Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive284

User:Monochrome Monitor reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Topic ban)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "wikipedia: overcat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality)"
 * 2)  "reason? It's precedent."
 * 3)  "already in category"
 * 1)  "already in category"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Comments:

Previously blocked for violation of 1RR; my edit summary at Goldstein reminded the editor of this rule, but the editor ignored it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That was two reverts. The third was completely justified. It's blatant overcat. --Monochrome _ Monitor  19:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry all. I thought it was 3RR, not 1. I self-reverted. --Monochrome _ Monitor  19:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two weeks after you were blocked for violating 1RR, you thought the rule for Israel/Palestine material was 3RR?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the general rule for Israel/Palestine 3RR? --Monochrome _ Monitor  22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Baruch Goldstein's article is obviously related to the conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * U|User:Monochrome Monitor do not just jump into articles and edit. Read all the appropriate banners that you will find on the article and talk pages, so you get an idea of the current "DEFCON" state of the articles. It was decided a long time ago now that all I/P related works are 1RR's. Please read around articles before you begin to edit. I really don't want to see you here again, MM. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Nomoskedasticity I would have appreciated a ping from you on this. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * MM, This is for your own good. I propose a 1-2 week topic ban for all I/P and Jewish - related subjects for you. I urgently need to know whether you can function in other subject areas, as many of us do, in a constructive way. You have a great interest in retro technology, and there is masses of articles that would interest you. I am proposing this for your own good, as your mentor. Your supporter's patience (of which there are many) is not inexhaustable. It would do your reputation an immense amount of good if you voluntarily refrained from editing these areas yourself for a one or two week period, and stated this yourself. Kind regards Simon Irondome (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added Template:Editnotices/Page/Baruch Goldstein, though it does look like the user's previously been DS alerted in the area, albeit 11 months ago. -- slakr \ talk / 02:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can definitely commit to that. Can I edit non-controversial Israel-related articles? Ie, I was thinking of uploading the Hebrew Teva logo. --Monochrome _ Monitor  02:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * MM, are you capable of leaving Jewish-related subjects entirely for a short period? Analytical Engine. Have a look at that. WP is sooo big Georgia! Simon Irondome (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the answer to your question appears to be no. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * well at least it's happening on talk now! Simon Irondome (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by reluctance to deal with a clear violation of 1RR, especially as a repeat instance. In any event: today, we have a repeat of the same sort of edit on the same article: .  It's not a further violation of 1RR -- but one would surely hope for use of talk page rather than simply repeating an edit that has already been rejected.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The additional editing today on Baruch Goldstein makes it clear that this editor has no intention of adhering to 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Monochrome Monitor didn't clearly respond to Irondome's proposal she agree to a break from editing Jewish-related articles. She's already been blocked twice for violating the ARBPIA 1RR rule, and this complaint asserts a new violation on June 1. On June 5 (while this complaint is still open) she has resumed editing Baruch Goldstein. The time may have come for a three-month topic ban from ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't violate anything this time. Also, many of my edits (ie, deleting category:20th century physicians) were accepted.--Monochrome _ Monitor  04:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Context is important. The first ban on A/I was two years ago. I was fifteen. The last one was a good-faith edit on Israel, a compulsory one-day edit ban. This time was different and I broke 1RR (albeit unknowingly), and I'm fine getting penalized for that. But A three-month ban is completely unjustified since the last one was one day. --Monochrome _ Monitor  04:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I forgot about the 2-week thing. I did try to work on other things but my article got deleted by a bot. --Monochrome _ Monitor  04:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of bots, a bot just made the same edit on the article that I did. --Monochrome _ Monitor  08:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Monochrome Monitor is banned for three months from the topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict on all pages of Wikipedia including talk and noticeboards. She does not seem able or willing to obey the 1RR rule on these articles, since this is the third violation. This action is per the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. For some negotiations elsewhere, see User talk:Monochrome Monitor, especially the comments of User:Irondome who has been trying to serve as a mentor to MM. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 665226347 by SLBedit (talk) this is unnecessary"
 * 2)  "no, it's just unnecessary whitespace"
 * 3)  "loans are all as good as over now that the season is over"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Minor editing */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Minor editing */"
 * 3)   "/* Minor editing */"
 * 4)   "/* Minor editing */"
 * 5)   "/* Minor editing */"
 * 6)   "/* Minor editing */"


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


 * Comments:

PeeJay2K3 is ignoring MOS:HEADINGS. SLBedit (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SLBedit is making unnecessary edits. Why would you even go into an article's code just to add two lines of whitespace that isn't even required by the Wikipedia software? It's recommended to help editors, but it's not mandatory. – PeeJay 23:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you admit the minor edits were helpful (to help editors). It's not mandatory to revert other people just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is just childish. No offence has occurred here. Not to suggest that edit warring only occurs when more than three reverts have occurred, but there are only three reverts here, and one of them was by accident; I started making my edit about the end of the loans before SLBedit re-reverted me, so when I saved it, it went back to a version before his re-revert. – PeeJay 23:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you say so but I think it was not an accident. You are against two blank lines just because. SLBedit (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice work assuming good faith there... – PeeJay 23:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was in good faith or an accident, why didn't you add the blank lines back? You can. Or do you want me to violate 3RR? SLBedit (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SLBedit (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, people. This is whitespace we're talking about here. Had I seen this report within an actionable timeframe, I would likely have been tempted to block both of you for sheer childish behavior edit warring, but now that it's 5 days hence, let's just agree to act like adults and drop it, hmm? &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:176.239.107.149 reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Stale)
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: The IP has been involved in several edit-wars and does not seem to stop. The IP has reverted three different users in a matter of several hours. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point, a block would be useless since the IP has not edited in 5 days. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mnnlaxer reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This is a violation of 1RR restriction for the page. The user is well aware that she/he violated the restriction, but decided to do it on purpose, i.e. to battle/"make the problem bigger", which is also a violation of WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I admit I unwittingly violated 1RR and will accept any penalty for that transgression. However, it was not to battle. My response to the notice was "No. The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. I could have waited a couple hours to avoid it. But that wouldn't be right. I would rather take @Volunteer Marek:'s suggestion and go to WP:AE rather than a technical 1RR complaint. And I prefer for someone else to do the filing. I would love to see someone actually argue against the points I have made on the talk page. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)" Full discussion at User talk:Mnnlaxer

I have since learned that WP:AE is for conduct disputes, not content. So after this is closes, I will file a WP:Mediation request to get to the content dispute, unless someone has a better idea. I really would like to see a formal argument against my points on the talk page. If it takes a Mediation to get there, fine. I would have preferred to gain consensus on the talk page, but only one other editor was willing to engage in a compromise. Several other editors simple asserted WP. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Statement by other users
Yes, the 2 reverts are within a 24 hour period. But at least one of them (this one) is in response to vandalism. Several editors were in the middle of a discussion on the talk page when this "My very best wishes" user showed up and deleted the whole Motivation chapter. An administrator should look very closely at this. It is not Mnnlaxer that is edit warring here. Yes, Mnnlaxer reverts, but he is working to improve the article, and he is open to discuss his changes. In this incident he responded to an intentional provocation done by this "My very best wishes" figure. I strongly believe this was deliberately vandalism of the page, with the aim to block/scare or silence an editor they don't like. Even if he didn't blank the whole page, he blanked the whole Motivation chapter we were working to improve. According to the Edit warring policy that does not count as reverts for the purposes of 3RR/1RR. It is obvious vandalism, or at least very close to obvious vandalism. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mnnlaxer still did not self-revert on this page as was suggested at their talk page by Kudzu1. My rationale for removing these materials as "undue" (this an outdated speculation about a political conspiracy theory) was explained a couple of times on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah right, the whole motivation chapter was a conspiracy theory, so you blanked it in your very first edit on the page. Or was it? Erlbaeko (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, this whole chapter was discussion of outdated speculations. This low importance, but highly contentious material should be removed because the article is already too long. I commented several times on the article talk page, looked at opinions by participants (they happened to strongly disagree with each other rather than with my arguments), and made my edit to improve this page. Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time and therefore mostly remove irrelevant or poorly sourced materials on various pages (as one can conclude after looking at my recent edit history), but I think this is all within the policy. However I am not sure this is relevant to my request here. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Mnnlaxer says: "I admit I unwittingly violated 1RR ". This is not true. The "unwittingly" part. On their talk page clearly indicates that they knowingly - not "unwittingly" - violated 1RR because, quote, "The principles involved are more important to resolve than any potential violation of 1RR. ". Translation: I'm a battleground warrior and it was more important to win the battle than to adhere to the editing restriction on the article. This pretty much exemplifies Mnnlaxer's mentality on this topic area.


 * Bottom line is that the article is under 1RR restriction. Mnnlaxer has been tip toeing around the 1RR restriction (claiming that they're only reverting "vandalism" or waiting just the right amount of time to revert again) - i.e. WP:GAME - for some time now. Here they admit on the talk page they purposefully violated the rule but then show up to this notice board and try to play innocent. A block is long overdue.


 * Erlbaeko's statement above - in support of a POV ally - is also blatantly false. This was NOT "in response to vandalism". The edit being reverted is not vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Erlbaeko knows this too. They're just making up bullshit excuses for a fellow battleground warrior. No, these kinds of reverts are NOT exempt from the 1RR or the 3RR restriction. Enough of this nonsense already. There is a reason why 1RR was put in place on these articles in the first place and that's exactly to deal with disruptive behavior such as this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On 5 June 2015‎, Mnnlaxer made this revert in response to this revert, where "My very best wishes" blanked the whole Motivation section despite of ongoing discussion on the talk page. I call that vandalism. On 4 June 2015‎, the part of the Motivation section that was agreed to remove was removed by me with this revert. My edit also removed the recently inserted "Gywn Winfield" statement that failed to get consensus. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Unwittingly at the time of the revert. I thought that would be obvious but Volunteer Marek thinks that is some kind of revelation he has discovered. Once pointed out, yes, I admitted it and said lets go to the real thing, the content dispute, and if this is the trigger to get it started, fine. The idea I've been tip-toe-ing around the 24 hour 1RR is laughable. In fact, my revert within 24 hours shows that is false. Marek has constantly projected his own behavior onto me. IDIDNTHEARTHAT, GAME, POV, misrepresenting a source, and more. All of his behaviors somehow are transferred to me when I disagree with him. Mnnlaxer (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've broken the 1RR rule. You've been reported for breaking it before, although in the past you've managed to wiggle out of a block by WP:WIKILAWYERING about whether something was a revert or not. You're trying the same thing here by calling an edit that clearly wasn't vandalism "vandalism" (probably the most over-used lame excuse for edit warring on Wikipedia).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you can't tell me from Erlbaeko. I've never been reported for anything that I can recall. Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies. You two act and talk much the same way though. And you've both broken 1RR on the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fyi, I have never been reported for anything neither, except for one incident in late May 2015, when Volunteer Marek and Kudzu1 reported me twice, for the same incident. Both was rejected. Ref. AE request and EW report. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There's an obvious content dispute here that is probably overdue for mediation. But there are just a few rules on Wikipedia, and one of them is against edit-warring. Mnnlaxer broke 1RR, I notified him that he broke 1RR and asked him to self-revert, and he declined to do so. And so now we're here and an administrator should deal with the edit-warring as he or she sees fit. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that several previous violations I reported here were left without action, despite being obvious violations, just as that one. Maybe this is a hint that I should not report anything on administrative noticeboards? That's fine. I have no problems with this. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, a 1RR violation did occur. However, at this point, a block would be purely punitive in nature, and blocks should not be punitive. There is no ongoing disruption to stop.  Further, a block at this time would not serve to "encourage a more ... congenial editing style" or otherwise benefit the encyclopedia. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Astral Prince reported by User:TopGun (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Battle of Phillora; diffs/reverts:
 * 2) Kargil war; diffs/reverts:
 * 3) Battle of Chawinda; diffs/reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Multiple users have tried to communicate to the user and warned him to stop his editwar but he hasn't paid heed. Due to the similarities in disruption and other facts, I have also filed an SPI on this user at Sockpuppet investigations/Warwar86‎ but in the meantime he's on an all out editwar on 3 articles. He has been reverted by around 3-4 users each on each article (including cluebot). Furthermore, he's resorting to blatant canvassing and personal attacks. No signs of stopping. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a rather disingenuous 'attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page' as that links to the editor's TP, not that of the article; and even that was not so much an attempt to discuss the issue, but rather to bombard him with templates. And notifications of AN/I and SPI do not an attempt to talk make!!! I note also that you were very much on the cusp of WP:3RR yourself. "lol" <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  10:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you're well-acquainted with the situation here. Have you reviewed the edits made by the user concerned? Many of them are indeed disruptive.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that a lower burden of proof is not justified just because of what another editor does. I'm not suggesting there's nothing wrong with Astral Prince's edits; merely that they don't absolve Top Gun of adhering to the procedure- specifically, not pretending to discuss it when that discussion has clearly not taken place. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi 
 * I have not made more than two reverts on any of the pages to Astral Prince. So no, you're wrong.... and that's not it. Many others have reverted him again and again while he refuses to discuss at all. Before I suspected him as a sock and filed the SPI, I dropped him numerous warnings in order to get him to discuss - he instead chose to go ahead with NPA vios and editwar. In any case, other editors have tried to discuss (not template) him as well on his talkpage... so please do check before you accuse. That did not stop him from edit warring either. Even if this user was discussing, such behaviour and repetitive reverts are plain out disruptive. So no, I do not have to put up with the disruption as many of the edits are against consensus and even RFC established consensus including plain out vandalism like this where he is totally changing the war outcome inspite of RFC. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * See Sockpuppet investigations/Warwar86. Unless User:Astral Prince responds here and agrees to stop the war a lengthy block seems appropriate. He is extremely confident that India scored a decisive victory at Battle of Phillora but has never posted on the article talk page to give his reasoning (though TopGun didn't post on article talk either). He also [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UplinkAnsh&diff=prev&oldid=665731293 canvassed another editor] to help him revert there, asking "Do visit Battle of Phillora few dumb Pakistanis like TopGun And Mar4d are creating Vandalism WP:VAN." EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well EdJohnston, i agree it's my fault that i didn't posted this on article talk page, Let me clarify your few doubts, You said I'm involve in an edit war since middle of may, well just see the history of Battle of Phillora you can see i just reverted edits done by pakistani editors, for ex:- few days ago an Anonymous editor erased the causality2 section and it's references and he added imaginary claims there like most of the Pakistanis do, I just reverted there edits and no Other editor has complaint about that, and you can also see the conversation between me and User:Winner 42 he reverted my edits because I didn't mentioned what I have edited but later he agreed that I'm just trying to solve those problems.

now talk about User:TopGun, just ask him why do he is erasing the word " decisive " from Indian Victory on the Battle of Phillora while I wrote every time that mentioned references support " Decisive Indian Victory " and do read them before reverting my edits.

Is he feel shamed that his country has faring miserably in all wars.

and ya I'm confident that India won the Battle of Phillora " Decisively.

How do you define victory in an Battle??


 * You captured enemy territory ( India captured Phillora )


 * You thwart enemy offensive/infiltration with teeth ( achieved in Battle of Phillora


 * the enemy retreats from his territory ( Pakistan ran away from Phillora )


 * you took more casualty on enemy ( India - 6 tanks damaged, Pakistan - 66 tanks destroyed ).

Conclusion - India Won the Battle of Phillora " DECISIVELY.

you all can read Battle of Phillora (@especially conclusion section) and match my stats.

and now talk about those 5 reference mentioned on Result section.

like for ex :- reference no.1 on article " do read page 84.

it is written " In the Sialkot sector, the tank battle continued for fifteen days and on September 11, in a decisive battle fought at Phillora, the Indian troops destroyed 66 enemy tanks on that single day. " Battle of Phillora Indian casualty were only ( 6 tanks damaged ).

and do read remaining 4 reference to, they all supports " Decisive " Indian Victory. And the reference no.11 mentioned on conclusion section also Claims Decisive Indian Victory ✌ " " Astral Prince (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – Edit warring, ethnic POV pushing and battleground editing. "you can see i just reverted edits done by Pakistani editors". I guess that makes it all right. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Truth200 reported by User:Mentelucida (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 6 June 2015
 * 2) 3 June 2015
 * 3) 3 June 2015
 * 4) 31 May 2015
 * 5) 1 June 2015
 * 6) 1 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Frustrating. maybe he/she have problem with Slavic people... Mentelucida (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . Two users, both with few edits, involved in a slow-burning edit war. It's true that Mentelucida tried to reach out to Truth200, but their English is not very good and one comment was odd, and the other awkward. Truth200 doesn't talk, which is a problem, but the edits are so sporadic it's hard to justify sanctioning either one of them or even locking down the page, which doesn't seem to interest hardly anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:EDC0:7700:E92A:8A9:2661:C95D reported by User:NeilN (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "alma mater is a place someone graduates from - he only graduated from high school - to put a college he attended is misleading"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 665828306 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 665828477 by RoadWarrior445 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid"


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

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


 * Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:6000:edc0:7700:e92a:8a9:2661:c95d reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This IP editor keeps adding dubious info in Scott Walker's alma mater box, claiming that since he never graduated from college, the university can't be considered his alma mater, and is adding his high school instead. It's been explained to him that this is not what alma mater means, but he started edit warring, and then I warned him on his talk page, and now he has made four reverts in 24 hours. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:98.246.208.42 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Cleaned up sensationalist editorialization"
 * 2)  "Clarified SPLC mission"
 * 3)  "cleaned"
 * 4)  "clean"
 * 5)  "clean"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Stop Islamization of America. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

First edit shows what IP is here for. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Scottperry reported by User:Sfarney (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: though the comments in the reversion claim to have reverted it to December 27, 2007

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not forced this to an edit war. Two reversions of the same 8 year old material is sufficient.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:E-meter#Article_no_longer_compliant_with_WP:Due.2F_Undue]

Comments:

Within the last few days, began discussion on the Talk:E-meter page, arguing that E-meter was no longer neutral according to WP policy. Scottperry suggested he would be reverting it to some version of months ago. I answered him that the current page was fully supported by peer-reviewed references and he should read them. He said the history was all wrong with "such nonsensical claims as its [the E-meter's] supposed existence since before 1915, and other such wild and uncited claims." Again I referred him to the journal references. Instead of addressing the sources, Scottperry reverted the page prior to my reconstruction of months ago (his page comment states he is reverting to a 2007 edition). I reverted his change and requested him to (1) study the sources and (2) address the issues on the talk page. Scottperry reverted the page a second time and has now opened an improper RFC that is highly prejudicial and misrepresents the history of the discussion as a "consensus." I have enumerated my objections to that RfC in the responsive body. This is much more than a content dispute. Scottperry's conduct is not within the spirit of the Wikipedia and cooperative editing. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This has already been raised at WP:ANI, and doesn't need duplicating here, in my opinion - it is confusing enough already. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, this complaint has already been cross-posted in a reworded version of this same complaint at the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (section). Please refer to the earlier cross-posted complaint.  Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The cross-posting was an error. I had thought I had deleted it from the other board. Andythegrump, please select the most appropriate board. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't my decision (I'm not an admin), but I think that ANI is probably the better location - this isn't a simple edit-warring issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Who is doing this posting, SFarney, Grammar's Little Helper, or who? Are you two acting as one, one acting as two, or what exactly? Scott P. (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Same person - SFarney is Grammar's Little Helper - the first is a Wikipedia user name, while the second is a signature. Confusing, I know, but permitted, and actually quite common (And of course, your User name 'Scottperry' isn't identical to your signature 'Scott P.' either). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow, this guy sometimes signs as Slade Farney, sometimes signs as Grammar's Little Helper, and sometimes comes up as Sfarney, and it's all legal. Amazing....  Whatever's legal I suppose, but if I were writing that policy, I'd say that it should require only names that are not likely to confuse, as this seems to be prone to do.  But that's just me.  Thanks for that.  Scott P. (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Already at ANI. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Mondiad reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Blocked)
Page:Përmet

User being reported: Mondiad

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:

Mondiad operates under a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is also noticable in his edit summaries. After a clear breach of 3rr (4 rvs in ca. 19hours), per above diffs, I adviced him to self-revert and participate to the correspodent talkpage[]. The explanation for editting in such a way wasn't appropriate, using aggresive tone [], thus refusing to participate in the discussion.Alexikoua (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Maticsg1 reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring. User continues to add improperly sourced information--or should I say, the authenticity of the source is being challenged, and editor keeps adding it anyway. Two different editors have challenged his source. Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cla68 reported by User:PeterTheFourth (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am reporting partly on behalf of - I don't have the strongest interest in theme parks.

Cla68 has not violated 3RR on this article, but has attempted to game Wikipedia's policies to edit war his preferred version of the article through. In the edit summaries of the diffs above, they make reference to a 'first mover advantage' they hold, which they elaborates on at their talk page- because Cla68 was the person to insert the contentious material, they can edit war to keep it without violating 3RR before the person who disagrees with them does, stating that 'The way WP works is that everyone uses the rules to their advantage.' They acknowledge the attempt by McDoobAU93 on the talk page to reach compromise, but do not participate in the discussion themselves, stating 'Since I added the information first, it means you would cross the 3RR threshold first, so I win if I choose to continue. So far, I choose to continue.' I believe this displays a severe WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Cla68's last dozen or so edits contain a few rather troubling edits.
 * This edit from about a week ago advises a pro-acupuncture editor (one who has a history of poor judgement and counterproductive engagement with Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes already) to recruit meatpuppets in order to distort Wikipedia's coverage of certain topics&mdash;I mean, "I suggest...going out and recruiting about 10-20 other people who have a more open-minded and fair attitude towards acupuncture and bring them back to edit the article with you." And that's posted on an Arbitration requests page.

The last couple days' edits to Walt Disney World follow a similar pattern of encouraging (and embracing) game-playing, manipulating the system, and a battleground mentality to 'win' content arguments.
 * Cla68: 2 edits. Cla68 adds two paragraphs to the article.
 * McDoobAU93: Reverted good faith edits by Cla68 (talk): Attempt to verify failed; please discuss on talk page as to how this is unique and notable to Disney. McDoobAU93 reverts Cla68's additions. (McDoob's first revert.) So far, so good. They should now have a discussion about the content.
 * Cla68: Undid revision 665542078 by McDoobAU93 (talk)taking first mover advantage; please discuss why it shouldn't be in the article Cla68 re-reverts to restore his material to the article. Instead of discussing, Cla68 has explicitly opted to take a game-theoretic approach (see first-mover advantage), implicitly relying on the bright line of 3RR as an entitlement that will let him 'win' an edit war.
 * McDoobAU93:Reverted 1 edit by Cla68 (talk): Restoring per WP:BRD and will open on talk page. McDoobAU93 re-reverts (making McDoob's second reverts.)
 * With this edit, 17 minutes later, McDoobAU93 creates the promised talk page thread.
 * Cla68: Undid revision 665562014 by McDoobAU93 (talk)reverting while discussion determins if stays or not. Another revert of this text will break 3rr, which is why I claimed first mover advantage. Cla68 reverts again (his second revert) about 4 hours later.  Cla68 does not make a talk page post at this time, apparently believing that he has 'won' the edit war by making the third revert of the article.  In other words, not only was he trying to game the system, but he was doing it badly, thinking that three-revert bright line applied to the article rather than to each editor.
 * PeterTheFourth: Undid revision 665588685 by Cla68 (talk) Please engage in the talk page and stop edit warring, Cla68. 3RR is not there to give anybody an 'advantage'  PeterTheFourth reverts Cla68 (PeterTheFourth's first revert) about 4 hours later, advising him not to try to game 3RR.
 * Cla68 is away from Wikipedia for a couple of days. While he is gone, McDoobAU93 asks Cla68 on his talk page not to try to game 3RR, and reminding him of BRD:.
 * Cla68: Undid revision 665616881 by PeterTheFourth (talk)Since it's just between one other editor and I, then the info can stay until talk page discussion decides otherwise. A couple of days later, Cla68 reverts the article to his preferred version, advising PeterTheFourth that he's really just having a mano a mano edit war, and Peter should butt out and let Cla68 play his game.
 * At the same time, Cla68 declares on the talk page that "... Since I added the information first, it means you would cross the 3RR threshold first, so I win if I choose to continue. So far, I choose to continue."
 * At the same time, Cla68 responds on his own talk page, declaring "...The way WP works is that everyone uses the rules to their advantage. ...".

...And that pretty much brings us to this complaint. As edit wars go, it's slow-burning and not very advanced. As a manifestation of a corrosive attitude problem, it's quite serious. (Parenthetically, I would have expected an editor like Cla68, with his years of experience and long history of blocks for tendentious behavior and edit warring, to have a better grasp of WP:3RR policy.) This is conduct that should be strongly discouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . I agree with and . This kind of blatant and intentional manipulation of policy should be grounds for a longer block. The fact that most recently another editor has agreed with Cla68's position doesn't negate the misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Epilogue - came to the talk page after more fully reading one of the sources used in the contentious edits and revealed that the source actually mentions Disney as one of many examples of lower-wage positions in the area. They further remind us that the state of Florida has raised its minimum wage above the federal minimum, and that Disney itself has raised its starting pay above the state minimum. And yes, disagreement is fine; it's how you handle it that counts (although in this case consensus seems to be going against the addition). -- McDoob AU93  13:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Atlantacity reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sorry, the talk page consensus is for inclusion. "I love you Paul. Where are you? !?!?!? !" United States District Court Southern District of New York/15 CV 03126."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 665893074 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
 * 3)  "It's not an addition but merely the undoing of a deletion for which there was no consensus."
 * 4)  "The discussion on the talk page doesn't justify removing the complaint."


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


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

Not sure what's up with the text below -- stray refs? Not relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomoskedasticity (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Fixed with in an earlier thread. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  14:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skullballoons reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15 May 2015 diff as IP
 * 2) 15 May 2015 diff as IP
 * 3) 15 May 2015 diff as IP
 * 4) 15 May 2015 diff as IP, article then protected pursuant to  prior case here
 * 5) 17 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons when protection expired
 * 6) 17 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons
 * 7) 20 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons
 * 8) 29 May 2015 dif as Skullballoons
 * 9) 7 June 2015 dif as Skullballoons

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff - IP/Skullballoons has never come to Talk.

Comments:

Slowmo edit war. IP and Skullballoons are the same user per Sockpuppet_investigations/Skullballoons/Archive. Please block. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is also worth pointing out that the edit war is User:Skullballoons sole editing contribution since August 2012. This account has become a single purpose account - to push an edit that has been rejected by consensus at the talk page.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:24.139.196.132 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Selena and Saldívar's relationship */"
 * 2)  "/* Selena and Saldívar's relationship */"
 * 3)  "/* Selena and Saldívar's relationship */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Murder of Selena. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly deletes the same sourced material. No attempt to discuss, or respond. Obviously WP:NOTHERE. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  19:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:92.23.33.144 reported by User:Andrewying (Result: Page semi-protected )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&oldid=665912394]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&type=revision&diff=665931073&oldid=665930756]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&type=revision&diff=665931146&oldid=665931073]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&type=revision&diff=665931207&oldid=665931146]

Diffs of 's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&type=revision&diff=665924520&oldid=665924418]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&type=revision&diff=665924105&oldid=665922800]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edexcel&type=revision&diff=665918564&oldid=665918132]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to 92.23.28.134:

Comments:

Appears to be linked to 92.23.28.134, who has previously been warned for edit warring. The editor seems to be doing similar reverts and magically continue discussion initiated from 92.23.30.156, which is also in the same IP address range, at User_talk:Edfilmsuk. The edits from this IP only began after the original IP was warned. The two IP addresses are also from the same location. A discussion related to content concerned is in progress at Talk:Edexcel but neither editor were involved.— Andrew Y talk 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected for one week. There is a clear consensus as to how to proceed, hopefully a short protection will encourage anyone else to contribute to the discussion if required. The diffs above come straight off the back of a previous semi-protection. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

The article is under 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

One warning

Another warning

Yet another warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (and related discussions)

Comments:

The article is under 1RR discretionary sanctions. Erlbaeko is fully aware of this as they've been reported for these violations before (they squaked through by arguing that reverting IPs is ok - this isn't the case here). The edit summary also suggests that Erlbaeko is violating 1RR purposefully, to make a point (in pursuit of some kind of WP:TRUTH).


 * – 48 hours for 1RR violation. Ghouta chemical attack is covered by WP:SCWGS which imposes a 1RR on all articles related to the Syrian Civil War. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Rymax23 reported by User:Howicus (Result: User warned )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is not a 3RR violation, but rather a very slow edit war. Rymax23 has repeatedly added an excessive number of links to Template:Avengers, and then been reverted by another editor. Each time, Rymax23 has left the page alone for a while, only to re-add a new overly long list later. The user has never used the talk page to discuss the additions, nor have they shown any response to the various questions and warnings on their talk page. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Rymax23 has also added similar content to Template:X-Men. He has left one user talk page note here, so I can't easily hand out a "until you start talking" block. I've left them a final warning that they will be blocked if they reinstate edits on those templates again without consensus. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Brandywine589 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

New editor, with two bursts of editing in 2013 and 2015 (offshore service on a boomer?). All are single-issue and gross WP:OR to right the WP:GREATWRONGS concerning USS Scorpion (SSN-589). However none of this has the slightest source to back it up. When it's reverted it comes back immediately. No discussion, despite invitations. This stuff is maybe the basis for a great book, but it's not what belongs in this encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . Many of the comments added by the user contitute vandalism (gross OR is an understatement). On that basis, I restored the article to prior to the user's last edits. If anything productive was added afterwards, feel free to restore it.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:71.121.241.118 reported by User:RoadWarrior445 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has repeatedly edit-warred a sentence out of that article because he feels his changes are correct. I reverted him, explained to him that I felt his changes weren't correct, he told me that his changes were correct, and proceeded to revert a fourth time. All in less than 24 hours. According to WP:EDITWAR, "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Therefore, I am making this report. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 02:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Response: Well, first of all, in no way have I violated the 3rr policy unless somehow a post from May 19th can somehow be retroactively be included into a 24 hour period with today. Also, in all the reverts I made save for one, I have made some attempt at discussion in my edit summaries with the random other users who continually re-added with no discussion put into their edit summaries at all. Furthermore, I am the only one who has made an attempt at a discussion on the talk page of the article in question,, something the reporting user has conveniently left out, as well as a discussion on his own talk page, where I fully explained this whole thing yet again to him and not in any way that just boils down to "but my edits were right and yours wrong" as he alluded to. 71.121.241.118 (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:76.14.131.132 reported by User:MrX (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 665937534 by MrX (talk)"
 * 2)  "Are you presenting this article from a neutral viewpoint or intending it to be written from the viewpoint of GLAAD?  Keep the biased adjectives out."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 665955679 by MrX (talk)  It is NOT consensus.  It is a single viewpoint in a 2-sided controversy."
 * 4)  "If you have an agenda...having it named will be considered "pejorative"  Are you representing the side of activists instead doing the duty of wikipedia in maintaining neutrality?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Homosexual agenda. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * Note also edit warring three days ago at Global cooling.- MrX 03:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears this ip has a long history of agenda driven POV pushing in addition to the bright line violation of 3RR. Winner 42  Talk to me!  03:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Weathereditor reported by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus (Result: 31 hrs)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

That's just for that article. Hopefully I did all right here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * by . I've recently encountered this user on Faversham and Ashford, Kent and we did manage to reach a consensus, though he seems to be very narrowly focused on weather boxes, which I can't get excited about myself. I wouldn't have blocked myself as I'd consider myself WP:INVOLVED. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  18:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Is WE still blocked? Vsmith removed the block notice from his page, as "involved". FWIW, he's been edit warring at Climate of Antarctica too, again over weather boxes, but hopefully will settle down William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've undone the block as seems I've been involved there - bit hasty of me sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * by . Vsmith (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:68.110.212.125 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Main cast */"
 * 2)  "/* Main cast */"
 * 3)  "/* Main cast */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on UnREAL. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* June 2015 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Field producer"


 * Comments:
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:149.129.32.89 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Reverted User:ScrapIronIV "Do Not Change For Malaysian Army"
 * 2)  Reverted User:Bilcat "This is True,No Change it."
 * 3)  Reverted User:ScrapIronIV "True Is True.Now Stop Playing."
 * 4)  Reverted USer:Cassianto "Did you see +323.I was right"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User has taken the discussion to my user talk page. It has not been duplicated on the article talk page, yet. 

Comments:

This is content which is inadequately sourced, and which was removed from previous versions of the article. This has been explained to the contributor. Multiple editors have weighed in on this issue, and the user refuses to contibute more than reversions and insistence that they are "right" and "true." This is not the only page where they are edit warring, and includes such edit sommaries as: "Undid Revision By Stupid Unknown Number.Do Not Change It Cause This Picture Are very Simple and Clear Picture.You can Change the Imformation but Can't Change The PICTURE!!!!.Last Warning!"  "This Pictures Are not Very Nice and You Need To Stop or I Slap Your Mouth.That Currunt Picrure are sucks and Old Picture are more Nice."


 * – 48 hours. User is warring to add ungrammatical text to the article and is citing a questionable blog source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Blocked 1 week )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Article talk page section
 * 1), 11:43, 9 June 2015 ‎ "(Undid revision 666153534 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
 * 2),  23:36, 8 June 2015‎  "(Undid revision 666110351 by David Eppstein (talk))"
 * 3),  23:27, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 666052001 by David Eppstein (talk) Undo inappropriate and extremely rude edit."
 * 4), 12:23, 8 June 2015‎ "(Undid revision 665942660 by 23.242.207.48 (talk) Undo improper and rude removal of relevant, well-sourced content)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit summaries say it all: four instances of "Undid" in <24 hours. A block log with three previous blocks for edit-warring indicates more than adequate awareness of 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment by reported user; in content disputes it's customary to state a reason for removing material, and it's even more customary for that reason to be based on an identifiable content policy. Got to go to work, BBL. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised Factchecker has been left free to edit; they're little more than a troll, and the saga around demanding that a certain editor be sanctioned for having a "bad" talk page comment, which went on far too long, showed that clearly. There are more than enough warnings on their talk page; time to prevent any more time being wasted on them, I think. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 12:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is very plainly edit warring over a period of three days, crossing the bright line of 3RR within 24 hours, ignoring WP:BRD, and as so aptly stated, I am surprised that FCAYS is allowed to continue to edit. The disruption, incivility, and inability to edit collaboratively are a constant theme with this editor.- MrX 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * -- GB fan 13:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope he wasn't late for work... <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And now he's appealing the block on his talk page . —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Discretionary sanctions notification )
Page: (and others - see below)

User being reported:

All dates are in (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: 19:59, 4 June 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:03, 4 June 2015
 * 2) 22:27, 6 June 2015
 * 3) 14:22, 8 June 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 08:59, 7 June 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:38, 7 June 2015

Comments:

To clarify, this is a report of edit-warring, not a 3RR breach. Skyerise has been very careful to avoid that. However, she continues edit-warring while the matter is under discussion, not only at CHiPs, but at other articles as well. The matter deals with Bruce Jenner, who has changed his name to Caitlyn. Skyerise has been travelling Wikipedia, changing all instances of "Bruce Jenner" to "Caitlyn Jenner", adding rather long notes, citing MOS:IDENTITY as justification. This has received significant opposition, resulting in a rather long discussion at Village pump (policy)/Archive 121. At CHiPs she made the change in this edit, which was subsequently reverted by . Rather than discussing this on the talk page, Skyerise simply reverted. Since I felt Knowledgekid87's edit was valid, I reverted asking "If you still disagree, please respect WP:BRD and discuss" in my edit summary. Skyerise did not discuss, instead simply reverting again. Unknown to me at the time, subsequently opened a discussion on the article talk page, which Skyerise later posted to. When I saw Skyerise's reversion I reverted to the status quo and left a warning on Skyerise's talk page, which I subsequently clarified, before finding the article talk page discussion and adding my own comments. Skyerise has made no further attempts to discuss this matter on the article's talk page and has subsequently reverted again, while the matter is still under discussion. Skyerise has resisted all attempts to discuss this, reverting every post I have made on her talk page and even asking me not to post there, demonstrating a clear unwillingness to discuss disputed changes. She prefers to simply revert using a MOS guideline as her justification for her edits. CHiPs is not the only page where Skyerise is edit-warring over the same content. Other articles at which she has edit-warred today are: It is clear that this is a controversial issue, as evidenced by the discussion at WP:VPP, and Skyerise should be waiting until that discussion is resolved instead of persistently reinserting her clearly disputed edits at multiple articles without consensus. It was only 5 days ago that Skyerise was warned as the result of another report on this page. Clearly she is still testing the limits, this time of what level of edit-warring will be tolerated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics - Edit-warring with multiple editors, no attempt to discuss on the talk page.
 * Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's decathlon - Edit-warring while there is a discussion in progress on article talk page
 * San Jose City College - No attempt to discuss disputed edits on talk page.
 * List of athletes on Wheaties boxes - edit-warring with multiple editors no attempt to discuss on talk page. (entry added after report filed by  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC))
 * Just a side note but after she undid my edit I attempted to reach out to her on her talk-page . Because she was making so many changes I was worried something like this might happen given how contested the issue is. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I note her response to that was simply to delete your edit, as she has done with all of mine, simply stating "fixed" as her edit summary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Skyerise has commented more than once that she reverts "once a day", indicating she has a plan to continue to revert, regardless of the discussion on individual talk pages, the discussion at WP:VPP or any other place it might occur. Though not a 3RR breach, it does breach the spirit of policy regarding edit warring.  Skyerise has appointed herself the arbiter of what will and won't be done on Wikipedia, even though Caitlyn Jenner herself has announced that she considers Caitlyn and Bruce two different people with two different set of accomplishments, and has expressed no interest in having her athletic records listed under the name Caitlyn. (See: here for news regarding the USOC's offer to make the change.) --Drmargi (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's misrepresenTation, User:Drmargi, and you know it. I have repeatedly stated that I am editing to the current state of MOS:IDENTITY until such time as it changes. If VPP changes it, I will edit to the new standard and have never said otherwise. Please don't make up stories. Skyerise (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Interjecting here. Never said otherwise? What about "per MOS:IDENTITY" "I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community if this current status quo is overridden by a bunch of testoterone-poisoned jocks." Which you were warned about on your talk page. Full diff at Village pump talk. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny how you don't mention my retraction. Also, leaving Wikipedia obviously means I would stop making the edits. Duh? Skyerise (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Two things. 1) It's still there. Retraction usually requires strikethrough and an apology. I see no strike through and no apology... just you saying it doesn't apply. I see no acknowledgment that what you wrote was wrong. 2) You still said it, so even struck through it would still be valid to counter your "I will edit to the new standard" comment. Whoever closes this will have to make up their own mind as to whether to take it into account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added List of athletes on Wheaties boxes as another article at which Skyerise is edit-warring. I haven't, as yet, added Decathlon, which is another, as he has only reverted twice there, so far. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't misgender me, you had it right the first time. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As Jenner related articles have been authorised for Arbcom discretionary sanctions, I have given a formal notice on Skyerise's talk page of this. She can ignore or revert that notice, or complain that it's intimidating (which, to be fair, it is) but it will mean any further disruption can be dealt with swiftly and with the weight of Arbcom behind it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am observing 1RR. And I would like to note that the current state of MOS:IDENTITY supports my edits and that is insisting on editing to a possible future decision about this which has not been made yet. Finally, my similar report about reverts by, who made single reverts across around a dozen articles was deemed to not be edit warring. I've feel that AussieLegend's multiple template posts to my talk page and this invalid report to be intimidation attempts. Skyerise (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are not observing the 1RR. You claim you're following 1RR then 8 minutes later repeat a revert for the fourth time with zero discussion. All because nobody's opinion of what MOS:IDENTITY means counts except yours. Extremely bad faith. This is exactly why discretionary sanctions were put into play here: seasoned editors who are otherwise rational, civil, and neutral who suddenly can't control themselves because they can't put aside their own feelings about the article's topic. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course that's 1RR, my last edit to the article was June 6, two days ago. 1RR allows 1 revert per day, it's not edit warring, and doesn't result in edit warring by other parties. It does not disrupt Wikipedia. Apparently it just annoys you. Get over it. Skyerise (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's almost like you're utterly surrounded by people who don't understand what things mean, and you have no choice but ignore what they think. When TRUTH is on your side, who needs consensus, am I right? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There we go, making a personal attack, discussing the contributor rather than the contribution. Please review WP:NPA, Dennis Bratland. Thanks! Skyerise (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat my "personal attack": You are treating others as if they are ignorant fools, and not respecting their opinions. You are not assuming good faith. You think your interpretation of MOS:IDENTITY or WP:1RR is the only correct one. Would you go and read WP:1RR right now, by the way? All the words, please. Thanks. You've demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that shows you can click that revert button an infinite number of times based solely on your confidence that you're right. This issue is under debate, and has been for some time. You know that. What is the point of carrying on reverting if you know it's unresolved? The point is to bully others. Stop playing the victim. You're not fooling anyone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the reporter, yourself, and some of the other respondents are not assuming good faith on my part either. I mean what I say: MOS:IDENTITY is the current guideline, and I don't like being bullied by a gang of editors for editing to it, which according to WP:BLP is the right thing to do. Initially I went over the line on one article, reduced to 2RR and then 1RR. If I were not acting in good faith, would I have done that? Skyerise (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And they are engaging in very typical 'shut down the woman's speech' behaviors. And I've read 1RR. While I have not discussed on all the article talk pages, I am participating in the VPP discussion, as that's where the decision will actually be made, not on the article talk pages. And that last revert was to an anonymous IP, not an editor I am "reverting repeatedly". So unless the discretionary sanctions are specified as a weekly period, I am within the bounds of the sanctions. Your speculations are off the mark. I don't think anyone is an idiot and have any bad or competitive feelings against anyone. I guess your across-the-Internet psychic abilities are simply not as good as you pretend they are. Skyerise (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith would be to treat others as if their efforts were intended to make the encyclopedia better. Instead of assuming good faith, you assume they know your gender and are disagreeing with you in order to "shut down women's speech". When they revert, it's sexism. When you revert, it's righteous. AGF requires that you find it in your heart to see others as well intentioned as yourself.Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And I always start by assuming good faith. Multiple days in, when I notice a pattern, it'd be stupid to ignore it. Skyerise (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)Just to clarify, I've posted precisely two (2) templates to Skyerise's talk page, an edit-warring warning, and notification of this report, which I am required to do. Skyerise removed the latter (which she is allowed to do) with the edit summary, remove notification of invalid edit-warring report from editor who has been asked not to post here. - I suggest you head to the top of this page and read the "Definition of edit warring". Even if you observe 1RR, you can still be edit-warring by repeatedly overriding the edits of multiple other editors, as you are doing. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Skyerise, it should be of concern to all that you don't see your persistent reversion of multiple other editors (not just Drmargi and me!) at multiple articles as edit-warring. You've even gone to the extent of suggesting on 's talk page that this is not a valid edit-warring report. This, though, seems to be a disturbingly consistent attitude. An edit on your talk page was reverted with the edit summary, I've joined the discussion on every page where asked, I don't like be misrepresented when the facts showed that to be a misrepresentation itself, as I tried to explain to you. You clearly did not join any discussion before edit-warring. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't add this sort of thing but it seems relevant.... When it comes to edit-warring, Skyrise does not seem able to control herself. At List of The Suite Life on Deck episodes, an article I have edited extensively over the past several years, but which Skyerise has never edited until (coincidentally?) now, Skyrise made this edit, which I reverted, with an explanation. She did open a discussion on the talk page, but without waiting for discussion, reverted. It seems in Skyerise's nature to edit-war and I don't think a DS warning alone will stop that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * An edit and 1 revert do not edit warring make. It came up on random article, which I use frequently. I'll take it off my watchlist since it bothers you. Skyerise (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * With 2 reverts on it, you are now closer to 3RR than I am. And that's your regular pattern, repeated multiple reversion when another editor does something you don't like. Isn't there an essay on that? Something about a pot? Skyerise (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * sigh* And then there is The Suite Life on Deck. Your response to my explanation on your talk page seems to be a deliberate attempt to trick me into an edit war, but don't expect me to take the bait. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, you don't need to be tricked into an edit war, you do it constantly. If I gave a shit, I'd go through your edit history. Pretty sure I'd find reportable edit-warring. Skyerise (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To the closer: There is also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as more of a backround. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to request that the name of that thread be changed to something neutral. That personal attack has been left there too long. Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would ask there, I see no problem with having it changed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To the closer: both User:Drmargi and User:AussieLegend are is also making 1 revert per day on multiple articles. They are also coordinating these activities on their talk pages:, . If my activities are edit-warring, so are theirs is Drmargi and they should both he should be blocked for an equal period of time. Do I need to file detailed reports on each? I've refrained because I see no reason to escalate this further. If I do need to do so, please give me some warning on my talk page so I can file such reports before blocking me. Thanks. Skyerise (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hardly coordination. I saw your continued edit-warring (you know, the edit that resulted in this report) and noticed that Drmargi had reverted your latest edits at one of the articles so I advised Drmargi not to continue reverting and suggested that she could instead comment at this report when it was raised. What's wrong with that? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not for me to say. But as I say, if 1RR on multiple articles is edit-warring, then both you are Drmargi are is equally guilty. See WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You really don't seem to understand the concept of edit-warring. You've been persistently overriding the edits of multiple editors. And please, don't accuse me of making 1RR edits on multiple articles. The only article I've reverted you on that is related to this is CHiPS. Plenty of other editors have reverted you on the other articles. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you are right. You've made two 1RR reverts to CHiPs, with an edit summary that implies we should not maintain current standards simply because a lengthy discussion that might and only might change the standard is underway. It's only Drmargi that been mirroring me in terms of 1RR. You're off the hook. :-) Skyerise (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While I can appreciate the fact that Jenner has decided to call herself Caitlyn now, the whole situation surrounding Jenner's past accomplishments and credits just screams to me that Skyerise is trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Canuck 89 (chat with me) 22:23, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, User:Canuckian89, just applying the very clear guidance as it currently stands at MOS:IDENTITY. If the guidance changes, I will follow it. How is that righting great wrongs? If that were my motivation, which everyone seems so psychic to be able to discern, why would I stop if and when MOS:IDENTITY gets changed? I've repeatedly said my only concern is to meet the current standard of IDENTITY until such time as that changes - if it changes. Yet everyone ignores what I actually say and presumes to know my motivations. You'll see that I've had a "This user believes that we should do no harm on any biographical article" on my user pages for years, and frequently address BLP issues which do not involve transgender people. Skyerise (talk) 22:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What is disingenuous about that is that there is no discussion to rewrite MOS:IDENTITY. The proposals all deal with how and where to apply the guideline. The very thing which you are doing -- choosing to apply this guideline Wikipedia-wide -- is what is up in the air. Previous discussion of that question reached no consensus. Of course you know all this. But you go on edit-warring as if where the identity guidelines applied -- and in the end, the MOS is only a guideline -- were settled and you are innocently applying unambiguous rules. Not so, and you know it.<P>It's also disingenuous to wrap your assumptions about others motives a "pattern" that you'd be "stupid to ignore". But when anyone sees a pattern in your actions, that's denigrated as "psychic." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why don't you bring a few more buddies in, boys? Y'all can discuss your insights and pat yourselves on the back while I take a little Wikibreak. Skyerise (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's sexist, and a false accusation of conspiracy, and you don't have a special dispensation to get away with it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Either that or you got your way already, even without the backing of a sympathetic admin, since I won't be editing the involved articles while taking a wikibreak, will I?  Skyerise (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Getting my way would involve understanding what is actually wrong with this picture. Going away and coming back with the same attitude doesn't fix anything. Those who happen disagree with you are not evil. They're here to build an encyclopedia, same as you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, one of the things Skyerise seems to like to do is "bully" other users by slapping " pa " on other user's talk pages after they edit pages related to the Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner dispute (at least, that's how I felt when they rudely applied this tag on my talk page). In my mind, this has a chilling effect (similar to WP:NLT, I guess, except, in this case, it's about users editing LGBT pages). From my interactions with Skyerise, I sense that they are not a very compromising person, and Skeyrise just seems to be more interested in getting their way, above all else. For example, these notices they posted over at WT:LGBT: 1 (which looks like a pretty strong case of WP:CANVASS, by the way) and 2. If Skeyrise can't seem to understand that they have to discuss things with other users, and not just slap threatening discretionary sanctions tags on people's talk pages, we might have to consider a full-on LGBT topic-ban. Canuck 89 (what's up?) 05:02, June 9, 2015 (UTC)
 * I can attest to that also. You don't find yourself in all that friendly a mood the next time you deal with her. She has some issues working and playing well with others here, often applying labels instead of trying to compromise as we often do at wikipedia. Even in this thread terms like "Why don't you bring a few more buddies in, boys?" or "they are engaging in very typical 'shut down the woman's speech' behaviors", or the Village pump (policy) thread..."I will boycott Wikipedia and organize protests against it in the LGBT community" or telling us she needs to bring in more people to "balance out the 'oh, no, I'm not transphobic, I just care about sourcing' crowd"... it's as if she edits with a chip on her shoulder. We all post things from time to time we aren't proud of, heated discussions can sometimes do that. But as I read here this seems to be a common occurrence with Skyerise and this topic. That's not good for Wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

What disturbs me, beyond Skyerise's immediate adversarial posture, is her tendency to assume bad faith in everyone while she fires accusations of sexism, transphobia, or whatever else it takes to justify her own actions while diminishing what she sees as her opponents. It's a shame; as a woman, she impresses me as doing more harm than good, and seriously damages some important messages. "The boys" she chips at will take women editors less, not more seriously after her recent postings. --Drmargi (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Skyerise slapped that nasty template on me for an article I had never read, much less edited, then was belligerent because I took issue with that. Why is this behavior still being discussed?  Are admins afraid to take action against this editor who is clearly out of line?  If I did half of this, I'm pretty sure I would be blocked by now. Jacona (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, sadly, what we have around here is a little de-facto policy I call the Corbett Rule. It goes like this:  create enough content and most but a brave few admins will turn a blind eye to your bullshit.  Sad, but true.  --Drmargi (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that helps either. I have seen many a heavy-content-creator taken down, or admins taking down admins. Do heavy editors get more leeway and a few more chances, perhaps so. But that's true in many walks of life. Do lot's of good and get a few more warnings.. I can live with that. Personally I don't think they give enough warnings or chances here. I hate it when editors get blocked or banned or topic blocked. Multiple administrative warnings first. That might be all that is needed here. If that doesn't work then a second warning. If that doesn't work then after-school detention might be in order. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Cebr1979 reported by User:TAnthony (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Yes, they do need to be discussed. And, since the date was at September until Jester started edit warring the other day (it had been at September for months), that's the date it's going to stay at."
 * 2)  "Honestly... just because Jester didn't see the episode doesn't mean in didn't happen. Either that, or he did see it and is just senselessly reverting for the sake of owning the page. He's not giving a reason, he's just reverting. Even though the info i..."
 * 3)  "Those sources have great info about Jeanne Cooper's last airdate. Unfortunately, this is not Jeanne Cooper's page, it's Katherine Chancellor's and the character of Katherine Chancellor was last seen at her own funeral in September. We don't need a sour..."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Final appearance"
 * 2)   "/* Final appearance */"


 * Comments:

A discussion on the issue was also previously started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas. &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 16:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I was putting consensus back. Why don't you report your buddy Jester who started edit warring, broke the 3RR, and was doing so without any explanations of his edits, he was just doing it over and over again for no reason.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I warned you both, you broke the rule first. There has been no consensus yet, that is why a discussion is required.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 16:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * By consensus were you referring to the fact that you added the info in November 2014 and no one changed it until Jester66 reverted in January 2015? That is not consensus, that is a disagreement that needs to be discussed.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 17:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the consensus policy please. That actually is a consensus until such time as a discussion has closed. You had no right to change it to May.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you should have actually engaged in a discussion about it rather than edit war over it with inflammatory edit summaries.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 18:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC
 * Or: then you should stop showing favouritism with your editing friend instead of just admitting when you were wrong. Also: that message you just left on Jester's talk page all about me is a complete joke and you should consider following your own advice: talk about edits not an editor. Hahaha... wow. You just keep on with whatever you want. I'm not talking to you again.Cebr1979 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea of implicit consensus went out the window when a third editor (me) became involved in the back-and-forth between you and Jester66, as two editors were now challenging your addition.
 * You still reverted inappropriately, even though you feel you were restoring the article to the "correct" version pending discussion. That is not a thing.
 * I'm not sure what you mean by favoritism, I warned you both, and you violated 3RR of your own accord, apparently because you could not stand to leave Jester66's revert alone for 24 hours?
 * My public message to Jester66 was to inform him/her of my actions reporting you for this violation, as well as warning you regarding your personal attack on his/her talk page. My comment that you appear to be a volatile editor is supported by this violation as well as the edit summary diffs I provided here. My comment that I hope you will learn from this and we can all edit harmoniously in the future was genuine.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 19:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Between the three of you, there was definitely an edit war going on here, but I don't think assigning blame here or blocking people is going to be productive., I do want to caution you against sounding like you own an article. Comments like "and that's the way it's going to stay" are both counterproductive to a harmonious environment and likely to incite other editors to prove you wrong. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I can accept that, Darkwind, however:

Let's just be realistic here: TAnthony and his 'holier-than-thou-I'm-a-saviour' attitude leaves something to be desired. I see through it, and I think you do too or you wouldn't have mentioned "the three of us..."

His edit when he changed the date to May was his way of baiting me and we all know it. I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm using logic! His baiting is evidenced by him saying to me that I "couldn't wait 24 hours..."

Well... so... what's his reason for not "waiting 24 hours" himself? He made that change knowing it would push my buttons and... his "parenting" me on 4 different talk pages is the proof! "The more people that see me schooling Cebr1979, the more heroic I look!" is what was going through his mind.

There's not one single excuse in the history of excuses that can explain his edit to that page other than, "He'll react... and then I can be the hero!" I knew I was being baited and I gave him what he wanted.

Something will happen again someday, and I'll quote this conversation when it does.

Peace out for now. Cebr1979 (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:87.97.198.163 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Maybe not a violation, but blocked on other grounds)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on  Medieval Bulgarian army. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeatedly reinserting 6~7K+ bytes worth of unsourced WP:OR, regarding medieval battles. <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  11:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of page history was confusing enough that I ignored the 3RR issue. Remember that uw-unsor4 is typical final warning that you're about to get blocked — persistent addition of unsourced content is a valid reason for blocking, and this guy was persistent.  Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:Khestwol (Result: No violation; Report renewed after recent revert)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (new revert after this report was first submitted)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Clear cut violation of WP:3RR. Debresser seems to be repeatedly pushing a certain POV while disruptively edit-warring in the article, as well as other similar articles on topics about monotheistic religions and the Middle East. The history of the Ramadan article shows he has been reverting multiple users persistently. Within a period of 5 minutes, Debresser made 5 reverts, including 3 times reverting me and 2 times reverting. I strongly recommend that the article needs protection, and he needs a temporary block so that other related articles about Islam, monotheistic religions, and the Middle East are also temporarily protected from Debresser's disruption. Khestwol (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I quote the 3RR policy: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. He did two undos, you did one, he did three, and you did one.  For 3RR purposes, that's two reverts, and the page history doesn't give reason for a more generic edit-warring block.  Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you though, why do you say: Two reverts? No, he did two full reverts just on me, not one. Both these edits have added the very same content to the article. But as linked above, he also did at least 1 full revert (if you consider ,  as a single) where he is undoing Scientus. That means, at least 3 full reverts by him, consisting of 5 partial reverts. Khestwol (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a pair of edits, one by someone else, and then a series of three edits. For 3RR purposes, we don't care how many edits someone makes: we don't care if these changes took one edit or three.  Finally, if you insist on me considering this to be three reverts, because it undid three other edits, let me remind you that this edit undid two of his, and this puts you at the brink of 3RR and liable to be blocked for edit-warring too.  Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

This has still not stopped. Even while on Talk:Ramadan it was shown to Debresser that his edits were wrong, he is still reverting (his recent revert: ). Hence I am renewing this report because his violation of 3RR was repeated although less than 13 hours had passed since his first revert. Khestwol (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . This is still not a violation, as the edit at 14:44 (PDT) was only his third sequence of edits on this page in these 24 hours. His next revert, if any, would be a violation of WP:3RR.  In my opinion, this has not reached the level of an edit war, at least not yet.  (Ping  for completeness' sake.) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * However,, I think an admin should tell Debresser to self-revert after consensus at Talk:Ramadan is clearly against his favor, with he being the only one making changes that are against what and me are saying. I have reverted Debresser twice already. He is on the wrong but I do not want edit-wars on the page. Khestwol (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Back 10 days from block, continuation of edit war from report of 21:59, 28 May 2015, please see User:DaltonCastle reported by User:HughD (Result: Blocked). Resume behavior, repeated deletion of the same content and reference as the 28 May report, a succinct statement of a highly significant, widely held point of view on the subject of the article WP:YESPOV, a paraphrase from a highly noteworthy source, the editorial board of The Washington Post, with clear in-text attribution as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Content and reference originally added. Hugh (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is drivel. Hugh is trying to take over control of the article in question and be the sole authority on edits. The block he is referencing (which I believe was made in error and I intend to appeal to the appropriate noticeboard to have removed from my record) was on his talkpage when he continually removed notices of his involvement in edit wars. I hate to take this tone but this editor continues to lash out at me and make disruptive edits to push their POV on the page despite community consensus. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify - I was not blocked for any activity on the AFP page. I was blocked because of activity on HughD's talk page. This user accused me of edit-warring, and I subsequently accused him right back since he was reverting all my edits. I placed an edit-war warning on his talk page. He cleverly removed during his submission on this noticeboard. I determined that he should not be allowed to remove this warning from his talk page while he was involved in the war as well. I was in error in violating the 3rr on his talk page alone (although I believe it was with very good intentions). The block had nothing to do with the AFP article. This user is, once again, attempting to retain complete control over the page. DaltonCastle (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . You are both edit warring on this article, and you both should know better, having each been blocked for edit warring in the past. It is noted for the record that neither one of you technically broke 3RR in this instance, but the behavior is still very clear. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:RedJulianG40 reported by User:Smallbones (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: note:first insertion of spam link by RedJulian (not a revert)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (same as below) I'll notify him immediately

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

RedJulian said he'd revert me despite that being 4RR (which he did). Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it looked to me like a spam link, and it looks to me like 4RR. I'll leave it to the admins here to take care of it. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . also made 4 reverts, but self-reverted the last one, which goes a long way to demonstrating a willingness to work collaboratively. , on the other hand, stated that he planned to continue reverting to his preferred version, which in addition to breaking 3RR demonstrates a lack of willingness to work collaboratively, and is the reason he has been blocked. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - as far as I can see I reverted the addition of the iTunes link 3 times and then self-reverted when I realised... GiantSnowman 09:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. Recalling that "an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert," I counted one two three four and self-revert. Remember that the reverts do not have to be of the same material to count against 3RR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point, apologies. GiantSnowman 09:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - A request was made at the dispute resolution noticeboard while the deletion request for this article was in progress. It was declined because DRN does not accept cases where an issue is pending in another decision-making forum such as AFD.  Now that the AFD has been closed to Keep the article, if the participants want moderated discussion of the text of the article (after one editor comes off block), a new request can be filed at DRN, but DRN is voluntary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Habatchii (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The Wikipedia user AndyTheGrump apparently has a history of making edit wars without considering courtesy. The page .codes was recently tagged for deletion after nomination for good article was suggested on one of the pages (Electronic harassment (talk)) he was watching/editing. This is a clear case of retaliation and should not be endorsed publicly by Wikipedia.

Please investigate these issues, you will see that the user has a history of similar complaints and barring. Habatchii (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump has made 0 edits to this page; please only report editors here who are edit warring. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ummm... User:AndyTheGrump isn't the one who nominated the article for deletion. And this is the noticeboard for edit warring, but there doesn't appear to be any, you know, edit warring going on. Unless I'm missing something, this should be closed, with a note to the filer to be more careful in what he claims. (after e/c:) agree with ItsZippy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COMPETENCE is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This user is an asset to WP, and has always edited/ posted here in honesty and in good faith, to the best of my knowledge. (Not that he in any way needed my comment here.) Scott P. (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog and User:Alexbrn reported by User:Anmccaff (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

I'm afraid the title says it all. Reverts without relevant discussion. Anmccaff (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The original title used by Anmccaff was "user:Jytdog and user:Alexbrn editwarring on South Beach Diet". All I did was fill in the normal report header. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Anmccaff - You have removed the content four times, Alexbrn and Jytdog have both replaced it twice. None of you are exactly in the right, but the consensus is against you at the moment and you've made the most reverts. Please restart the conversation on the talk page if you wish to carry on arguing your point. SmartSE (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, there is a very small number of participants, two of whom have a habit of acting in concert. Speaking of "consensus" is a bit pretentious here.  That's a side point, however.  This is a medically related article, and it should conform to MEDRS, and it clearly does not.  Consensus has no more to do with it than it would, for example, in a living person's biography.  You don't keep preliminary evaluations a dozen years after they are published, and any open questions in them have been long since answered.  You don't credit a minor textbook over a major research group.  And you certainly don't call reviewing the literature "OR"; the only way to avoid undue POV is to see what points of view there are, or to plagiarize, or to trust in blind luck. (I don't recommend the latter two.)  It is difficult to find recent cites for the article's position except by tendentious searching; it isn't a coincidence that both Jytdog and Alexbrn picked a source that shows on the first page of a google book search for "south Beach" "fad diet."  They need to address this, rather than blindly revert, and they need to consider that plastering a user page with templates isn't a form of discussion.  Anmccaff (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources for this as well as the one used in the lede, and it has been discussed to death in Talk & at WT:MED to reach the current consensus. If you really wish to pursue this further please use WP:DR as others have said. Alexbrn (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for this as well as the one used in the lede,

...most with the same issues, and, far more importantly, outnumbered by better sources that take no particular stand against lowered carbohydrate diets, or actively support them. You have cherrypicked a weak cite from the declining shallows, not the mainstream. The idea that lower-carbohydrate diets are medically dangerous largely died with the Nurses Study analysis, but, as always, some people cling to their old ideas.

it has been discussed to death...at WT:MED to reach the current consensus. That is, frankly, a lie. One editor requested discussion there twice; there was none there. None whatsoever.

it has been discussed to death in Talk Where is the question of unacceptably outdated sources addressed in talk?Anmccaff (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

boomerang

 * This is the second bogus 3RR case brought by Anmccaff. First one was here Am filing a boomerang case as he is the one slowmo edit warring:


 * 1) 20 March 2015 diff
 * 2) 3 April 2015 diff
 * 3) 17 April 2015 diff
 * 4) 27 May 2015 diff
 * 5) 27 May 2015 diff
 * 6) 9 June 2015 dif
 * 7) 9 June 2015 dif


 * edit war warning notices:
 * May 27 here
 * June 9 here


 * effort to work out on talk page here starting back in march and continuing to subsequent sections.  Anmcalff has been pushing to remove "fad" from article, and wants to add unsourced content like SBD is "no longer considered" a fad diet, which is just OR.  I note that issue of "fad diet" has been extensively discussed on the Talk page, going back to last fall (see archives, starting here) when a paid editor was trying to get that term removed.  So the issue had been extensively discussed prior to Anmcalff's arrival.  The consensus on the page is not something lightly established.  Instead of pursuing DR to change the consensus and change the well-sourced content, he has been slowmo edit warring. Please give a short-term block and urge anmcalff to use DR.   Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (sorry for all the tweaking. done now. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)) (strike request to block Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC))


 * Personally, I don't see the need for a block at the moment and Anmcaff doesn't seem to understand what edit warring is very well. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt but am watching the article, so will take action if necessary. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That will do. Please do urge amccaalff to use DR.  I have, to no avail.  Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"well sourced content?" It included a review of cheap wines. More like "well, soused." Anmccaff (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Just to be explicitly clear, BTW, as I see it, the boomerang was thrown, so to speak, when you (plural) substituted an edit warring template for substantive discussion. If you do that, expect to come in here. Anmccaff (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * anmccaff we have discussed this issue to death, going back to last fall. either give up graciously or take up some kind WP:DR. but stop just edit warring. please. Jytdog (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

If it means anything, rules or not, ethics or not, by observation over months, I give my full support to Jytdog, any and all of his edits, for standing up against Alecbrn's "rule-justified" bigotry. 99.235.168.199 (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * fwiw, IP, alexbrn and i have the same perspective on this issue, and we generally do.  like alexbrn, i am part of WP:MED and everyone in that project works to improve the quality of health-related content in WP. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2600:1010:b042:9567:262:2640:1b30:e347 reported by User:Nishidani (Result: IP rangeblocked 72h)
Some one with this type of signature User:2600:1010:b042:9567:262:2640:1b30:e347 roams around usually reverting or adding pointing phrases (e.g. here). Today he broke the 1R rule at Gilad Shalit


 * 1st diff 21:43, 10 June 2015‎
 * 2nd diff ‎ 15:06, 11 June 2015

He has no talk page, so I can't notify him. The edit summaries are evasive.

Could someone handle this? Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As this is a dynamic IP address, blocking the user will ineffective. You seem to suggest that this goes beyond the two edits which you've cited; I can't find any because his IP keeps changing. If there are a large quantity of problematic edits, it would be useful if you could post them here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Beyond the 2 Gilad Shalit reverts, I can only see two other edits, all silly or POV pushing over my watchlist these last few days, i.e.
 * e.g. here.
 * He was reverted here, an example of silly messing with pages
 * Normally anonymous I/Ps or roaming IPS enjoy the luxury of breaking IR because they know everyone else is obliged to respect the rule. I have to wait several hours to undo the damage, with no guarantee I won't be immediately reverted. It's annoying. There should be some right to revert this, which is not 'vandalistic' but not serious either. Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The IP address range 2600:1010:b040::/42 has been soft-blocked 72 hours for ARBPIA-related disruption. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks chaps.Nishidani (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Gal lilos reported by User:Huldra (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff, 01:01, 10 June 2015: change Palestine into Israel
 * 2) diff 12:49, 10 June 2015: change Palestine into Israel

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: link

Comments: Article is under 1RR, pr ARBIA

Comments:

He writes here on his user page, that "but this is not true. there is no Palestine county. its inside Israel lines. very simple". However, the place has never been officially claimed or annexed by Israel, it is, both by Israeli and International law, part of the occupied Palestinian West Bank. Huldra (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . In general, the common interpretation of revert rules generally requires that the material being undone has to have been added recently. Since this page had not been edited in several months prior to ' first edit, the first diff is not a revert per se, and so the second diff is actually his first revert.
 * However, his assertion on his talk page regarding the "truth" of his edits is concerning as it implies a lack of understanding of edit warring and consensus, so I will leave a message on his talk page as well. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: by  who came to a slightly different conclusion on the implications of ' comments regarding his views on the existence of Palestine. . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I ended up overlapping with Darwind (blame my slow internet connection) and blocked this user for 24 hours while he was writing this response. See here. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Darkwind : I thought it was the opposite? I edit a lot of articles which are "watched" by *very* few users, typically West Bank villages and villages depopulated in -48. Your definition of 1RR means that anyone can come in and say that a West Bank village is in Israel, and if someone else (besides me) isn´t watching, then that will stand!! Surely, that cannot be right? Long-time content cannot be valued "less" than content just added? Huldra (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the first edit of a series is obviously provocative like this one, denying the existence of Palestine, I'd be willing to count that as a revert when judging 1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:212.178.236.254 reported by User:Pincrete (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, and by another editor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No engagement on talk

Comments:

Persistent removal of sourced content, along with restoring own PoV (ungrammatical and unsourced) content). More minor attempts to insert next have not been included in diffs. Previous banned IPs were inserting very similar text, so possible sock or 'copy-cat'. Have never reported before, so hope I've done this correctly.Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, they had stopped by the time they were warned, but I am blocking for disruptive editing as much as anything else. In general, you should warn and then report here if they continue after being warned.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Acroterion Understood and thanks. Pincrete (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Prefix-NA reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&oldid=666121247]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666464338&oldid=666453944]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666502277&oldid=666491165]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666520418&oldid=666517363]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Prefix-NA&diff=666530834&oldid=661191184]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Direct3D&diff=666530223&oldid=665737408]

Comments:

Rationale for this edit warring as explained on a 3rd-party forum:

--Dmitry (talk•contibs) 20:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . Prefix-NA does not appear to be edit warring. NB: Off-wiki evidence is almost never admissible; I didn't even click the link. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:207.172.212.109 reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666464338&oldid=666453944]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666512059&oldid=666510772]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666512507&oldid=666512199]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666512746&oldid=666512601]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666513057&oldid=666512830]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666513638&oldid=666513087]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&diff=666515186&oldid=666514460]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:207.172.212.109&oldid=666530744]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Direct3D&diff=666530223&oldid=665737408]

Comments:

Rationale for the edit war as explained by originators on a 3rd-party forum:

--Dmitry (talk•contibs) 20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

88.217.65.12 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * @DimitryKo: It is irrelevant if there is a discussion about the changes in a 3rd party forum. Even if the 2 users you reported are in fact the ones discussing about the changes on the site you provided it doesn't change the fact that their edits are validated. I for example am not member of the linked 3rd party site and I verified and validated exactly the same changes to the Direct3D article by providing and inserting reference links. No violation. For comparison check this version (consider especially the fact that the added feature is designated as "non-queryable" which solves the liability to initial criticism of the counter-party in this dispute): [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Direct3D&oldid=666513857]
 * Furthermore I am pretty astouned that you try to solve this issue by instantly reporting 2 users instead of handing this over to "dispute resolution" instead, which should always be the first step. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.65.12 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I reverted an erroneous edit and provided an explanation, then a bunch of fanboys from the Guru3D forum came and thought it was funny to clash with other editors who supported my reversion. Why exactly it was my fault when I wasn't even there for the whole evening? It was your duty to start a dispute resolution before it got out of control and deteriorated to an edit war and violation of WP:3RR. I had no option but to report it for administrative action. As for the validity of edits over disputed content, this belongs to the article talk page. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 07:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * along with . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Roshan08.08 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Roshan08.08

Comments:


 * I'm not convinced that first edit is clearly a revert as it is different from some of the large amounts of text inserted by annonymous editors in the past few months. I'm inclined to say that this editor is at three reverts and can be blocked if he makes a fourth. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * consider WP:EW and WP:CWW. They are not going to change at this rate. Can I strip it out again or would you then beat me over the head for breaching 3RR. Some sort of common sense solution is needed here and it clearly is not going to come through discussion unless we ignore GFDL and go the long-winded route through WP:DR. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - typo in my previous ping, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm going to go one further. In my experience of how this board interprets 3RR, there are four here: you are interpreting "revert" too literally, or at least more so than most do here.. The contributor has added the same (poor) material four times in way under 24 hours. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No the first edit was adding new material (questionable material maybe but it certainly was not reverting someone else's edit). The next three were reverts so only at 3RR. 86.153.135.110 (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So far User:Roshan08.08 never communicates, and he has recently violated the guideline at WP:Copying within Wikipedia. It appears that the 24,000 bytes he recently added to Ujjain came from another WP article. I left a note on his talk. Let's see where he goes from here. I agree that, by the usual method of counting, this is just three reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:VThomson reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is a BLP, note the revert speeds: here's their talk page and BLP warning

Comments:

This is a BLP article; another editor had examined the edits and found extraordinary statements not in cite. Upon reexamining them, I also did not find them in cite and removed the statements. The editor is a single-article editor and immediately reverted the material despite warning on their talk page and then about edit warring. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 07:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User has now also removed all the tags and continues to edit the page without comment. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 07:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User continues to add inappropriate materials (one is a link to a flickr photo album) and reverted another user who re-added the tags. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 09:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . Please feel free to remove any BLP-violating material from the article at this time. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Augenblink reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This has not yet reached the 3RR stage, but the user appeared when the article was semi-protected and continued edits that had previously been made by an IP, 89.197.13.252, adding unsourced material. They are now reverting my removal of this material, claiming that they are "fixing vandalism". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * . I'm not going to go so far as to assume the IP and are the same editor, but this is certainly a slow-speed edit war. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Andre bachel li reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:

Note many of the editor's changes are misrepresenting sources <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:M.srihari reported by User:Jaaron95 (Result: multiple blocks)
Page: ;

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Page 1, Page 2

Diffs of the user's reverts: On page Supercarrier On page Vikrant-class aircraft carrier
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4
 * 1) 1
 * 2) 2
 * 3) 3
 * 4) 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The user has a history of no-consensus based edits-- JAaron95 &#40; Talk &#41;  19:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * for 72 hours and for 48 hours.  Only M.srihari broke 3RR, on both pages, but they are both definitely edit warring. Longer block for M.srihari due to actually going over the 3RR line. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:GageSkidmore reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: Warned user(s))
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:54, 10 June 2015
 * 2) 22:10, 11 June 2015
 * 3) 22:15, 11 June 2015
 * 4) 00:41, 12 June 2015‎‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user usually edit wars over photos or minor stylistic changes. Here, he wishes to hide presidential candidates he deems minor from a navigational template as part of a recent pattern to hide minor presidential candidates. He used an IP address (cell phone) for two of the reverts and made his fourth revert a little over 24 hours after the first to avoid 3RR (violating the spirit of the rule). I have tried to discuss the matter with him on the template talk page but he seems to have no desire to discuss why his preferred version is better. Instead, he communicates with edit summaries such as "it's better this way" and "this version is far superior." --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Viewing wikipedia as a battleground to combat minor candidates: General edit warring: --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding a speedy delete to an article about a minor candidate that was a snow keep in an AFD discussion just the day before.
 * Removing images of minor candidates from galleries multiple times., , , ,
 * Edit warring to add the names of Rand Paul's children despite convention and accusing others of owning the page
 * Reported on this board back in May
 * Long history on this board
 * I do not have other accounts. Those two you linked having nothing to do with me, and I have done nothing to break any rules. False report. How about next time you run an IP check first. Gage (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are being honest here. For example, I know you do have other accounts because you previously used the username User:CoolKid1993.  That's beside the point.  I believe you made the edits with your cell phone.  Why? Five reasons:


 * 1) You have a recent history of combating the presentation of minor presidential candidates
 * 2) You disputed the change but gave no reason why (just as the IP did in edit summaries)
 * 3) I made the change and was immediately reverted (the same revert you made as User:GageSkidmore hours earlier)
 * 4) Very few ever edit the template, watch it, or care about what is on it
 * 5) The IP used points to a cell phone.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're giving me too much credit. Also, I have never used more than one account at once. I did not make those edits you're accusing me of. I don't care that much. Gage (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have two questions, one for each of you. How would William "run an IP check"? William, what makes you think the IP who reverted twice "points to a cell phone"?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of procedure, seeing as I would never think of using another account. Especially for something as trivial as that, I have much better things to do. Gage (talk) 05:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then don't suggest something you know nothing about. And you reverted four times (not counting the IP) despite your having better things to do and saying you "don't care that much".--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of arguing over technicalities of a false report, I highly suggest closing this as no violation. Gage (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, the WHOIS points to Cellco Partnership which provides cell phone service for Verizon.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is clearly an edit war, even if we don't count the IP which I'll assume is not . At this time, I don't see the need for a block, but you and (who reverted this edit 4 times) are both strongly admonished to avoid edit warring in the future. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to set the record straight, I reverted the template three times not four. This was not a revert, but a new edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:190.160.186.214 reported by User:Fazbear7891 (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 666684363 by DemocraticLuntz (talk)"
 * 2)  "for fuck's sake, stop reverting for no reason.  It's incredibly rude and incredibly stupid."
 * 3)  "rv stupidity"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 666667374 by Dewritech (talk) don't revert for no reason. it's not a hard thing to understand, is it?"
 * 5)  "don't revert for no reason"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * . Tiptoety  talk 23:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

User:PakSol reported by User:82.11.33.86 (Result: Protected by NeilN)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * alongwith


 * Have been engaged in edit warring and adding unreliable sources like blogs nationalistic websites. They also have been quoting sources which are otherwise reliable but then they does not support of contain the info being added by these IPs. All 3 x IPs editing the same 3 x pages with the same info and sources. They need to be stopped. Adding sources and books that just makes a casual mention of ONE of the words in the sentence requiring a citation does not make that source credible or legit. They are trying to mislead others into believing that by quoting any website or book that include the names Mukti Bahini, Bangladesh, or Genocide will make that source applicable on the POV they have been trying to push.
 * The IPs have been referred to the respective talk pages like:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War#What.27s_up_with_the_recent_IP_Edits.3F
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Army.27s_So_Called_Atrocities
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Comments_requested


 * where discussion affecting their edits is taking place, but instead of participating there, they have been constantly reverting and editing the same articles. Does Wikipedia consider any website that makes a mention of a certain word in any context a reliable source to push a particular POV?
 * Lastly, I can safely say that these 3 x IPs have ganged up on me and through a planned edit war on certain topics of my interest have caused the above reversions.
 * Most importantly, the above can be confirmed by the fact that I was reported here after I have reported all 3 x IPs at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#3_x_IPs_from_Different_Locations_Editing_Same_Articles_with_the_Same_kind_of_Info  Pak Sol   talk 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note I have fully protected the page for two days (before I saw this report and the one below). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Fsfolks reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 666808555 by Joseph2302 (talk)" (self-reverted )
 * 2)  "Undid revision 666774153 by Skyerise (talk) already justified in the talk page."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 666773603 by Joseph2302 (talk): explain in the talk page what is wrong firstly."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 666772921 by Psychonaut (talk) rv Vandalism: firstly explain in the talk page what are the POV edits."
 * 5)  "rv Vandalism."
 * 6)  "restoring error fixes."
 * 7)  "/* Licensing: copyleft vs permissive  */"
 * 8)  "/* Dualism of FOSS */"
 * 1)  "/* Dualism of FOSS */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Free and open-source software. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Free and open-source software. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* POV edits */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* POV edits */"
 * 3)   "/* POV edits */ reply"
 * 4)   "/* POV edits */ reply"


 * Comments:

This user is making large-scale, controversial changes, which I believe are POV. There is a discussion at the talkpage, but instead of allowing editors to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS, they are repeatedly reverting. I want to have a proper conversation about it, but all their arguments are "No, you're wrong, and now I'm going to revert you again". Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But, what I reverted was a vandalism for my previous edits with cited text: the editors which was involved in vandalism in the talk page were unable to justify there edits. Fsfolks (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, you are edit-warring and have broken the three revert rules, which applies regardless of your reasons from repeatedly reverting. Skyerise (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you've now reverted 6 7 times, and at the talkpage still no-one agrees with your changes, whilst multiple editors agree with my reverts. I haven't needed to break WP:3RR because other editors agree with me, and so are reverting your against consensus changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The vandalism doesn't let you justify your consensus. Fsfolks (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "my" consensus, it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors on the article talkpage. Also, stop calling it vandalism, that's a personal attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Could admins also note they're pushing the same material at Portal:Free software/Terminology, where they've made 3 reversions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The account may also be a role account, named after this Google Group. Possible WP:ADVOCACY. Skyerise (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * the edits you are talking about at Portal:Free software/Terminology are disruptive edits: edits done without any justification. Fsfolks (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, because all edits that you disagree with are disruptive/vandalism according to you. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edits are the disruptive ones. Skyerise (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I have advised that the vandalism-reversion exemption from 3RR is very narrow, and his edits do not qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * , after yet another revert. —C.Fred (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Psyden reported by User:Doc James (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I wrote the original text. It was nearly all removed by, in effect reverted, without much comment as to why. I then restored my original text, DocJames reverted again saying that this was "not what the ref says", however it was what the ref says. I reverted with the comment that it was properly sourced, and to please not revert again without discussion. DocJames reverted again without discussion, saying the same thing, "this is not what the ref says". I reworded my summary to better reflect what the source says, nearly plagiarizing. I am surprised there is discussion regarding this. Psyden (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is discussion on the talk page of the article in question. Rather than waiting for support you continued to IMO misrepresent the source in question. And with this edit you continue to cherry pick from this not terrible high quality review. You add the positive bits and leave out the negative bits.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And I have said, feel free to add the bits that you feel are "negative". Instead you seem to want to entirely suppress this information from the public, information I feel they will be very interested in, something they have a right to know about. Somehow I feel this is very much against the entire spirit of Wikipedia. Psyden (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This user is doing the same across a number of articles. They are attempting to give undue weight to this small observational trial picked from this low quality review. Another 4 attempts to add it here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Comment: User:Psyden made four clear reverts at Crohn's disease starting at 01:48 on June 13. A block is appropriate for the 3RR violation, but Psyden might avoid that if he will promise not to restore his cannabis-related material again (on any article) before getting a clear consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Talks have already commenced. (and for the record I was unaware of this rule, and it was Doc James who initially reverted.) Psyden (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please say whether you are accepting my offer. If you don't, I intend to proceed with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am accepting your offer. To better understand Wikipedia customs, I would like to know why this threat of a block does not also apply to Doc James as he was the original person to revert, and I was the original person to suggest discussion on the talk page which he ignored? Thank you. Psyden (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Psyden has agreed not to add his cannabis-related material again to any article unless he gets consensus on a talk page. He's accepting this restriction in lieu of a block for 3RR. Doc james was not sanctioned because he didn't violate WP:3RR. In general, any edits to a medical article that don't observe the requirements of WP:MEDRS are certain to get scrutiny. It would be normal to expect a discussion before major changes of this nature. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also am not clear how I violated this 3RR rule. On the page Crohn's Disease, my first revert was: 01:48, 13 June 2015, the second was: 01:51, 13 June 2015‎, there are no further reversions by me after that. For the next edit the text was changed to better reflect Doc James' concerns, it is not a reversion. Is there anyone to whom I can appeal this decision? Psyden (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can appeal at WP:ANI if you think the closure was incorrect, but you've already accepted the deal. Unless and until it is revised elsewhere you're expected to follow the terms of the restriction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I only accepted the deal because I was told I was in violation of a policy "3RR". After reading about that policy I have discovered that I was not in violation. Psyden (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding the same content 4 times is violating the 3RR. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Toppsud and User:Skyerise reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: )

 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

These two seemed to have locked horns. I'd list an article but it is across many many articles. Histories are and. Toppsud appears to have no record of blocks for reverting but Skyerise (who has been blocked a couple of times for this behavior) should know better. There is not a 3RR that I can tell, unless you want to include all the articles they are reverting of each other. An administrator might want to take a peek at this and I'll bow out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm voluntarily observing 1RR. Toppsud is not. I'd also like to point out that I reported User:Drmargi for edit warring here for the exact same thing, making 1 revert across a series for articles. It was deemed "not edit warring". Skyerise (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Some are single reverts, some are certainly not. As in San Jose City College and Todd Rogers (video game player) and List of Married... with Children characters, which all have 2 or 3. If this happened on one or two articles no one would care, but it's happening on a lot of articles. I'm tired of seeing it. There is also the spirit of proper editing and one who continually walks in the grey area also creates problems. Maybe I'm wrong here, that's why I wanted an administrator to take a looksee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave me out of your drama. That you can't see the difference between the handful of single reverts I made and your slow edit warring simply demonstrates your lack of understanding of edit warring policy.  Daily 1RR on the same articles is still edit warring.  --Drmargi (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do people not understand 1RR? -- like 3RR, it's limiting oneself to 1 revert per day. Apparently, not understanding 1RR is enough reason for certain editors to call me a liar. Skyerise (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

User:114.134.89.21 reported by User:PakSol (Result: Protected by NeilN)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

PakSol placed warnings on my talk page only after posting here. Shows his manipulative behavior all along. Despite being debunked by reliable sources and widely held consensus, he and his gang of some Pakistan-based users continue to pursue pointless edit wars. It is they who provoke and indulge in unnecessary edit warring. PakSol's pro-Pakistan army POVs are reflected by his username, which suggests that he's very much associated with the Pakistan military and makes a serious conflict of interest. This guy is trying to push the wrong side of history.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clearly a content dispute and it gives you no excuse to violate WP:3RR. I'm not going to absolve others as faultless, but when there is discussion on the issue ongoing at the talk page, you have no logic to premptively escalate the edit war. You have made 7 reverts on that article within a 24 hour window, and you've reverted up to 3 separate editors. That is ridiculous. Technically, you ought to be blocked for both edit warring and disruptive editing.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You and your edit warrior pals ought to be topic banned on 1971. Removing reliable sources, misrepresenting sources and distorting historical accuracy is just unacceptable.--114.134.89.21 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators must take note. All references added by this IP which were being removed by PakSol and Faizan are very much reliable. I can prove it now. The Routledge Handbook of Terrorism Research, The Wars of Afghanistan: Messianic Terrorism, Tribal Conflicts, and the Failures of Great Powers written by Peter Tomsen, and Dictionary of Genocide: A-L. Cosmic  Emperor  16:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All those references added by that IP, which is removed by PakSol, Are they so much unreliable? Cosmic   Emperor  16:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute and that is what the talk page is for. It doesn't justify making 7 reverts by any means.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

i don't see talk page will be much helpful for an Ip User if three/ four users reject his reliable refences. Still that doesn't give him the right to break Wiki policy. It's better he should open an account. Cosmic  Emperor  16:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what you want to say is that an IP has the right to edit war?  Pak Sol   talk 20:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

For discussion on the correctness of sources see the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Deliberate_Misinterpretation_of_Sources  Pak Sol  talk 20:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and an RfC is taking place at the article's talk. Faizan (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:2.120.174.10 and User:Dr John Peterson reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the IP user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no monarchy in Greece so he is not crown prince of anywhere."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 666779253 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Military coup of 1967 */ Greece does not have a monarchy. This article wrongly acts as if they still do."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 666778415 by 2.120.174.10 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 666778399 by 331dot (talk)"
 * 6)  "/* Military coup of 1967 */"
 * 7)  "/* Marriage and issue */"
 * 8)  "/* Early life */"
 * 9)  "/* Titles and styles */"
 * 10)  "Greece does not have a monarchy. It was abolished."
 * 11)  "/* Early life */"
 * Diffs of Dr John Peterson's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)
 * 2)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The consensus at Talk:Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece is that this is a correct title. This IP and User:Dr John Peterson (who's clearly the same person, see ) seek to destroy this consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Greece has NO monarchy and therefore can not possibly have a crown prince. It is pure deceit by the extreme monarchist Joseph2303 to claim otherwise. --Dr John Peterson (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which can be (and has been) debated on the talk page, which is where the discussion should go. That's all I wanted. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec)I was accused of edit warring by Dr John Peterson but it was my understanding that the BRD cycle was not edit warring; that's all I wanted to accomplish. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * (ec) Did you read the talkpage, all the reliable sources say you're wrong. Also, I've not an "extreme monarchist", I believe monarchies are a waste of space. However, I believe in using reliable sources like the ones on the talkpage, as a basis for building a credible encyclopedia. Also, my name is Joseph2302, not Joseph2303.
 * I agree that such blatant unsourced BLP violations are excluded from WP:3RR anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph3300 I see no rational reasoning on the talk page, which has been written by extreme monarchists anyway. Greece does NOT officially have a monarchy and does not recognise him as a crown prince. That is legal authority over the nonsense written by monarchists on the talk page. --Dr John Peterson (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The ONLY reliable and official source of information is the Greek government who agrees with me 100%. --Dr John Peterson (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The point here is that this sort of discussion should have been taking place on the talk page; BRD is all I was trying to do. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion on the talkpage, I've given my view. Have you read the sources on there Dr Juqn Petrsen (sorry, I might have misspelled your name, like you did to me. Also, changing your IP address every 5 minutes to push your ideas is not the way to achieve an actual consensus. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Josephine232323 have you never heard of assuming good faith on Wikipedia. It's one of the principles. There are a number of people in this vicinity who did not agree with the nonsensical claims being made. It's better that you do not use different WP usernames and IDs to push your ideas ! I read all the talk page. I don't see a shred of cogent reasoning or facts that would support the former Greek monarchies delusional determination to still describe themselves as royalty when the Greek governments official and legal policy is that there is NO monarchy. If half a dozen neo Nazis on Hitler's talk page claim him to be still alive are we to change the article accordingly because there is consensus amongst them ? --Dr John Peterson (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for your POV, and please desist from the personal attacks by deliberately mispelling and vandalising my name. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that this User:Joseph2302 is involved in vandalism of many articles, with unability to discuss things correctly with many editors. He should assume good faith before reporting other editors. Fsfolks (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of vandalism when it's actually a content dispute is a personal attack, as you've already been warned. Also, it's not my fault I've got involved with lots of people who revert rather than discuss, against WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * – 2 days by User:NeilN. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Catty319 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 666539138 by Geraldo Perez (talk)The sources DO support the info, if you look carefully at ALL the info."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 666804528 by Geraldo Perez (talk) As I have stated SEVERAL times, the info I added IS valid and my sources DO support my info if you look closely."
 * 3)  "gave new info with a more reliable source"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 666837972 by Geraldo Perez (talk) Stop! Just stop. You tare down my edits and my sources and replace them with new info with outdated sources."
 * 5)  "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
 * 6)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 7)  "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
 * 8)  "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"
 * 1)  "/* Season 1 (2014–15) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User changes the viewership numbers for the episodes, replacing already well-referenced info with bogus data and unreliable sources (which include links to user-created pages), and has repeatedly done this for several days now (more than three times in the last day so it's against WP:3RR), with a few editors, including myself, having reverted these edits and warning user about unreliability of sources. Warnings on user's talk page point user to discuss edits on talk page, and user has brought up the references being used at Talk:List of Girl Meets World episodes, but is told several more times about the sources being unreliable, or not directly supporting the viewership numbers the user is entering into the article. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding this user's revert to the report diff @ 15:04, 14 June 2015, the 5th time in the last 24 hours. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

– 48 hours. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Jt029350, which asserts that Catty319 is a sock of another editor who previously worked on Girl Meets World and is now indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:‎82.11.33.86 reported by User:PakSol (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (RfC related to the dispute raised by the IP itself at the talk page):

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (recent similar query raised by another IP at talk page in which this IP participated): —  Pak Sol  talk 17:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * These IPs are clearly under 4RR, but as they are using static IPs, they change and it serves to avoid 4RR under the same identity. I request the IP be blocked and the page be protected, I already requested it here. All that fuss over some info actually related to the Pakistani Balochistan and not to the geographical region of Balochistan, but the IPs don't seem to understand. And, please avoid edit-warring and opt for DRN or an RfA and avoid edit-warring even if you are right. This is the way here at Wikipedia. If you make 4 reverts in 24 hours, you will be blocked too! , Please have a look? Faizan (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the headsup, will be careful.—  Pak Sol  talk 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Balochistan is semiprotected two months due to IP edit warring; PakSol is warned. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:95.113.98.204 reported by User:MaverickLittle (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

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

Comments: Anon Editor 95.113.98.204 keeps adding his own personal opinion to the Franklin Graham article. He is a new editor with only ten edits on Wikipedia. He refuses to follow the reliable source requirements. The edit that he keeps doing requires a reliable source to back it up, but he refuses to provide one, only supplying his own opinion, which of course, is not a reliable source. I think that I need to not only point out his 3RR violation, but his BLP violations.--ML (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Peachman2000 reported by User:Pudeo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Nine reverts within the span of 20:56, 13 June 2015‎ – 00:37, 15 June 2015‎.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user also has said he will "continue fighting for a more accurate representation of the Maoist International Movements criticism" against the book (diff), despite not taking part in talk-page discussion. I am sort of filing this report on behalf of  since he apparently hasn't done it. --Pudeo' 03:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Kyle121101 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I changed Green's position to Power forward / Center because he usually starts at power forward (has started 2 NBA finals game at center), then slides into center when the first group of subs come in, please do not change it back to just "forward"."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Playing center */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Draymond Green. (TW)"

More reverts since opening of this report: —Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 1) 04:12, 15 June 2015‎ (UTC)
 * 2) 04:07, 15 June 2015‎ (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "again, the djinni is out of the bottle here"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 666710490 by Winner 42 (talk) name has "been widely disseminated" "
 * 3)  "restore version of lede not from someone who supports the article's deletion"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 667000903 by VQuakr (talk) revert vandalism"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 667005353 by Heyyouoverthere (talk) Revert vandalism by an editor who actively supports the article's deletion"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 667005353 by Heyyouoverthere (talk) Revert vandalism by an editor who actively supports the article's deletion"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2015 Texas pool party incident. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Mentioning proper name */ still no reason given to include"


 * Comments:

A bit of mild WP:VANDNOT and WP:AGF failure as well. The biography was promptly deleted largely for BLP concerns, and turning this article on the event into a fake bio is not better. See also the thread at WP:BLPN; I realize I am in the minority (but not alone) in recognizing there is a significant risk of real-world harm by contributing to popularizing the name, hence the unusually high number of reverts on my part. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Notified: VQuakr (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This editor has been entirely uncooperative despite being reported to the BLP noticeboard here, as well as to discussion on the article's talk page. I don't see how I'm the bad guy here, and I'm not a fan of being WP:WIKILAWYERED into submission. -- Kendrick7talk 04:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors who support the deletion of the article continue to try and game the system here. Can an Admin please step up? -- Kendrick7talk 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could use the article talk page and express your policy based concerns about the content rather than making up rules about which editors can edit the article? VQuakr (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)