "my version" of anything. I'm attempting to add valuable information and trying to get some help to see what YOU would consider a viable source. I'd appreciate it if what I actually added would be read before summarily dismissing it. That just isn't fair or helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clippityclop (talk • contribs) 22:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I also forgot to add that I did not report you to anyone. I simply asked that someone else read the information I added because I assumed from your actions that you were biased. I don't know if you are or not. But I didn't report you. I don't even know how to do that. I wasn't even sure anyone was getting my messages on the talk page. I'm assuming you did since you responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clippityclop (talk • contribs) 22:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't assume I'm biased, it's called assuming good faith, see WP:AGF. Also, see WP:RS for ideas of reliable sources- books, newspaper articles and webpages are the most commonly used sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Joseph, this appears to be a genuinely new user. Even if they're trying to use Wikipedia for promotion, this is not the right noticeboard, because they haven't reverted again after you told them about edit warring and the 3RR. Clippityclop, it's not all about sources; Joseph told you about the kind of prose that's unacceptably promotional, such as "ICAA - International Colored Appaloosa Association, whose interest lies in producing the first purebred within the Appaloosa breed and FAHR - or Foundation Appaloosa Horse Registry" and "The International Colored Appaloosa Associationis the first and only Appaloosa registry created to produce eight generation purebred Appaloosa horses by the only method recognized by animal scientists and geneticists." It does sound like an advert. Please listen better about that kind of thing. As for how to get in touch with Joseph, and any editor of the article, the best way is to post on the article's talkpage and make your points and ask your questions there. And Joseph, it would be good if you had patience with a newbie and explained the things they complain about not understanding (such as how to know who reverted them, or how to get in touch with you), and you also need to use article talk for discussion. It's no use getting all offended because they called you biased. New users tend to do that. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing that they're a promotional account, I'm complaining because they violated 3RR, and instead of listening to advice, just called me a biased editor. Just because they're new doesn't excuse them not assuming good faith, as a result this is an official warning that the user is banned from my talkpage, for making false accusations in violation of WP:AGF. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And I don't have a problem with helping new editors, but only if editors are actually going to listen to your help. If people are just going to ignore you, there's no point trying to help. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice in reviewing this. I am new but I am not here to promote I am here to add information that is lacking. I think it may better be done under a new page entirely and thereby not stepping on any ApHC follower toes. Again the only reason I assumed you were biased is because you didn't even read my edits. I assumed these comments were in order to help me do a revision that would correct whatever you saw wrong with my additions. Obviously that is not how it works here. You never answered any of my questions so I really wasn't ignoring you. I did not understand what you were talking about. I don't believe I got the quote about WHAT the Icaa registry actually is until after you decided to report me. In either case, I will stop trying to add useful information to the Appalosa page. It's obviously not about Appaloosa but about ApHC. I really don't think that is in keeping with Wikipedia putting out accurate information but obviously I am in the minority here. Thank you again for clarification. I do appreciate it and will try to do better when I next post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clippityclop (talk • contribs) 00:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Stop assuming things that simply aren't true. I did read your edits, and they didn't comply with Wikipedia standards- please stop making assumptions and accusations that aren't true. I read your edits, and applied Wikipedia standards, this doesn't make me biased. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You must be a speed reader then because from the time I uploaded the page and searched Appaloosa it was gone and that was less than 30 seconds. You need to stop being offended and look at the events as they transpired. I am not blameless in our miscommunication but you certainly aren't either. Stop being a victim. It's not productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clippityclop (talk • contribs) 00:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to "play the victim", I'm pointing out facts. The facts are that basically everything you've assumed about me is wrong. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Clippityclop. You need to sign your posts on discussion pages — that's every page that's not an article — by typing four tildes ( ~ ) which will turn into your signature and a timestamp when you save. I've put a welcome template with tips like that on your page; it's a pity nobody did before. Joseph2302, thanks for your report, but if somebody stops reverting as soon as they're warned about it, they can't be said to be edit warring. No admin is going to sanction them. The discussion here should be over, it's no longer about edit warring. I recommend article talk. Mutual recrimination should stop, too. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC).

User:75.156.202.134 reported by User:Resolute (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An IP editwarring to add undue coverage of a minor incident using unreliable sources. Of note, this is a GamerGate-related incident, so remedies from the applicable ArbCom case could also apply. Page protection might also be warranted since I'm sure other gamergaters will come by to try and back this one up, but since I've been discussing and reverting his additions this morning, best that I don't take administrative actions myself. Resolute 14:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

From what I've observed, the IP has been ignoring WP:BRD. IP should be getting consensus on talkpage, before implimenting its edit. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be handled with a regular block for edit warring, for instance one week. Though this is a Gamergate issue, the IP has no edits prior to 17 May and seems unlikely to stay around as a regular contributor, at least under this identity. Handing out the usual Gamergate notice might not make much difference. I'd be inclined to semiprotect the article as well for whatever time it is likely that the article might be targeted by editors without a track record who may be interested in Gamergate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me the initial edit to include the 2015 incident was made in good faith an an attempt to report what happened. Reading the talk page, it seems as if the IP did, in fact, attempt to build consensus, however got somewhat incensed when the material was outright removed, in apparent violation of WP:BRD. The policy implies that material should be discussed prior to being removed if there is a way to improve it.

Of note: The user removing the material also resides in Calgary, which is the location of the Calgary Expo, and it is not inconceivable that they have some form of connection to the Calgary Expo themselves. Scbritton (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. It may be too early to decide if this article should be placed under Gamergate restrictions per WP:ARBGG. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate restrictions might be a little excessive - because the facts of what happened include a GamerGate banner at booth, so a reference to GamerGate is inevitable should something be included. One should note that the accusation that the editing IP is somehow affiliated with GamerGate is unprovable and dubious at best. As mentioned, it does appear to have been a good faith attempt, as carried by the language used in the text of the edits that were made. It is also interesting to note that Resolute made no attempt to actually improve the text that was written, and went straight to deleting it. As above, I refer you to WP:BRD. Scbritton (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BRD is Bold (the action of adding the material), Revert (remove it if challenged), Discuss. Not "Discuss and re-revert". A supposedly new editor would not quite be aware of that, which is why I tried to direct them to the talk page and leave article space alone until a discussion concluded.  I tried to explain  to them how Wikipedia works and what it views as reliable sources, but as they say, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.  The semi-protection in this case is warranted, regardless of how much or how little mention you think this deserves. Resolute 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Except in the tone of what you were writing, your words were quite challenging and possibly interpreted differently than you intended. One could infer as well that, because your profile puts you in Calgary, along with the "geek nature" of the internet itself, that a Calgary-based wikipedia editor actively reverting changes which detail a negative event in the history of a large convention in Calgary has a conflict of interest on your part.  Maybe there is, maybe there isn't, it can't be proved either way, but that's how it could be perceived, just like you suggested the IP was a "GamerGater".Scbritton (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Narbit reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (two days previously)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Repeated and escalating attempts to get the editor to stop:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Result: Stale. No edits since 19 May, though the dispute isn't resolved yet. Both parties ought to pursue WP:Dispute resolution before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:BilCat reported by User:CompliantDrone (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&diff=prev&oldid=663164760 Diff]
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Texas&type=revision&diff=663132537&oldid=663132342 Diff #1]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Texas&type=revision&diff=663129882&oldid=663120921 Diff #2]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Texas&type=revision&diff=663046426&oldid=663046132 Diff #3]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilCat&curid=6651580&diff=663176705&oldid=663175776 Diff]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article's talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Texas#Clarifying_what_exactly_the_Republic_of_Texas_should_be_defined_as Diff]

Comments:

BilCat has gotten into a revert cycle /edit war over the naming conventions in the article. I have attempted to discuss the issue with him in edit summaries and on his talk page but he apparently does not have time for such pleasantries, as evidenced by the diffs linked above. - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've disengaged. That's what "Moving on" means. I'll not be making any more edits to that page. Please stop harassing me, and don't post on my page anymore. - BilCat (talk) 02:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. However attempting to gain consensus about an issue you feel important enough to edit war over is hardly "harassment" and does not exempt you from future interactions with other editors or participation in consensus decision-making on other articles you edit. - CompliantDrone (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

User:David Neil Johnson reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 663330953 by Joseph2302 (talk) Spammer just started uploading fake readers last week."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 663330265 by Sargdub (talk) You were using a wrong reader. Some readers lead you to spam links."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 663325518 by Mindmatrix (talk) Liar, since in my side, it goes to wikipedia."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 663323656 by Mindmatrix (talk) it doesn't work for my old laptop."
 * 5)  "wrong format"
 * 6)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on QR code. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keeps changing the QR code, claiming it doesn't work- the new one links to Youtube not Wikipedia. According to them, their QR code links to Wiki, but for everyone else involved, it links to Youtube. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I've flagged the misleading File:Wikipedia_mobile_en.jpg for deletion from the commons. -- Autopilot (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked and reported at Commons. Sockpuppet of the ceiling fan vandal. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:89.205.106.87 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked for vandalism)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Editing tests on Skopje. (TW)"


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

Blocked 24 hours, these edits appear to be simple vandalism. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:148.197.152.197 and User:Unframboise reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Semi)
Page:

Page:

User being reported: and User being reported:  (This is one user, who admittedly edits both with his IP and signed in.)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

On CSI: Cyber:
 * 1)   (IP edits)
 * 2)  (now logged in)
 * 3)
 * 4)

On List of CSI: Cyber episodes:
 * 1)   (IP edits)
 * 2)  (now logged in)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor claims he has not contravened 3RR because he wasn't logged in the first edit, yet there is a growing pattern of him doing this when he is reverted.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:  There's also a brief discussion on List of CSI: Cyber episodes:, but the discussion is largely on the main article's talk page.

Comments:

The issue at hand is whether a gossip/entertainment website reporting they "hear" a cast member is leaving the show is a reliable source that he is, in fact, leaving when neither the actor, the show nor the network has confirmed his departure. This is then being re-reported by other sites, none of whom has confirmation from the three main players noted. The site in question regularly reports rumors and gossip, which might be acceptable on the CSI: Cyber Wiki, but doesn't rise to the level of encyclopedic content. The editor continues to ignore WP:RS, WP:BRD and WP:VERIFY in order to attempt to forced the edit; oddly enough, if the actor is leaving the network or production will confirm it when they return to production in mid-summer, so what's the hurry? Most concerning, this editor has edited using a combination of IP and logged in edits more than once to edit war, and has contravened 3RR. He claims the logged out edits are accidental, which simply reinforces his intent, and his knowledge that he's breached WP:3RR. He is also attempting to unilaterally "declare" consensus, which the the discussion regarding the edits in question has degenerated into name calling and squabbling among three very new editors (although I have suspicions this editor is a block evader editing from his school.) It's a total mess. --Drmargi (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add my two cents, if that's okay with everyone. I'd like to note that the first edit (the IP edit) was not a reversion but in fact an original edit. I also noted on the talk:CSI: Cyber page that I was logged out as I accidentally forgot to login. A consensus was reached before I made this edit enabling me to do so, whilst user:drmargi refused to take place in the discussion, despite my urging her to.

A fuller account of my actions, including notes referencing my urging of user:drmargi to join the discussion instead of edit warring can be found below. I hope this resolves itself as I would like to become an established member of the Wikipedia community. After a year editing, this is the first time I have encountered problems such as this.

see:

-- thanks, unframboise, 19:16, 19.05.15 (GMT).


 * Please note that the first edits (being the ones with IP) were made based on a discussion, in which it was established by valid arguments that the primary source is not a "gossip site" but a top tier source for entertainment news and that the article was written by a well-respected journalist and fact-checked by numerous other well-respected publishers. user:drmargi, however stopped participating in discussion after those arguments were presented. Maybe intentionally, so she can claim that consensus was not reached, but either so, she could state at any time, instead of reverting edits, that she still does not agree and thinks that there is no consensus, or present reasons why she thinks source is unreliable. And she has also been invited to do so. Maticsg1 (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Unframboise has reached 3RR and is warned against further reverts. Both articles are semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * user:edjohnston, 3RR calls for four reverts, I reverted three times. As did drmargi. If I am being warned, she should be warned too. I am NOT in breach of the 3RR rule. Anything less than equal treatment for both her and I is playing favourites, and that's a precedent you don't want to set. user:unframboise (user talk:unframboise) 21:58 GMT, 19.05.15
 * Though I don't see a 3RR violation, I'm giving you extra credit for using both an account and an IP in the same edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * user:edjohnston, I forgot to log in (the IP edit was the first edit made, it wasn't flip-flopping back and forth), I explained to drmargi on my talk page it was a mistake when she asked, and I left a small note on the cyber talk page apologising. This is a 3RR complaint, I shouldn't be warned when even you admit there was no violation. user:unframboise, (user talk:unframboise) 22:17 GMT, 19 May 2015. — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You still knowingly reverted four times. It's not three reverts per account, it's three reverts per editor, and trying to get around that by using two accounts is abuse of multiple accounts, as was pointed out on your talk page.  You're damned lucky EdJohnston is lenient.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you please stop with the accusations that he is trying to get around by using two accounts, when he apologized for forgetting to log in? And the first edit was not a revert, he was simply trying to implement the change in which we (multiple users) saw a consensus. Because you lacked to respond to any of the arguments stated on the Talk page, we assumed you have no counterarguments (qui tacet consentire videtur). So the edit made by his IP was, in fact, an edit, not a revert, and he has immediatly apologized for using IP (before it even got to your attention). Asume good faith. Maticsg1 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * EdJohnston, could you please reconsider the decision with taking in account my last post? Thank you. Maticsg1 (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 663442258--Yes. Did you? "Recorded" is linked to "History of writing", not Adam & Eve/first hominins. So IT BEGINS WITH WRITTEN RECORDS, not earlier."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 663439684--sorry, u didn't understand. prehistory=by definition history WITHOUT writing. here the TOPIC is ancient hist=by definition: hist WITH written records! Geology also HAPPENS, but is not history."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 663359135-I did, did you? Prehistory=by def. NO WRITTEN RECORD. Ancient hist.=BY DEF. a span of RECORDED HIST. So 100% clear, nothing to talk about, best: remove PREHIST altogether from here"
 * 4)  "You cannot put "Prehistory" as part of "Ancient history"!  As an introduction, OK, but then IT NEEDS TO BE MARKED AS SUCH. If not, it's a plain mistake, giving the wrong info to the user."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

No blocks but there are several warnings for edit-warring on Arminden's talk page so I'm assuming an understanding of 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: User has a notorious record of 3RR, and has been blocked multiple times for violations in the past 2 months, including 2 articles where I was personally involved. Unfortunately, Human3015 has clearly not learnt anything from those past experiences and is pursuing the same old confrontational policy of first following me to this article (I have a list of about a dozen other articles Human3015 followed me to in the recent past, having never previously edited them) and then engaging in meaningless edit wars. Please note that I am one of the top contributors of the article concerned, and I already explained why the simple terminology Kashmir is used in the article (to reflect consistency with sources and academic works on the subject). So far, one other user (Faizan) also reverted the changes put in by Human3015, while another admin also agrees with the viewpoint on the article talk page. Human3015 has 3 reverts in the article within a short period of time, in addition to a mysterious Indian IP who added his changes back in. I am certain that this IP was Human3015, as no other editor was present there at that time. Sadly, given Human3015's past record of 3RR violations, this rings alarm bells and I cannot assume much good faith here, as it seems the IP edit was made by Human3015 while logged out in order to ditch the 3RR window, which is a form of gaming the system. I'd like an admin to confirm the identity of the IP and assess whether there should be any action for the 4 reverts.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * u|Mar4d, why you are showing IP's revert? I have done just 3 reverts that to in more than 24 hours, you have done 3 reverts within 24 hours. If we consider Faizan as your another account(as you are considering that IP as me) then you have done 4 reverts in 24 hours. And even after my repeated requests you never came to talk page to discuss this matter on British Pakistanis. You should discuss article related matter on talk page instead on such board.
 * And about my history of block, you can see I was unblocked within 1 hour on my first block because I was done only 2 reverts and I was wrongly blocked. In other 2 blocks(in both of them Ma4d was involved) I was new and old users took advantage of it by making group and I broke 3 RR that time.
 * My last comment regarding this case is, I have done 3 reverts in more than 24 hour period. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 17:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) If you want to put allegations of sockpuppetry, go to WP:SPI; 2) An IP, that too from India (the article has no recent edits from such IPs) comes in to revert your favoured version, I don't think it can get any more obvious; add your three reverts, and bingo, 3 + 1 = 4; 3) You clearly know which articles you were blocked in recently for 3RR; 4) Your impatience and refusal to discuss is an issue. You barged into an article where you had no previous edit history, and changed text/terminology that has been like the way it is for years. You did not even wait to hear for a response, let alone consensus, from the involved editors, and yet reverted two different users up to four times, while a third one also disagrees. Seems blatant to me.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor: I see Human3015 opening a talk discussion and Mar4d not responding. What possible objection can he have to a genuine effort to disambiguate? The name of the province involved is clearly Azad Kashmir. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong, I have already stated my reply. And btw I have written large sections of that article, while none of you two appear to have any edit history there. So please do not attempt to give the false impression as if I am uninvolved. Thanks,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If one sees my first three comments on talk page of British Pakistanis it shows date 19th May and 20th May, and in that long time instead of using talk page u|Mar4d was busy in reverting edits.-- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 18:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one who made the undiscussed changes to the article. As the editor making changes to a longstanding article, the onus is on you to get consensus first for the changes you made. If you think you will simply be able to jump into an article and impose your views, you are under the wrong impression.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * u|Mar4d, If you are editing that article since long time then does it makes you owner of that article? You should read Wikipedia policies, there is no difference in you and me regarding rights of editing any article. You didn't came to talk page for discussion and you engaged in edit war. -- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 18:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Admin, you may not read entire discussion so I will summarize myself, I have not done 4 reverts, I have done 3 reverts that too in more than 24 hour time period. Also I have done all attempts to discuss that issue on talk page of that involved article but I didn't got any response from involved users. Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 19:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . User:Human3015 be aware that there is no absolute requirement that you make 4 reverts. You can be blocked for edit warring with less reverts. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ism schism reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article and the content in question was created by long-running sockpuppeteer Srahmadi, who was covering for in the related ANI. Despite the burden to demonstrate verifiability lying with the editor who restores material, provides no evidence for the reliability of the source whatsoever. The source, "Tebyan", is owned by "Islamic Dissemination Organization", a notoriously unreliable propaganda outlet of the Iranian theocracy.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . There has been no edits since 14:14Z. Prior to that you both made two reverts each. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What was "declined"?--Anders Feder (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An admin declined to take action on your report. You and the other party both reverted twice, which doesn't break 3RR. If you believe a source is not usable, make a request at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why am I the one who should make a request at WP:RSN if the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the other editor?--Anders Feder (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you are the one questioning the reliability of the source and you want an independent assessment of whether the source is suitable. The other editor isn't going to make a request because they are happy with the quality of the source. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please point me to the rule or guideline suggesting that the burden is on me to make the request if I am the the one questioning the reliability of the source.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand - it isn't a rule or guideline, it's about the way things work at WP. If an editor thinks a source is reliable, then they aren't going to ask for a review; it is the editor who thinks it might be unreliable that will do that. This is the same as any other process here - would you expect, for example, someone to report themselves to WP:ANI if you think they are behaving inappropriately? Or would you report them? The latter is more likely. So the recommendation being made to you is that if you want a second opinion supporting your view that the source isn't reliable, then you have the option of asking at the WP:RSN. If you don't ask, nobody else is going to and the issue will be unresolved. I think that's particularly true in this example because the AfD resulted in the article being kept in part because the contention that the sources were unreliable was not accepted. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really interested in whether the editor who restored the material is "going to ask for a review" or indeed what he is "happy with". I'm interested in following the norms described in WP:BURDEN.--Anders Feder (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Which says inter alia "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" (my emphasis). The editor in question has done exactly that: provided a citation to a source that in their opinion meets the requirements of WP:RS. They have discharged their responsibilities under WP:BURDEN. What you are actually questioning is whether the source is biased, which is a separate issue because biased sources are not disallowed - it is all about context and balance. WP:NEUTRALSOURCE has a good discussion on this point. So, in my opinion, you are not going to get support for removing the material supported by the sources you don't like without a wider conversation. Given the article talk page is not active I think you should try WP:RSN - but that's your decision. Unless someone with more knowledge wants to wade in and correct me, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in policy or normal practice that says the other editor should be asking for a review. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't questioned "whether the source is biased" at all. I have questioned whether it is reliable and I have received no evidence to contrary whatsoever. Nor has anyone else. I would be happy to go to WP:RSN by myself if it wasn't such a dysfunctional place. The last time I took one of the same editor's crank sources there, I got no response at all.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Squgaltutti4427 reported by User:Thomas.W (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 Air Force Golden Jubilee Institute."


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


 * Comments:

Repeated re-addition of material that has been removed for being unsourced or improperly sourced trivia, in spite of having been warned for it; not getting the hint even though he has been reverted by three different editors. Thomas.W talk 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder reported by User:Ism schism (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor was advised to make a request at Reliable Sources, but instead continued to edit war. See. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - No he/she did not need to go to reliable sources noticeboard. That is for things which may or may not be reliable. As for the sources on the Ahmad Keshvari page, they are clearly not even close to being reliable sources as they do do not constitute a free press and simply act as an ululating instrument for the Iranian theocracy. Mbcap (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:165.219.245.62 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 663582955 by 32.218.42.167 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 663581888 by 32.218.42.167 (talk) The source is the lack of a charge."
 * 3)  "User has not pointed to any source showing a violation."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 663565929 by 32.218.42.167 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 663431584 by 32.218.45.184 (talk) source is the public domain citation."
 * 6)  "Included key cases authored by Justice Gableman"
 * 7)  "/* Important Decisions */"
 * 1)  "Included key cases authored by Justice Gableman"
 * 2)  "/* Important Decisions */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The IP assigned to the Wisconsin Court System, so this user has an obvious conflict of interest in editing articles relating to the Wisconsin court system and its judges and justices. Adding undue, unsourced content, which counts as massive BLP violation Joseph2302 (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bl00dpaste reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 663474780 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 663474233 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 663438153 by Eik Corell (talk)"
 * 5)  "/* Classes */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Aion: Steel Cavalry. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Aion: Steel Cavalry. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Addition of unsourced content to this page despite repeated warnings. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And not stopping after being informed of this discussion. They asked a question of my talkpage, but ignored the response, which was "without reliable sources, this is original research, which cannot be accepted". Joseph2302 (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. It is now 23 hours since the last revert, and we have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Joseph2302&diff=prev&oldid=663481730 this comment] by Bl00dpaste suggesting he may have stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Saqraat reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 663631413 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 663630519 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 663631413 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 663630519 by Ian.thomson (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 663630519 by Ian.thomson (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring, and also suspected sock of per this SPI. Thomas.W talk 15:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * after the user reverted again. I haven't looked into the sockpuppetry, but I'm addressing the immediate issue of the edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MvH reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=625070284&oldid=625070082

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663398645&oldid=663395703

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663407717&oldid=663400738

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663418029&oldid=663408286

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663421295&oldid=663419609

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663438120&oldid=663422944

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663446661&oldid=663443942

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663454323&oldid=663452501

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663473533&oldid=663457088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663473533&oldid=663457088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663494190&oldid=663487672

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663535075&oldid=663516214

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't engaged in the article originally.

Comments:

Edit-warring with User:Vivek-jones, also reported below. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Generally we don't like to see primary sources used negatively in a BLP article with no further reflection. The fact that some of the conferences organized by Hamid Arabnia are no longer indexed by DBLP may be neither here nor there. DBLP might be trying to conserve their own resources. DBLP might be discontinuing the indexing of many other conferences as well. You should find a secondary source to establish the significance. If you need more input on this, try WP:BLP/N. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Vivek-jones reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=625070284&oldid=625070082

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663400738&oldid=663398645

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663408286&oldid=663407717

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663419609&oldid=663418029

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663422944&oldid=663421295

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663443942&oldid=663438120

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663446937&oldid=663446661

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663457088&oldid=663454323

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamid_Arabnia&type=revision&diff=663475202&oldid=663473533

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't originally involved at the article.

Comments:

Edit-warring with User:MvH, also reported above. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * – 5 days. See the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:107.15.55.134 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * No one can accuse me of being a fan of RGloucester, but there's no case to answer for here. Not only is Gloucester nowhere near violating 3RR, as they have only reverted once in the last 24 hours, the person behind this IP has been pushing the change since the end of April, and has been reverted by both User:Cambalachero and RGloucester. In my opinion, this essay should be semi-protected, as this IP user has no business mucking around with it. For what it's worth, the IP's changes consist of adding a refimprove tag in, which is obviously inappropriate as this is not an article (something that was pointed out ages ago) and changing content without attempting to gain consensus (although the ref used does appear to support the claim) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (semi) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:YF&B76 and User:Tqycolumbia reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

First round


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Second round


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Third round


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Fourth round


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Fifth round


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not warned the editors; I brought this matter here because this WP:Edit war, which has been happening since 2014, looks like it would continue even if I warned them to stop. Skimming Tqycolumbia's talk page and edit history, for example, I don't see where he has ever engaged in talk page discussion. And the YF&B76 account doesn't have much of an edit history, but is familiar with some of Wikipedia's ways, and has reverted Tqycolumbia as an IP. And Tqycolumbia has reverted YF&B76 as an IP.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See what I stated above.

Comments:

I see in the edit history; he might still have the article on his WP:Watchlist, but gave up on it when seeing the edit war. And Huon attempted to help. I'm not necessarily asking that Tqycolumbia and YF&B76 be WP:Blocked (well, unless they need it), but rather that something be done to stop this WP:Edit war...whether it's WP:Full protection of the article or something else. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I frankly dont remember much about this article, but it does appear to have longtime partisan editing issues and would fall under WP:ARBAP if there is anything that would help.  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, TheRedPenOfDoom. Also, the way I divided the edits above as "rounds" is not based on anything. It's just there were so many diff-links to list and I spaced them so as to not lose track of any of them and accidentally repeat one of them (or make some other mistake with them). Then I decided it looked cleaner by being spaced and titled. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot of this was that I was unfamiliar with how to appropriately address this issue. Though I have made a number of contributions to Wikipedia articles, I am not deeply experienced in the policies and procedures when it comes to stuff like this. I have established a precedent of writing biographies of Florida legislators, so this back-and-forth was confusing to me. It doesn't make sense for an article about an elected official to not have any mention of elections. I have done my best to rewrite the sections to be as neutral as possible, but it doesn't seem as though the user is interested in negotiating, as everything has been reverted. Even simple changes, like successors and predecessors, were continually reverted, even though they follow the established protocol of other pages. I am glad that someone else stepped in, I will gladly abide by whatever decision is made, and if there is policy that I can be made aware of for the future, I welcome that as well.. Tqycolumbia (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting, . Instead of WP:Pinging you back here if need be, I'll simply state that you should keep checking back here until this thread is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd say User:YF&B76 has repeatedly been removing well-sourced content, at times with deceptive edit summaries such as "(WP:YESPOV) Rather than deleting material, I have modified biased leaning language". Now YF&B76 had a point in that the language was at times more flowery than it should have been, but wholesale removal of sourced content is not the answer, and neither is edit-warring. Even accepting that YF&B76 is acting in good faith, this is getting disruptive, and YF&B76 should start discussing his concerns on the article talk page instead of removing the good with the bad. Huon (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Since User:YF&B76 hasn't edited since 22 April a block wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps a warning to both parties. Neither of these two editors has ever used the talk page. User:Tqycolumbia has responded diplomatically and they are likely to follow the advice given. EdJohnston (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Huon and EdJohnston. Flyer22 (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:YF&B76 and User:Tqycolumbia are both warned for long-term edit warring. Use the talk page to explain the changes you want to make, and try to get support from others. Further undiscussed reverts may cause you to be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

User:68.112.152.148 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - User warned about 3rr by [[User:Jytdog
 * 2)  - Reported
 * 1)  - User warned about 3rr by [[User:Jytdog
 * 2)  - Reported
 * 1)  - Reported

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Material in the article is reliably and neutrally sourced. The IP editor is a proponent of the subject's conspiracy theories, and has accused us of being part of some "govt defamation department." They only way the edits are better than vandalism is that the IP is under the delusion he's helping. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Edits have now become vandalism. Another edit will result in a report at WP:AIV.  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked by User:Mifter. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592–98)

Comments:

The user being reported has reverted the same content four times between the time period: (06:30, 23 May 2015‎) - (05:35, 24 May 2015‎), which explicitly violates Wikipedia's "Three-Revert-Rule". I gave a thorough explanation regarding the logic behind my initial content addition on the article's talk page. However, in each instance, the user Redfoxjump reverted my edit despite the academic sourcing I had provided. The only reason I haven't reverted his/her most recent edits is because I know that Redfoxjump will simply repeat the pattern of behavior already exhibited, and I don't want to escalate the situation into a pointless reverting/edit war. Additionally, Redfoxjump attempted to add his/her own POV addition to the article on the illogical basis that it was only "fair" that they got to add a sentence if I added one. I have included the diffs of this here.

BlackRanger88 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) "You are not fair. I will add my sentence if you add your sentence."
 * 2) "You are not fair. I will add my sentence if you add your sentence."
 * – 48 hours for 3RR. This dispute has been running for more than two months. (A previous AN3 complaint was declined in March). Though User:Redfoxjump has participated on talk, their comments are hard to follow. It's possible that their knowledge of English is not enough for this kind of a negotiation. Unless admins find some useful way to intervene, it looks that this will go on forever. It would be sad if we have to impose long-term full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexander Goldman reported by User:PTPLauthor (Result: Already blocked at Commons)
Page:

User being reported: commons:User_talk:Alexander_Goldman

Sorry for the unconventional report, but I am unfamiliar with anything with Wikipedia except editing the text of articles.

User Alexander Goldman keeps editing the above file to show a picture of a ceiling fan. Not only is this wholly unrelated, that it is taking place on Memorial Day, is highly offensive to many veterans. Please revert and protect the file.

The guy doesn't have an active userpage. I seriously doubt he's going to heed anything but a ban.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graves_at_Arlington_on_Memorial_Day.JPG

PTPLauthor (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Our admins can't do anything about vandals at Commons (unless they also happen to be Commons admins). But this is already handled per a report at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism. See [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Vandalism&diff=161675993&oldid=161675782 closure]. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Xelophate reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 20:57, 24 May 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 13:59, 25 May 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 14:56, 25 May 2015
 * 4) Revision as of 15:21, 25 May 2015
 * 5) Revision as of 15:28, 25 May 2015

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

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

Comments:

As you may have noticed, right before I could inform him about 3RR he made his fourth revert. But to make sure he understood I choose to revert him for the 3rd time to avoid making a pointless report. Surprisingly, he did revert for the 5th while warning me at the same time o.0. He also began to edit my Sandbox and my User Page. AcidSnow (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have notified Xelophate of this report after another revert. --Neil N  talk to me 16:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:100.37.64.197 reported by User:SuperHamster (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) May 25, 2015
 * 2) May 18, 2015
 * 3) May 14, 2015
 * 4) May 11, 2015
 * 5) May 1, 2015
 * 6) April 27, 2015
 * 7) April 27, 2015
 * 8) April 26, 2015
 * 9) March 28, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified of content guidlelines and edit warring with this notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Notified editor of guidelines and to visit the article's talk page with this notice (no response)
 * Repeatedly told of guidelines and to visit the article's talk page with the following reverts from myself and other editors:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Comments:

Over the last few weeks, a single IP editor (previously blocked for vandalism) has been re-adding excessive "gameplay guide" content to Mario Kart: Double Dash‼. Repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, told of policies and to discuss, without any sign of stopping or discussion. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This user ignores all feedback over a period of months. They have never used a talk page. The outlook for their future contribution to Wikipedia isn't good. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Aostachuk reported by User:79.228.24.190 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurt_Goldstein&oldid=660383564

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aostachuk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kurt_Goldstein Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

Sorry, I do not have much experience with Wikipedia. The user Aostachuk is repeatedly changing existing data, and replacing it by historically wrong data. He has done so before and was corrected. And now he is doing it again, without discussing or explaining the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.228.24.190 (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

79.228.24.190 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Only three reverts, so the user is warned for edit warring at Kurt Goldstein. EdJohnston (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:121.219.135.128 reported by User:Curse of Fenric (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning issued by User:LM2000

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started by User:OldSkool01

Comments:

This dispute ranges wider but the core problem is the IP who keeps on screaming in his edit summary that this event section (WWE Global Warning) was shown on pay per view and he saw it in Vietnam. His only note is to give a non inline reference to Vietnam pay TV as well as use sources that I introduced originally as back up. OldSkool01 has been reverting him the most, referencing what he states are better and more reliable sources (although as a side note he did manipulate one and as good as admits it on the talk page of the article in question). I'm not touching that section of the core article until this is properly resolved and the IP has to be blocked to start with as it isn't helping in the debate between myself and OldSkool01. It would help - if the admin is prepared to - if said admin could pop a third opinion on the manipulation problem, but I'll understand if that has to be set aside and mentioned elsewhere. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * and page protected as well. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AnulBanul reported by User:Dragodol (Result: Topic bans under ARBMAC)
Page:

User being reported:

User:AnulBanul has been edit-warring with several wikipedia users on multiple articles, including with me.

On Posavina Canton, he/she moved the Bosnian language translation behind the Croatian and Serbian translation in the intro. The country is called BOSNIA and Herzegovina, not Serbia or Croatia. If Croatian and Serbian translations are necessary, I would think they would follow the BOSNIAN translation, since that is the country after all. I reverted his/her edit, only to have him-her revert me with "Nope.." as the explanation for the reversal. I reverted that and wrote ""Nope" is no where near a decent explanation for this POV mess you're trying to create all over wikipedia", in reference to the constant edit wars and edits that this user makes, which are often reverted by several users. The user reverted me again, claiming that Bosnia is merely a "Region" and not a country. On my talk page, the user posted this: "Bosnian translation goes first because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country? What kind of logic is that? Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages, even if it does, Bosnian still wouldn't be numero uno. :D" (He-She added a cute little smiley face at the end of the post for no reason. Bosnia-Herzegovina DOES, in fact, have official languages, contrary to User:AnulBanul's uneducated claim.

On West Herzegovina Canton (which the user has an obsession with, I'm assuming he-she lives/lived there), the edit history is self-explanatory.

On Sokollu Mehmed Pasha, I reverted some users attempts to Serbianze a 16th century Bosnian man. User:AnulBanul reverted me, claiming that the Bosnian language didn't exist in the 1500s, but that Serbo-Croatian did, it just wasn't called Serbo-Croatian. ?????????? Bosnian and Serbo-Croatian is literally the same language. How does AnulBanul think this is logical to say that Bosnian didn't exist back then in any shape or form, but Serbo-Croatian did. EXCUSE ME??!? I reverted that and wrote "It's interesting that you makes excuses for the Serbo-Croatian "language"'s existence but Bosnian didn't exist; I never denied that the Serbian Orthodox existed, I said that there is no proof that he was part of that specific denomination." The user reverted me and wrote the very mature and professional summary "what the hell was he?! A Chinese Orthodox?".--Dragodol (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The country is Bosnia and Herzegovina, however, Bosnian language is one spoken by Bosniaks - Bosniam Muslims, and it is not an official language, since Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Moreover, Croats and Serbs have equal status to Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and all three languages are equal in that sense. Moreover, we're talking only about three different standardisations of one Serbo-Croatian language. Croats make majority in Posavina Canton, and are followed by Serbs, and then Bosnian Muslims/Bosniaks. Your interpretation on language order is hardly acceptable and against customs, which can be confirmed by other users. Regardless, I have been careful not to violate the 3RR rule and explained my reverts where necessary. In this case, I believe the explanation was hardly necessary, especially after silly explanation that Bosnia is a country, and that's the reason why Bosnian language should come first. It's just stupid, sorry.


 * Nobody tried to "serbianize" a 16th century Ottoman man. But, it is important to note that he made his brother - Makarije Sokolović, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church and reestablished it. You may say he was an alien, it's your opinion. Mehmed-pasha had a South Slavic, Serbian origin. Bosnian language is a late 20th century political innovation, Serbo-Croatian however, did exist, but its name was coined only later after national identities have been shaped in 19th century. Moreover, it is actually you who started reverting edits, and not me. --AnulBanul (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You listed the same article three times at the top, so I removed the two dupes. Based on the body of your complaint, I assume it was a mistake and that you intended to list other articles. Feel free to add them to the top of this report for clarity.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Bbb23. Yes, it was a mistake.--Dragodol (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: When people start revert warring about the order of languages in the article lead we can interpret this as nationalist edit warring. Both AnulBanul and Dragodol have been alerted about WP:ARBMAC, and both were warned in April for edit warring here at this board. (Dragodol used to be Sabahudin9). I propose a three-month topic ban for both editors from everything to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a common practice to add languages of geographical/political territories based on percentage of certain population living there. There's nothing nationalist about that. However, user Dragodol got an idea that Bosnian should be mentioned everywhere first (!), because Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country. What does that even mean? Bosnia and Herzegovina is a sui generis country, with no official language, with three "constituent peoples" treated as equal - Bosniaks speak Bosnian, Croats Croatian and Serbs speak Serbian standard of one language, and all three languages or standards have equal status. What other solution could I have then to add languages in order based on the number of certain ethnic group living there, as these versions will be more common than those used by minority groups, therefore, it is only logical to add more common versions first, and others later. Regardless, I edited those few pages, expanded them etc, and there comes Dragodol with crazy idea of his that Bosnian should come first everywhere because Bosnia is a country... what is that? --AnulBanul (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:AnulBanul's response is not persuasive, and User:Dragodol has not edited since the notice. If there is nothing more within 24 hours after my post I'll go ahead with the topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:AnulBanul's edits are often reverted by other users. His/her edits have been called "disruptive", by other users and by me.--Dragodol (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's only by you. --AnulBanul (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Both editors are banned for three months from anything to do with Bosnia and Herzegovina per WP:ARBMAC. Details on the user talk pages EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:194.60.38.201 reported by User:109.152.234.14 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user keeps instantiating an unsourced claim about the subjects private life. I attempted to remove the line with full justification myself, and was also reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.234.14 (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2015

The there was no attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. The link provided above shows that 109.152.234.14 reverted without talk. He/she is probably the same person as 109.156.108.31 who edit-warred with 194.60.38.201.

Diffs of reverts by 194.60.38.201: -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Revision as of 18:29, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
 * 2) Revision as of 18:27, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
 * 3) Revision as of 18:25, 26 May 2015 Deleted: where he won the Newcastle Scholarship
 * 4) Revision as of 18:23, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
 * 5) Revision as of 09:43, 26 May 2015 Deleted: where he won the Newcastle Scholarship
 * 6) Revision as of 09:42, 26 May 2015 Deleted: He is in a relationship with fellow Conservative MP Amber Rudd, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
 * Result: Semiprotected three months per WP:BLP. An IP from 109.* was repeatedly adding an unsourced claim about the MP's private life. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow reported by Hadraa (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * *Sigh*, I haven't broken 3RR. For starters, this edit isn't even a revert but rather me adding a cat. Can someone just block Hadraa indefinitely at this point? He has caused a lot disruption these past few days (see the page itself and Somaliland). It also turns out that he is even a sock of the banned user Muktar allebbey, more on that soon. AcidSnow (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

first of all stop acusing me of someone iam not and second of all look at [Somaliland] page


 * 1) 02:55,26 May 2015
 * 2)  22:52, 26 May 2015
 * 3)  22:54, 26 May 2015
 * 4)  23:58, 26 May 2015‎ .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraa (talk • contribs)
 * Haha, I was reverting vandalism; which doesn't count per 3RR. Better luck next time. AcidSnow (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

first acussing me of someone else and now all your reverting is vandalism you even used a rasis map based on clans in Somaliland page and never answered.Hadraa (talk) 00:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly hope you didn't mean "racist" when you typed "rasis". AcidSnow (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:86.180.157.12 reported by User:Erpert (Result: Semi-Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The tone of the article seemed unencyclopedic, so I tweaked it. It was then reverted by the above IP twice without explanation in either edit summary, so I then suggested that s/he respond on the article's talk page. After that, a new IP who might be the same user performed the same revert.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Would it be all right to revert to this version then?  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dentren reported by User:Keysanger (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: last stable version

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] see Talk:Economic_history_of_Chile, open since 2 February 2015.

Comments:

Slomo edit warring, sort it.

User Dentren refuses any agreement and deletes all referenced information that rebukes his POV.

There is also a case in Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

-- Keysanger (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I was Keysanger who has been showing an intrasigent behavious since he [|introduced controversial changes (without consensus) in February]. I am solely holding these controversial changes (that are off-topic and irrelevant to the article) back until a consensus is reached. Likely this will happebn with help from outside. The stable pre-February version needs to remain until the dispute is settled. Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like 6-9 reverts by each party since 24 May. Most changes are more than 1,000 bytes. This is a case of edit warring. Can you explain why both editors should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Current reverts date from May. Dispute dates from February, I haven't had time before to address properly Keysangers massive unilateral changes. Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have time and explain my changes. Dentren says that he has no time to colaborate correctly with Wikipedia. -- Keysanger (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Both blocked 24 hours. The saga of the War of the Pacific continues. It's a very-long-running dispute, and may eventually require topic bans. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightinlondon reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The person that keeps making the change to give more detail about the ex-wife, clearly cares nothing about the welfare of innocent children. Think about your actions."
 * 2)  "The person that keeps making the change to give more detail about the ex-wife, clearly cares nothing about the welfare of innocent children. Please think about your actions."
 * 3)  "Once again, removed unnecessary detail about the ex-wife that could easily lead to her identification and therefore, identification of her son, causing him harm. The UK Supreme Court stated that the identity of the mother and son should be not be revealed"
 * 4)  "Removed unnecessary detail about ex-wife that could lead to her identification and therefore, lead to the identification of the son which would jeopardize his safety and well-being."
 * 5)  "The Supreme Court of the UK has explicitly stated that the mother and son should not be identified in this case (to protect the identity of the son). Adding details about his mother compromises that well-being and safety of the son."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on James Rhodes (pianist). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Name of ex-wife */ reply"


 * Comments:

There are attempts to reach a talkpage consensus, however they are not engaging in it- the current consensus appears to be against their views. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Also, the article talkpage now has evidence from reliable sources that their assertion "he UK Supreme Court stated that the identity of the mother and son should be not be revealed" is not correct. New editor, but not working collaboratively, and it appears misguided in their information. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that the diffs above that were reversions by User:Lightinlondon were in fact him/her reverting a blatant BLP issue. I have corrected the BLP issue for now, and have opened a talk page section regarding the information that is contentious about a living person. It is my understanding that when reverting BLP issues, they do not always count in a 3RR situation. I hope that all the editors involved can join in a civil talk page discussion about BLP issues in this article. Cheers! WordSeventeen (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, except for that fact that everyone else at WP:BLPN seems to agree that it isn't a BLP violation. Also, their reasoning wasn't correct either- they were removing it based on an out-of-date Supreme Court judgement. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ummm, No you have that line of events incorrect Joseph2302. Administrator @CambridgeBayWeather agreed that the article needed to be protected for one week from editing by IP's and un-registered editors.  Cheers!     WordSeventeen (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all other editors disagree. You're just trying to cover your tracks since you've reverted 5 times in 3 hours. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No again! The only administrator to have weighed in so far @CambridgeBayWeather protected this article for one week for the BLP issues at the article. You are guilty of not assuming WP:AGF for mis-representing this entire situation.  Cheers!   WordSeventeen (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Now semiprotected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. Anyone who wants to comment further on the BLP issue should go to WP:BLPN. User:CorporateM has recently done some cleanup and this appears to be beneficial. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:3644:13A0:607C:6C50:5E90:A6F6 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi, warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "remove redundant material -- "anti-Islam" mentioned six times in 1st paragraph"
 * 2)  "remove opinionated material from biased sources"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 664294805 by Cwobeel (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 664295654 by Hair (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 664296011 by Hair (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 664296228 by Hair (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 664296360 by Hair (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 664296437 by Hair (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 664296925 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664296925 by NeilN (talk)"


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


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

Note that Hair has not reverted after I alerted them to 3RR. --Neil N  talk to me 17:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Article semiprotected by User:Jayron32; User:Hair is warned. Both parties went over 3RR but Hair may have assumed he was reverting vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: I protected the page because of what I saw as unexplained removal of content. I was unaware of an edit war per se, or of this report.  The user in question needs to be told to discuss and reach consensus.  This does look more like one-sided edit warring against consensus, now that I see it.  The editor is trying to make some points, and some of them may (or may not.  No judgement on that) be valid, but they clearly need to discuss rather than edit war.  Anyhoo, the article is protected for now, and if the user wishes to talk about it, the talk page is open.  -- Jayron 32 17:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jammer54 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 01:51, 26 May 2015‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 02:04, 26 May 2015‎
 * 2) 11:57, 26 May 2015
 * 3) 13:02, 27 May 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:35, 26 May 2015‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 02:51, 26 May 2015‎

Comments:

Editor is adding "Conference Champion" entries to infoboxes against current consensus. Behavior is seen in other article as well, which has also been reverted:


 * 02:01, 26 May 2015


 * 02:08, 26 May 2015

Editor has not responded to talk page requests, nor has explained edits in edit summary despite being informed to do so at 2:50:44 26 May 2015. I am an WP:INVOLVED admin, but other editors have been reverting Jammer54's changes as well.—Bagumba (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, heavily involved would be more like it.  Caden  cool  17:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: More reversions since Jammer54 was notified of this case: Appears user is WP:NOTHERE to collaborate with others.—Bagumba (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 18:02, 27 May 2015 at Reggie Miller
 * 18:04, 27 May 2015 at Allen Iverson


 * . Not technically 3RR, but clearly edit warring & unwilling to communicate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Realnb reported by User:McDonald of Kindness (Result: 2 users blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Source is valid and reflects the facts on Mystery Diners."
 * 2)  "Restored correct edit."
 * 3)  "Valid edit restored."
 * 4)  "Source is valid. Show uses reenactments, which are scripted."
 * 5)  "Source is reliably and was unjustly removed."
 * 6)  "The source is reliable and the evidence is extensive. The show itself acknowledges it uses actors and is staged."
 * 1)  "The source is reliable and the evidence is extensive. The show itself acknowledges it uses actors and is staged."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning user for edit warring."


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


 * Comments:

The user is pushing to include a change to the introduction, which does not have a reliable source. A discussion about the matter with him/her is in progress on the article's talk page.  McDonald of Kindness    (talk • contributions)  18:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The source I cited is reliable and is backed up by the show itself. Realnb (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this user and also for breaking the three-revert rule. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I knew that Drmargi was violating the three-revert rule as well, but at the time of making the report, I was in a rush, so I didn't have time to include his details. Anyway, thank you for blocking him and Realnb.  McDonald of Kindness    (talk • contributions)  20:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Orcohen45 reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Indef)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (Herut) - similar to a series of reverted edits by IPs and now-blocked accounts about a week ago
 * 2)  (Herut)
 * 3)  (Herut)
 * 4)  (Herut)
 * 5)  (Iraq War)
 * 6)  (Iraq War)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (by Malik Shabazz on 26 May);  (by Roland R on 27 May)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Herut and User talk:Orcohen45

Comments:

This editor is edit warring across multiple articles, and is possibly a sockpuppet of (blocked) and (previously blocked), given that the account has made very similar edits to them with similarly poor English. Number  5  7  13:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have already reported this editor at SPI, and agree with Numberr57's assessment. Several socks of Morbenmoshe have already been blocked, including, , and the range 80.246.133.0/24. Herut and Menachem Begin were semi-protected, which Orcohen is evading by making test edits until auto-confirmed. Editor is already in breach of 1RR on some articles, as well as averting a well-deserved block for harassment and incompetence. RolandR (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely by Bbb23. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Calidum (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: n/a -- this involves at seven reverts to separate edits over the past 30 or so hours.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edit made by at 23:10 on May 25 (UTC)
 * Reverted by WV at 23:11
 * 1) Edit made by Hulk at 23:15
 * Reverted by WV at 23:16
 * 1) Edit by  at 2:35 on May 26
 * Reverted by WV at 2:36
 * 1) Edit by at 3:47
 * Revert at 4:56
 * 1) Series of edits made by multiple editors
 * Reverted at 20:26
 * 1) Another series of edits
 * Reverted at 21:30
 * 1) Edit by at 2:58 on May 27
 * Reverted at 3:13

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: By me at 22:51 on May 26, which promptly reverted.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are threads on several of the issues on the talk page, but this is a pattern on edit warring. I myself have not edited the page. The user in question should know better as he has been blocked three times for edit warring in the past year. Calidum T&#124;C 03:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I got pinged this way, so I'll note that the dust from my particular war with this guy has settled. I still contend nobody should be happy in a compromise, and he that cooperation is beneficial to society, but those simmering tensions have nothing to do with The Taxi War of '15. That's ancient history. Today, we're good. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, that's the great "motor vehicle" war. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the great thing about great wars: we never have to agree on the "real" name. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments and diffs A content dispute was the bulk of the edits and reverts yesterday -- discussion followed here: . A compromise was agreed upon, and all was well (see here: ).  Not to mention there have been a butt-load of edits since the content dispute which were great, didn't involve me at all, and have remained since they were executed (see history of edits here  and here ).  Today's edits reverted by me were explained succinctly in the edit summary -- all were based on policy or due to errors in the content added/removed.  I don't really see what the problem is.  Especially considering the response I received from JackTheVicar here in the edit summary  and here at the article talk page ; I responded thusly ; he responded in this manner  and then like this at his talk page  "get off my talk page you obsessive article-owning harassing weirdo. do not post here again".  JTV edited boldly, I reverted for reasons stated in my edit summaries, he refused to discuss,  Indeed, he chose to personally attack me at the article talk page as well as in the section title.  At this time, even after I attempted to get him to discuss his concerns, he has further responded negatively and in a non-cooperative manner, never discussing the article content at all .  Just more personal attacks.
 * I do wonder why Calidum now finds it necessary to dog my edits and add warning templates on my talk page at the first possible opportunity he finds in regard to articles he's neither involved in nor has he ever edited. When he is not bringing me here to this noticeboard he's bringing me to AN where nothing comes of it. Why? Because he's concerned about disruption or he really wants to see me sanctioned/blocked in a bad way? In other words, what's the motivation? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is repeated reverts on the same content, not frequent reverts. If there is any of that here, it's lost among the rest and it would help to clean up the complaint. One could allege an ownership problem, but I don't see a case for that. I haven't looked very deep into it, but what I've seen looks like someone who disagrees with a lot of edits, and reverts them per routine BRD, but is willing to follow the rest of BRD to resolve the disagreements. Nothing wrong with that. In any case, this is not the venue for ownership complaints. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." Calidum T&#124;C 05:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I had forgotten about the "whether involving the same or different material", possibly because it makes no sense. I have probably exceeded 3RR myself a dozen or so times, then, without knowing it, and in the process of doing solid, good-faith editing work. BRD works fine when followed, no matter how many times a day you follow it. But I'll bow out and leave this to others, as the letter of policy appears to be against me. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  05:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the edit-warring/reverting behavior, I would add that User:Winklevi's behavior does indicate a sense of ownership, since I'm one of several editors that Winklevi has reverted with little explanation other than "I don't like it" (see WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The user's behavior has kept me away from working on the John Nash article. With my economics and business background, I think after some minor organizational problems are resolved I could add something of use. But if I have to worry about someone reverting any effort I make simply because they don't like it but claim "per BRD" (BRD is not a bludgeon to enable ownership behavior), it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth and makes me disinclined to engage in fruitless discussion--especially when previous engagement has led to my reasonable opinion and rationale for one side of a minor content issue being described as "ridiculous" and "silliness" by said user. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Feel free to provide diff's where I've ever reverted or edited anything using the edit summary or reasoning,"I don't like it". Further, you chose to not discuss when BRD was cited, rather, your response was personal attacks and insults. That's solely on you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I chose not to discuss because my previous discussion with you was fruitless. Discussing anything with you would be a ridiculous waste of my time and patience and would not be productive or constructive. If there was an opportunity for a constructive dialogue that would improve the article, I'd gladly engage. But I fear that even if I did waste time discussing with you, maybe even meeting an agreement after wasting two chapters worth of words to change a phrase, you'd still revert any effort I made under the claim of BRD and we'd be back in another fruitless discussion. BRD is only a tool for you; a justification and self-justification for your ownership behavior, and you wield it as a club to drive other editors away from engaging with an article that you defend/own. I am not under any obligation to volunteer any more of my time on Wikipedia just so you can try to obtain validation or legitimacy for your ownership behavior under the façade of "discussion". Sorry, but I don't have the inclination to indulge you or combat your obsessive obstruction and your ownership mentality. I consider your ownership behavior the problem, and the reverting just a symptom of it. Therefore, I withdraw from a wasteful fight. Calling you out for ownership behavior is not a personal attack--even if posited cynically because of the frustration of dealing with you. The fact that another user brought you here with edits where you alone are reverting other users' contributions is indicative that there is a problem with your behavior. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems you are not only uninterested in discussing per BRD but you are also unable to provide diffs to support your claims and accusations? -- WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because there is nothing to be gained or accomplished by discussing anything with you. Some people you cannot reason with. Can't reason with someone who feels they have the power to exercise wholesale reversions of several users' constructive efforts to improve the article with no valid reason except "per MOS" (with little or no explanation) or "per BRD" (as an empty self-justification). Can't reason with someone when it takes 5,000 words to get 4 words added to an article because you reverted them several times (ref: taxi) and you refuse to acknowledge or respect that other people have differing opinions (you called mine "ridiculous" and "silliness"). Your ownership behavior and your comments in our previous discussion indicate to me you simply don't like it when someone disagrees with how you see things. The pattern is clear...several users edited the article, added, moved things around, etc., worked with the edits and efforts of those working on the article before or at the same time. You, and you alone, reverted them wholesale with vague "per MOS" or "per BRD" rationales, but the subtext is overtly one of "i don't like it". There are several users work you reverted. several. that's not one user having a problem with you or disagreeing or refusing to discuss...it is several users having a problem with you. How many of them did you chase away from the article with your ownership behavior. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is worth noting that in the midst of the TLDR wall-o-text above laden with non-agf commentary, mocking of guidelines/policy, and pall of theersonal attacks, JTV still has not provided diffs to support his claims and accusations. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 22:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking any action; nor am I closing this report. clearly breached WP:3RR. That said, when there is a lot of activity on a breaking event, it is common for editors to breach 3RR technically without violating the spirit of the policy. In Winkelvi's case, my belief is he violated both the letter and the spirit. However, my recommendation would be a warning, principally because he wasn't warned of the problem until after the 6th revert. Normally, a regular shouldn't need a warning, but, again, this is a breaking event, and experienced editors can lose track. As for the 7th revert, which came after the warning, the edit deserved to be reverted content-wise. Normally, that would not be a justification, and Winkelvi could have left it for someone else, but ... I'll let another administrator decide what they think is most appropriate given all the circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I wish you would be a lot more AGF when it comes to me. When have you ever seen me intentionally violate a policy? (which is what I believe you mean when you say that I broke the "spirit" of 3RR).  Losing track doesn't even apply because when I'm editing for content and quality's sake, not trying to undo anyone's edits with the intent of reverting them, just putting the article and its content in appropriate order -- it's only about making sure the article is the best it can be at the moment.  Noting how many edits by other editors I never did anything with should tell you the obvious: my editing is in favor of the article and the encyclopedia, not me and not any untoward agenda.  All that in mind, I just don't see how any of my edits at the article could be considered disruptive (which is what truly breaking 3RR is "in spirit").  I have asked for editors to be aware of BRD when appropriate - some have, some haven't.  Those that haven't -- how is that on me "in spirit"?  I have started discussions.  Some have participated, some haven't.  Again, when I make the attempt, am I truly being disruptive?  I don't see how any of those edits can be considered such.  Even when called names and disparaged by a particular editor who has commented here, I kept my cool and reminded them of BRD and making constructive comments.  They declined (and are still doing so, if you look at the article talk page).


 * All that in mind, I will keep away from editing the article for the next 24 hours as an act of good faith. -- <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;">✉ ✓  00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm only doing it because it's good for the encyclopedia"....they all say that, or convince themselves that. I dont believe youre that blind to some of ypur behavior. Several editors took issue with it now. Do you see it if you rephrased as "I'm only owning the article because I think it's best" or "I'm driving away other contributors by my obstructionist behavior because I think it's best."?? Because thats the result of the behavior you displayed. Take a week off the article, let other editors take their swipes. The article will still be there, hopefully improved, and without ownership drama. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tryntonroberts reported by User:Zackmann08 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664352128 by Zackmann08 (talk) The station and apparatus are not current, that is why there is an asterisk to denote these changes, which will be in the next year."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 664352532 by Zackmann08 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 664344914 by Zackmann08 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664344914 by Zackmann08 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Boone County Fire Protection District */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on  Boone County Fire Protection District. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Boone County Fire Protection District */"


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


 * Comments:

User is clearly new and I respect that. I have tried to initiate a dialogue with the user on multiple occasions with no success. Zackmann08 (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

As nobody else is editing the article, I have locked the page for 2 days so you can sort your differences out on the talk page. I don't think templating a newbie lots really qualifies as "initiating a dialogue" myself. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kristijan Đorđević reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 18:01, 25 May 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 17:16, 26 May 2015
 * 3) Revision as of 17:26, 26 May 2015
 * 4) Revision as of 17:35, 26 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, but twice on his talk page: and

Comments:


 * In the last days I have been advised twice by IP:151.40.69.231 that this user was "vandalising" without apparent reason sourced content of another article (List of European countries by average wage), but he did not insisted with his edits there, so I took no action. Today I noticed that he edited in the same way (swapping the median wages of Italy and Malta) a very similar article without sourcing or commenting his edit, so per WP:BRD I reverted him, asking him on the article's edit summary for reliable sources, but he wrote the following comment on my talk page . I reverted him again asking another time for sources, and he answered in this way commenting below yesterday`s request for help of the IP. In the meantime, I had searched on the eurostat web site until I found a source which shows that he is wrong. I invited him on his talk page to check the source but, instead of discussing, he reverted the article again with the following comment , where he pretends that he does not need sources, because this fact is "well known". In the last few months is not the first time that I meet this user, and each time he is editing disruptively, changing arbitrarily content regarding Italy, disregarding sources and accusing others of nationalism (it is funny to notice that some days ago I have been accused by another Italian user of being a "traitor of my homeland" :-)). I think that if he continues in this way a topic ban would be appropriate. Thank you, Alex2006 (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum:the reported user just "menaced" me on my talk page . it is also noteworthy to notice that he sistematically does not sign his edits. Alex2006 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Alex2006, the user has broken the 3RR rule, but I don't like to block him for that, since you were edit warring too, just as much, really; he simply got to four reverts sooner because he started it. And you too have not used the article talkpage. Another time, I advise you to post on article talk (discussion via edit summaries is discouraged), warn sooner, report sooner, and revert less. You don't have to wait for a user to violate 3RR before reporting; if it's obvious that they intend to continue reverting, admins will be interested. Anyway, in view of the respective posts on your userpages, and the lack of edit summaries from Kristijan Đorđević, I have blocked him for disruptive editing. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC).

User:Sam11012 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "what i am trying to do is to tell the write thing about the mastoi tribe, what ever i am trying to write is completely write and can not be challenged by any one,so kindly do not revert or rmove the cahnges unitl its been proved wrong or discriminative"
 * 1)  "what i am trying to do is to tell the write thing about the mastoi tribe, what ever i am trying to write is completely write and can not be challenged by any one,so kindly do not revert or rmove the cahnges unitl its been proved wrong or discriminative"
 * 1)  "what i am trying to do is to tell the write thing about the mastoi tribe, what ever i am trying to write is completely write and can not be challenged by any one,so kindly do not revert or rmove the cahnges unitl its been proved wrong or discriminative"
 * 1)  "what i am trying to do is to tell the write thing about the mastoi tribe, what ever i am trying to write is completely write and can not be challenged by any one,so kindly do not revert or rmove the cahnges unitl its been proved wrong or discriminative"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mastoi. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mastoi. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* May 2015 */ cut it out"


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


 * Comments:
 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ahunt reported by User:41.224.101.46 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User:Ahunt has been edit-warring with one or more wikipedia users on the cited article above.

He has started firstly reverting an important content concerning the opinion supporting "GNU/Linux" term of a well-known person (Jimmy Wales) under a reason that the reference wasn't reliable and that "It is also seven years old". The reference was updated by an ip user to refer to the diff made by the official Jimmy Wales' wikipedia account: to make sure that the info was reliable enough: but User:Ahunt didn't accept that: and instead tried to justifty his reverts with false positives. The deletion of such reliable content is considered vandalism. the editor has clearly shown his pure POV-pushing against the "GNU/Linux" term by the 5 edits (from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664259885 to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU/Linux_naming_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=664267671) he did for adding non-reliable content (like "In May 2015 Stallman began calling Linux-based operating systems "the GNU operating system"" and "In May 2015 Softpedia reported that Stallman had abandoned his campaign to have people call Linux-based operating systems "GNU/Linux""), which the cited source didn't say and which already differs with the truth that Richard Stallman was using the "the GNU operating system" term from 1983, without keeping the content related to the Jimmy Wales' opinion.

Such POV-pushing against "GNU/Linux" can be seen in several contributions the editor made like, , , and.

The editor hasn't stopped at that, but has continued multiple reverts which can be seen in the article edit history, to violate the three revert rule policy describing the reverted edits to be vandal, while those edits was done to restore the edit already vandalized by him, to update the ref, and to remove the added non-reliable content against WP:NPOV: and already explained by the ip user in the article talk page.

The editor has been warned about such behaviour in his talk page and the article talk page, but he didn't stop and continued reverting and tried to accuse the ip user of Sockpuppeting with multiple IP addresses while the ip user has already explained all in the talk page.

By doing such edits, the editor is involved in a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:VAND, WP:3RR and WP:DISRUPT: that's unacceptable POV-pushing against other contributions and thus a lack of constructive edits reflecting his ability of collaborating correctly with other editors. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Semi-protected for a month. The 41.x.x.x and 197.x.x.x editors are obviously the same person, have not justified their edits, and refer to the correct reversal of their edits as "vandalism".  Not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Who matters if those ips are the same person or not? You didn't explain why the edits are "not justified". 41.224.101.46 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The edits done by 41.x.x.x and 197.x.x.x are already explained in the edit history and the talk page, this really needs a serious action from the part of administrators. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As can be seen in the edit history for this page the various IP addresses (which all trace to the same ISP) have been consistently removing cited text, while adding their own text cited to Wikipedia talk pages as refs. I have consistently reverted their deletion of the cited text as vandalism, while we have been carrying on a talk page discussion about the inclusion of quotes sourced to self-published sources. So far the consensus there is as per Wikipedia policy, that is it not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You was the first to remove cited text about jimmy wales opinion while the ref was reliable, your removed text was because you wrote info not existing in cited text, so it's per WP:NPOV policy. So your editing is the only unacceptable one which violated WP:VAND policy: and then your account needs to be blocked. 41.224.101.46 (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Tiger-Man101 reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  "This is correct because the uss arizona was struck and sunk by the japanese on december 1st 1941 so it is impossible for it to be struck a year later"
 * 8)  "this is correct"
 * 1)  "this is correct"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on USS Arizona (BB-39). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on USS Arizona (BB-39). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

They've been warned multiple times not to change the year from 1942 to 1941, yet they continue. They have been reverted by 4 different editors, showing that there is a clear consensus that their edits are not correct or beneficial. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours - clearly the user is misreading what "Struck" means in this context. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dan Vs. is discontinued reported by User:Weegeerunner (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "PLEASE, DONT WATCH A DEPRECATED SHOW LIKE DAN VS."
 * 2)  "Rick and Morty will stay without an crossover, as Dan Vs. is no more"
 * 3)  "NO MORE DAN VS., IF YOU CHOSE TO WATCH DAN VS., PLEASE, ABANDON IT"
 * 4)  "no more Dan Vs. as it was"
 * 5)  "Dan Vs. is defunct, and it will no longer mentioned in MLP-related content"
 * 6)  "the show will be deprecated next month"
 * 7)  "The show is discontinued, also, Dan Vs. will be deprecated in this 2015"
 * 1)  "Dan Vs. is defunct, and it will no longer mentioned in MLP-related content"
 * 2)  "the show will be deprecated next month"
 * 3)  "The show is discontinued, also, Dan Vs. will be deprecated in this 2015"
 * 1)  "Dan Vs. is defunct, and it will no longer mentioned in MLP-related content"
 * 2)  "the show will be deprecated next month"
 * 3)  "The show is discontinued, also, Dan Vs. will be deprecated in this 2015"
 * 1)  "The show is discontinued, also, Dan Vs. will be deprecated in this 2015"
 * 1)  "The show is discontinued, also, Dan Vs. will be deprecated in this 2015"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * So this is an obvious sock of Gabucho181. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have blocked this user indefinitely for disruptive editing and personal attacks. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Taeyebaar reported by User:StarbucksLatte (Result: Filer blocked as a sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=663981768&oldid=663958250 - reverted edits by user
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=663838318&oldid=663788370 - reverted edits by senior admin
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arrowsmith_School&type=revision&diff=664362217&oldid=664362028 - reverted all my edits, repeatedly

Taeyebaar indicates on talk page "some articles are endangered", implying sole ownership of the article.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User Taeyebaar has undone repeated attempts by various admins (including senior ones!) in the last 24 hours - and many more attempts in the last few months. They are protecting their own interest in the article without allowing additional edits.


 * 'Starbucks' is a sockpuppet of the blocked user:Wiki-shield. I have just reported him to a CU administrator and the case should be persued as soon as he receives the message.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Taeyebaar' has accused every editor of their articles of sockpuppetry, and managed to get numerous legitimate editors banned. Check out their user history! StarbucksLatte (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:StarbucksLatte has been blocked indef by User:Bbb23 per an SPI report. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kuş ve balık kolik reported by User:Hair (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

pomegranate nightingale."
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This bird is a bird species usually fed in cages.
 * 1)  "This bird is a bird species usually fed in cages.
 * 1)  "This bird is a bird species usually fed in cages.
 * 1)  "This bird is a bird species usually fed in cages.
 * 1)  "This bird is a bird species usually fed in cages.   pomegranate nightingale."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on European robin. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Level 4 warning re. European robin (HG)"


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


 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours. Unsourced information, edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ClaraReyes11 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664204083 by Philip J Fry (talk)  Telemundo press release states that the show is based on "A Better Life" here is link"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 664152804 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 3)  "Added English translation"
 * 1)  "Added English translation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with '== Bajo el mismo cielo == Hello, you could add references the next time you add information to an article?. Remove references to add information is not correct a...'"
 * 2)   "/* Bajo el mismo cielo */"


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


 * Comments:

The user removes references without any reason and adds information without reliable sources. Already leave you a message, but did not seem to matter. I hope some administrator to do something. Thank you.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 01:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to reverting, but for the record, I came to ask for help here and so far no administrator has reviewed this.--  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 01:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Alansohn (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 17:36, 27 May 2015‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:43, 27 May 2015
 * 2) 17:45, 27 May 2015
 * 3) 18:03, 27 May 2015
 * 4) 03:49, 28 May 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR self awareness: "I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted." (Note: BMK's self revert took place after edit 3 listed above and before the fourth edit listed above triggered the violation and is not listed in the sequence of reverts). He expressed the same awareness of the edit warring violation "I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted." in this edit, but this comment was made *AFTER* he had made the fourth revert (with the self-revert excluded).

Comments: User:Beyond My Ken has been blocked on four separate occasions for 3RR / edit warring violations, most recently in March 2015, a mere two months ago (per his block log). The time for warnings (and there are probably well more than a dozen that could be found in the archives) is gone and the usefulness of 24-hour blocks has long passed by. Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a long response here, but accidentally lost it, so here's the short version: look at the article's history, the number of reverts and who made them, look at Richard Arthur Norton's behavior on the talk page (failure to recognize BRD or wait for a consensus), look at his uploading an obviously non-free image to Commons to get around his restriction on uploading images here, look at Bbb23's and HJ Mitchell's talk pages for my attempt to head this off before it became a problem. Now, take a look at the history of the Alansohn/Magnolia677 conflict as reported on AN/I, including my strong suggestion (at least at one point) that Alan be sanctioned; now look at the history of IP and open proxy vandalism on my talk and userspace pages (which had to be protected for a week), and then at the the no-so-coincidental filing of this report almost immediately after I took strong issue with one of those vandals here. Now, put the pieces together, and the story tells itself. BMK (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It is very interesting that an editor who last edited this page in 2009 is right on top of reporting this, right at the moment when it happens. Is it possible that Alansohn is stalking Beyond My Ken, looking for an opportunity to exact revenge because Beyond My Ken supported Magnolia677 in their extended, voluminous wikifight?  Is this appropriate behaviour?  Jacona (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

BMK self-reverted, so by the spirit of the law he has not violated 3RR. He is also trying to get a balance on the talk page and ensure the article remains as factually correct as possible. I'm sure there is some irony in me calling "no action" given the content of the article (which I assume everyone here has read thoroughly, right?) and the emphasis of standing around thinking "I don't want to do anything with this" being unhelpful, but there you go. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm not sure that you've counted the edits here correctly. Revert 1 at 17:43, 27 May 2015, Revert 2 at 17:45, 27 May 20 and Revert 3 18:03, 27 May 2015 that put BMK at the cusp of a 3RR violation. It was Revert 4 at 19:43, 27 May 2015 that was self-reverted and which he spoke about trying to canvass multiple administrators to take his side. After that, Revert 5 at 03:49, 28 May 2015 put him over the limit. It's not just that BMK is a four-time violator who has been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, it is that he continued edit warring *AFTER* he told Bbb23 "I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted." and HJ_Mitchell that "I'm backing away from the article for the moment, as I've clearly lost perspective: I broke 3RR but then immediately self-reverted." Even after subtracting the self-revert -- as should be done -- it is BMK's brazen edit warring after that point that violates the letter and spirit of WP:3RR, whether you count five reverts or "only" four in a 24-hour period. 14:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point somewhat. Just bean counting the reverts without context is unhelpful. The area of contention is over whether or not the picture of Kitty Genovese should have a specific date with a source, or just the year with no source. I find either is acceptable to my understanding of the topic - with just the year, I can still read the article to find out specific dates and the sequence of events. As you can see on HJ Mitchell's talk, BMK has apologised for edit warring, so any sanction against him would be punishment, which is not the way we should work. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as you toss in an apology, you can keep on violating WP:3RR? What's worse here is that BMK "apologized" for his self-revert and then kept on edit warring, presumably showing that his apology was anything but sincere. BMK's rambling screed above, blaming everyone but himself and making a series of paranoiac bad faith accusations provides further evidence that this problem is far from resolved and that no lesson has been learned. And this isn't a first-time violator; he has been caught with his pants down and blocked on four separate occasions for edit warring, most recently in March of this year. Take a look at WP:3RR, which makes it clear that a fourth revert passes a red line, stating "There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." Your interpretation turns 3RR into a meaningless document, simply for the purpose of letting a four-time violator -- only counting those where he has been caught and punished -- get away yet one more time with a blatant violation of policy. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to spend more time reading the enyclopedia's articles, particularly good or excellent ones, and less time worrying about who did what to who, where, and when. I think we're done. Have a nice day. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lauyulam reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* top */"
 * 2)  "Catalan speak Catalan. this is their mother language  ,not spainish"
 * 1)  "Catalan speak Catalan. this is their mother language  ,not spainish"
 * 1)  "Catalan speak Catalan. this is their mother language  ,not spainish"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I am tired of seeing this edit warring on this and many other spanish footballers. Seems agenda driven. And the editor recieved warning for edit warring both here and here yesterday and has not stopped despite not one, but two warnings for edit warring. <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> 14:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have undone a whole load of his reinsertion of 'Catalan' edits as recently as ~10 minutes ago. His blanking of his TP suggests WP:NOTHERE. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  14:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

a whole load of errors saying these are spainish name--lauyulam 14:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauyulam (talk • contribs)

These are to correct template into correct one. but someone are reverting my edit without giving proper season. --lauyulam 14:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand that this user's main language is definitely not English, and I am willing to offer help in translation if need be in any interaction between the interested parties. Although I would very much like to learn why I was told to "fuck off" for trying to explain WP guidelines! --84.90.219.128 (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * GiantSnowman 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Mjbmr (Result: No violation)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Luri language 21:02, 18 May 2015‎‎, Southern Luri language 14:32, 18 May 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Luri language 02:11, 29 May 2015‎, Southern Luri language 02:07, 29 May 2015
 * 2) Luri language 18:17, 29 May 2015‎, Southern Luri language 18:16, 29 May 2015‎
 * 3) Luri language 19:05, 29 May 2015‎, Southern Luri language 19:06, 29 May 2015‎

Comments:

This user started a change without reaching any consensus on articles talk pages. Specially when this user emptied Southern Luri language and redirected it to Luri language while we have articles about other dialects of Luri language. Mjbmr (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is just tit-for-tat for my request above, and user Mjbmr did not notify me of it.  BTW, these are his edits: per BOLD, it's up to him to justify them, and there were complaints on his talk page over his edit-warring before I got involved. — kwami (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This user also got into a move war on Southern Kurdish dialects, see, and got warned by other users, see. About this edit war, he chose warning me instead of bringing the issue about his edits on the discussion to reach a consensus, I got no warn by any users beside him because I was not the one started pushing thoughts. As you look at his block log, it shows that he was blocked over similar issues this year. I'm pinging other involved users: Khestwol, BD2412. Mjbmr (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – Nobody broke 3RR. Please use the talk page to get agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Eldizzino reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Talk:Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires Undid revision 664463811 by Happysailor (talk)"
 * 2)  "Talk:Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires Undid revision 664463743 by BD2412 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Talk:Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires Undid revision 664463495 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 664463351 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 664463219 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 6)  "SEE TALK Undid revision 664462629 by K6ka (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 664462589 by Happysailor (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 664462521 by Happysailor (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 664462423 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 664462237 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 664462078 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 664461963 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 664460646 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 14)  "←Replaced content with 'There is no such thing as "Barrios and Communes" of Buenos Aires.  Please see  * Communes of Buenos Aires (Spanish: :es:Comunas de la Ciudad de Buenos...'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Barrios and Communes of Buenos Aires. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Deleting the page for a cut-and-paste move to Neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * – 1 hour by User:BD2412. Since the block expired, the war appears to have stopped and a discussion has started on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes (quite often, in fact) that is all that's needed. Cheers! bd2412  T 22:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:147.153.168.23 reported by User:Conifer (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664598416 by Conifer (talk) I did: {{cite web|url=http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2015/01/27/bus-rapid-transit-call-new-u-s-36-line/36009/ |title=If not Bus Rapid Transit, wha "
 * 2) {{diff2|664595937|18:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)}} ""
 * 3) {{diff2|664569032|14:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 664308095 by Conifer (talk) the system proposed by RTD does not conform to the definition of "BRT" https://www.itdp.org/the-brt-standard/"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  {{diff2|664617429|21:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Three revert-rule */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  {{diff2|664582344|16:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* The Definition of BRT */ reply"
 * 2)  {{diff2|664597587|18:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* The Definition of BRT */ reply"
 * 3)  {{diff2|664619891|21:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)}} "/* The Definition of BRT */ reply"


 * Comments:

User has refused to recognize reliable sources calling bus service on US 36 "bus rapid transit", and has insisted on referring to it as "express bus service". They also logged into to circumvent 3RR at Special:Diff/664619628. <span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">Conifer (<span style="color:forestgreen;font-family:Georgia,serif">talk ) 21:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * {{AN3|b}} – 24 hours to User:Josm2028, who seems to have logged in to avoid 3RR. Semiprotected FasTracks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: contended setence and ref added "add editorial comment with in-text attribution and ref"

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed info - POV, not notable"
 * 2)  "its undue, & irrelevant"
 * 3)  "text is original research, undue"
 * 4)  "Removed info - irrelevant, undue, potential POV"
 * 5)  "Removed info - undue, irrelevant"
 * 6)  "Removed info - opinion of the newspaper"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, between 2nd and 3rd revert, above

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on reported editor's user talk page:

Comments:

Repeated deletion of a succinct statement of a highly significant, widely held point of view on the subject of the article, from a highly noteworthy source, the editorial board of The Washington Post, with in-text attribution. Hugh (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Can make the same claims towards User:HughD. This is information that does not belong on the page. And you are edit-warring just as much as I am. Please stop viewing my activity as hostile. Wikipedia is not a place you get to push your opinions again and again and never consider the input of other editors. The information in question is not directly related to the article subject. Hugh, its difficult to continue assuming good faith when you are this hostile and dont let anyone else edit the page. I support my decision to remove this info because of WP:BOLD. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * update - It needs to be noted that HughD has been attempting to remove edit warring warnings on his talk page.


 * 
 * 
 * DaltonCastle (talk) 05:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been following watching this dispute the last few days. Both editors are correct regarding the other's conduct. Dalton has indeed been edit warring, not a technical 3RR violation and Hugh's "warning" was before the offending edits began so it might not have been sufficient, but edit warring nonetheless. Hugh indeed has major listening and battleground problems that have disrupted progress in a number of articles and probably warrant broader community attention. Please ping me if you respond as I am not watching this page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Reported editor retaliated by taking his edit war harassment to reporting editor's user talk page: Hugh (talk) 07:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And again: Hugh (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is ludicrous! You are a part of this dispute as well and you have attempted to remove any mention of your involvement from your talk page. You are not going to take down any mention of your wrongdoing and then attempt to drag my name through the mud. Your removal of those talk page issues does not make you seem like you are acting in good faith. Perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with WP:OWNTALK. Generally its best to archive. But more importantly, its suspicious that you cherry-picked which discussions to remove; the only ones noting you are involved in an edit war during your accusations of me edit-warring. hmmmmm.. I must protest your actions and your accusations that I "retaliated". If you want me to remain civil and assuming good faith, please treat better with me. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, and now this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HughD&diff=664610181&oldid=664609986 DaltonCastle (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: DaltonCastle is blocked 24 hours for violation of 3RR at User talk:HughD. Users can remove messages from their own talk; such removals are an exception to WP:3RR. Surely DaltonCastle can't be considered a novice, with thousands of edits and an account created in 2012. His above remarks about WP:BOLD make no sense. If he is not familiar with hotly-contested political articles, he should behave more carefully. HughD doesn't come out of this dispute looking good. Articles on American politics can be extremely divisive and they have used up a lot of Arbcom's time. Try to be part of the solution rather than the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Dogmyth reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Religious basis */"
 * 2)  "/* Flood geology */"
 * 3)  "/* Planetology */"
 * 1)  "/* Planetology */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See talk page for warnings about editwarring (December last) and various other issues, eg NPOV editing. Doug Weller (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. This doesn't appear to be a 3RR violation, but it risks being considered POV-pushing. I'm notifying Dogmyth under WP:ARBPS. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:66.31.171.214 reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (giving Eastern Standard Times):
 * 1) 14:21, 30 May 2015
 * 2) 00:01, 30 May 2015‎
 * 3) 22:31, 29 May 2015‎
 * 4) 22:12, 29 May 2015‎
 * 5) 18:23, 29 May 2015


 * 1) Similar edit by possible sockpuppet: 14:51, 29 May 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The IP has been edit warring for several days over material in the lead that gives an overview of material described in more detail in the body of the article. Despite a Talk page warning and requests in edit summaries that IP move to Talk page, IP has continued to revert without explanation. Ssilvers (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Helpinghand2013 reported by User:Krimuk90 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664556706 by Krimuk90 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 664690990 by Krimuk90 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Krimuk90 - STOP Vandalizing the page. Rating section is backed by multiple sources."


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

Tried explaining on my talk page. Krimuk | 90 ( talk ) 11:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

User:2600:1014:B118:D28E:0:0:0:103 reported by User:Winner 42 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 664708836 by Winner 42 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 664705706 by Winner 42 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Nazi is not a country"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 664667613 by 65.30.57.79 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Nazi Germany and Texas v. Johnson */ new section"


 * Comments:

User:Libertarian12111971 reported by User:Epeefleche (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: May 16

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) May 16
 * 2) May 21
 * 3) May 30
 * 4) May 30
 * 5) May 30

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * May 16 "An editor has now repeatedly ... in a slow-motion edit war ... deleted inlines to redirects."
 * May 30 "You can't just edit war on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a cogent reason for your edit warring."
 * May 30 "I ask you again, and warn you again, to stop edit warring."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * May 21
 * May 30
 * May 30
 * May 30

Comments:

Frustrating.

This editor has stopped just short of 4 reverts, but is edit warring. He is repeatedly overriding my contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. Despite my efforts to engage him in discussion.

I've tried to engage the editor in meaningful discussion a number of times, on his talkpage, on the article talkpage, and in my edit summaries. I've received nothing helpful in response. The best has been along the lines of "I disagree". Followed by a series of reverts.

Sometimes -- a problem that has plagued many of this editor's edits (he doesn't seem to care, as he has been spoken to about it a number of times in the last 10 months, by at least 4 different editors), he doesn't at times leave an edit summary. As in his reverts 1 and 4, above. Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm noting other issues as well. This comment looks like trolling in response to your completely valid and universally accepted admonishment that inline links should not be deleted because they are helpful, the editor wrote, "No, they're not." This comes a few months after I encountered them inexplicably removing a reference from an unreleased film article. The editor never replied to my query about that. Their response of "That sucks" in response to yet another explanation that edit summaries are crucial leads me to wonder if they ever read up on any of the other notices about this, or if they understand that this is a community project, not a solo venture. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have noticed similar problems -- though they go beyond this board. An example -- the inexplicable removal of a pertinent fact, and then ... in talk page discussion ... denying his removal, though the diff clearly evidenced it. See here. Not in keeping with the rebut-able AgF we start out with. And perhaps that is pertinent to this board. Frustrating. Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)