Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive287

User:MbahGondrong reported by User:Målfarlig! (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User warned for edit warring at Smail Prevljak last week, also actively edit warring at Wang Fei (footballer, born 1990) and Andressa Alves da Silva but not yet past 3RR. Målfarlig! (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Same applies for you also. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Both editors were edit warring and violated WP:3RR. I see no attempt to resolve the dispute in the article's talk page. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is my 3RR breach? Målfarlig! (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @Målfarlig!, You've been edit warring with MbahGondrong since June 28 in article: Nadine Angerer. The following reverts:, , & . You've violated 3RR, you're just as guilty as MbahGondrong — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, in article: Wang Fei (footballer, born 1990), the following reverts:, , & . It's obvious that you and MbahGondrong aren't getting along and I see no attempt to resolve the matter in any of the article's talk pages both of you have reverted each other in. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * @JudeccaXIII Can you please show me where I actually violated 3RR? I don't accept I'm "just as guilty" either, I've been making serious edits/expansions to these pages and have then been Wikihounded with these stupid/trivial edits intended purely to annoy. That was after I and another editor expressed legitimate concerns about the quality of MbahGondrong's stub articles. Unlike MbahGondrong I don't have recent warnings for edit warring. Målfarlig! (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Målfarlig!, I've already linked your reverts that violate 3RR above. Anyway, I'll let an admin handle this matter. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully one who can count to four. Målfarlig! (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Bringing up an unrelated closed debate? You are desperate are you? Even your link for the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is wrong. Apparently you even dont understand the WP:3RR either, as you can not understand a simple rule of WP:INFOBOXREF and keep insisting on your own personal opinion. I'm glad actuall you reported me. Let's see how this will go. Good night! :) MbahGondrong (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 3 days. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Chotaripple reported by User:Kansas Bear (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Chotaripple has, since 24 June, been edit warring the inclusion of 1 million Mughal troops into the Battle of Chaumkar article. He has been reverted by Xtremedood, Plastikspork, and myself. If we take into account the IP that was edit warring over the exact same issue prior to 24 June, then the edit warring has gone on far longer. My post on Chotaripple's talk page garnered no response except an accusation of betrayal. Nor has Chotaripple chosen to address this issue on the article's talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 24 hours. Editor is warring to add the number '1 million' as the actual size of an army, while the reported size is a legendary quantity like 'very big number'. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SchroCat reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Protection, Warning)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670081905 by Chasewc91 (talk) Back to version in place when RfC was filed. Do not edit war to push your own preferred version in place, and sont come to mytalk page to threaten me"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Aytk (talk) to last version by SchroCat"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670057325 by Aytk (talk)sourced info, regardless of your POV on the point. We Anto be neutral, not try and gloss over every little flaw in some idol-worshipping nonsense"
 * 4)  "/* Accolades */ not inherently unreliable on everything - and reporting an award is not something they would lie about"
 * 5)  "Reverted good faith edits by FrB.TG (talk): I think the talk page is the best place to discuss the removal,of well-sourced material. (TW)"


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

see Talk:Ariana Grande and Talk:Ariana Grande
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Continued warring from a habitual edit warrior who has been blocked in each of the last three calendar years for the same behavior. SchroCat was warned after the fourth revert and then continued.

SchroCat's warring on the Ariana Grande article includes, but is not limited to, content that is currently being discussed in an RfC. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 18:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In addition to edit warring, this editor has also been making rude comments towards others that border on personal attacks (see here and here). Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 18:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

At least one of those was not a revert. I am tired of the lies and deceit by this editor who has (possibly deliberately) "misunderstood" policies in order to use them as weapons to get his own way. He has pushed his POV in two deletions of reliably sourced information during an RfC. I have reverted the text to how it was when the RfC opened, pending the completion of the discussion. This editor has edited to his own personal preference, and without regard to others, and away from the version that was under discussion. THAT is utterly underhand ad despicable behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of which version was in place when the RfC started, but regardless of which version should have been replaced, you reverted (regardless of whether or not you used "revert" or "rollback" functions - see the definition at WP:3RR) 5 times, including after you were warned to stop. Edit warring can lead to a block regardless of who is "right" or "wrong." You should take accountability for your own behavior instead of making unfounded accusations of lying and deceit against me. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, try and be honest. The RfC started, and you then deleted the very section of text in question. Please do not insult the intelligence of everyone here by trying to claim that you were not aware. I am not at 5RR, I know what a revert or rollback is, so don't try and patronise me. I repeat: not all those diffs go towards that count, and all I have done is to put the text back to where it was at the start of the RfC, as it should be, and regardless of your rather spuriousclaims to the contrary. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that there was an edit war over the material before the RfC and that I was not at the RfC as soon as it began notwithstanding, I have only removed that material twice: once before I knew it was a hotly contended issue on the article's talk page (and not recently, may I add), and once today to revert you while you were edit warring. 3RR clearly states that the rule extends to reverts that don't cover the same material: you've also reverted cleanup tag placement. You were warned at four reverts, yet you did it a fifth time. Why is that? Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm cutting out of this: you're a timewaster and your discussion style regarding veracity isn't something I can be bothered with. I have said all I need or want to say to you: if the admin dealing with this wants to come and discuss this with me I'll be happy to explain further. I have an PR I need to deal with, in which good editors offer level-headed and high-quality comments which isn't something I'm going to get here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: The supplied diffs show SchroCat making five reverts within 24 hours. In my opinion SchroCat can avoid a block for WP:3RR violation if they will agree not to edit this article or its talk page for the next 7 days. Whether an RfC was running or not doesn't excuse someone for breaking 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * just made another comment on the talk page. Pinging him just in case he didn't see your message. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no intention of editing the article, but I will comment on the talk page: there has been no edit warring there, and a great deal of nonsense has been written that needs to be corrected. It seems utterly pointless to try and gag someone during an RfC. FWIW I had forgotten about the edits last night, and tha removing spurious tags could somehow be considered reverting. - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's completely up to you, but I think it would be wise to take EdJohnston's advice. You could easily be blocked right now for 5RR and you're being offered the chance to avoid said block for stepping away from a discussion where you've already made your stance perfectly clear. As you said in this thread that you're currently working on an FLC, it might be in your best interest to take Ed up on his offer. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 20:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Lectures from you are the last thing I need, especially given some of the less verifiable statements you've made to date. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Was just trying to help you out with some friendly advice. I even said you didn't have to take it. Sorry. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 20:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments: It looks to me as if there are 7 reversions by SchroCat in 24 hours (history here). Further, saying, "I am tired of the lies and deceit by this editor who has (possibly deliberately) "misunderstood" policies in order to use them as weapons to get his own way" is completely uncalled for.  I've known  for a while now, and have never gotten the impression that he is a liar, deceitful, uses anything as a weapon against other editors, and works to get his own way.  That comment needs to be struck at the very least.  I think it's actionable, personally, when you consider how many rude comments/personal attacks Schro has been racking up with this dispute.  Schro should know better, especially with being fairly fresh off a recent block for edit warring.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * there were two other uses of "undo" that I did not include in this report, as 3RR says that a series of consecutive reverts count as only one. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to look again if you honestly think there are seven reverts: there are nothing of the sort. - SchroCat (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Response Whether it is five or seven is really neither here nor there. Five is certainly more than the threshold of three, so you're in violation, regardless.  Like others are telling you,, Ed Johnston is being extremely patient and generous by offering you an out.  Don't you think it would be wise to take that offer (including not commenting at the article talk page)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am waitng for him to comment that he thinks that it is applicable to gag someone in an RfC. Once he has clarified that he wants that, leaving someone who has been continually untruthful to continue the discussion, I will give my answer. - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: Personal attacks have continued and SchroCat has indicated that he does not plan to stop. Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 19:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, I have not indicated that I do not plan to stop, so again, please at least try and be honest. - SchroCat (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reponse to note The comment, "When you stop misleading and acting incredibly badly I will..." (see here) says to me that you intend to continue with the personal attacks; like a threat, actually. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Then you misread the situation as badly as your chum has. - SchroCat (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion there is a clear violation. I think that SchroCat should accept EdJohnston's generous offer without negotiation as this is something that warrants of block. You have been given an out, you may want to take it. Chillum 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can an admin just full-protect the (^&*)%& page immediately please before heads roll. An RfC is in progress and folks are getting het up. That would be the most productive way to proceed. I would but I have an opinion on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Clearly a violation, as pointed out.  Whether the article should remain in its current version (which has the material included when the RfC began) or in a version not including those "diva" claims, until the RfC is decided is a matter of debate, of which editors can disagree. Personally, I tend to err on the side of caution where BLP is concerned, and feel the inclusion is a clear violation.  Other editors disagree and don't see a BLP issue.  Such is life. But that is irrelevant to this discussion which is whether or not an editor violated the 3RR rule, which clearly occurred.  Onel 5969  TT me 21:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Page protected for three days by User:KrakatoaKatie. User:SchroCat is warned for breaking WP:3RR. If you continue to revert after protection expires the next admin may choose to issue a block. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  - Continues to edit war, this 5th revert (of different material, partially reverting this edit) - even AFTER this report was filed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - was warned about edit warring earlier today, on a different article, and has reported another user for edit warring on THIS article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was just here a few hours ago, edit warring on multiple articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by All Rows4 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's already been discussion about everything here. Keep in mind that 3RR doesn't include WP:vandalism (point #4), which was obvious in Averysoda's systematically deletion of sourced material. --MehrdadFR (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of your reverts were of vandalism. You need to read WP:VANDALISM to see what it means. This is a simple content dispute and you are edit warring.All Rows4 (talk) 06:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clear violation of 3RR by WP:Battleground editor who was blocked for similar behavior in March. Think a longer block is necessary this time. Particularly since the user ALSO in violation of 3RR at Anti-Iranian sentiment. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * as 3RR was violated at both United Against Nuclear Iran and Anti-Iranian sentiment two days ago, and user reverted again today at the UANI article indicating disruption is likely to continue. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Calidum reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

4 reverts in 2 hours

Contributor321 (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, imagine having the audacity to suggest someone wanting to add controversial information (which was already in the article almost verbatim) should discuss such a change on the talk page. You made no effort to resolve the situation. And I find it highly suspicious that two IPs, which both made their first edits and geolocate to the same city, decided to join in on the edit war. Finally, the page has already been protected so this appears to be an attempt at revenge. Calidum T&#124;C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and look who just started a proper discussion on the talk page. Calidum T&#124;C 05:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments: Looks like edit warring to me in addition to a refusal to employ WP:BRD. After being told by the other editor to take concerns regarding disputed content, Calidum snarkily responds, "Or you could".  No attempts to discuss that I can see; no real explanation for edit reversion in edit summaries, either. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  04:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised it took you 15 minutes to find this report. And BTW, the user who filed the report also failed to follow BRD since they insisted on making a change to the article without discussing it first. Calidum T&#124;C 04:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did discuss it: my change included the explanation "if it's ok to mention the rise in rankings twice, it's ok to mention the criticism twice" Contributor321 (talk) 05:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . No blocks issued because the disruption has stopped. regardless of your reasoning, you did clearly revert four times on the article, thus violating 3RR. You have a history that shows some difficulty editing in a collaborative way, so I strongly encourage you to avoid even the appearance of edit warring in the future. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rolandi+ reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "don't continue your "way of pov pushing"  ,there is a discussion at the talk page"
 * 2)  "disruptive editing by Alexikoua's sock,maybe needs reporting"
 * 3)  "disruptive editing"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 669897819 by Alexikoua (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 3RR warning


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


 * Talk:Illyrians
 * Comments:

POV-pushing of fringe theories about Albanians originating from the ancient Illyrians. Will not stop despite warnings. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that trolling is also a way for him to discuss a variety of topics, like in a recent ANI: [].Alexikoua (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * He is edit-warring at Cham Albanians now: .  This guy is not going to stop. Athenean (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * With this edit Rolandi has now broken 3RR on Cham Albanians as well. Athenean (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Merging second Rolandi+ report:


 * User:Rolandi+ reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )


 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you said that my references weren't fully cited,now they are"
 * 2)  "Alexikoua's sock"
 * 3)  "no ,it's not"
 * 4)  "yes of course"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is the second article Rolandi+ has violated 3RR on even while the first report was open. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . This closure comment applies to both reports above., you are very clearly edit warring on both Illyrians and Cham Albanians, having violated 3RR on both pages. Furthermore, both of these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, which you are already aware of per the alert on your talk page. Any further disruption from you in this topic area will almost certainly result in a topic ban. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:BiKaz reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670016173 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 669954844 by Obaid Raza (talk)"
 * 4)  "Criticism"
 * 5) Another reversion: diff
 * 6) another "(I have removed one sentence to help make the article as CONSTRUCTIVE as possible.)" <== not true
 * 7) another "(Reverted Hypocrisy edits by (talk))
 * 8) another "(Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk))"
 * 9) another "(Undid revision 670022468 by Ogress (talk))"
 * 10) There are even more edits since no one has been able to deal with this case, but I won't list them here.


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Barelvi. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Userpage vandalism on User:Ogress. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Barelvi. (TW)"

User will not discuss on talk page Response to multiple editors warning his talk page: "Just go and play away, kid! And stop spamming my page with this BULLSHIT!--BiKaz (talk) 8:03 am, Today (UTC−7)"
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The user is engaging in edit warring and is refusing to talk about the issue; 3RR right here plus it's not just here. You'll note he also decided to decorate my user page with a statement. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 08:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * due to clear 3RR violation. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:CrazyAces489 reported by User:SubSeven (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Over a period of time, CrazyAces489 has attempted to make many changes to this article, all clearly in some way attempting to discredit the subject of the article, Royce Gracie. Now he is aggressively trying to restore ALL of these edits to the article, en masse. These edits are either poorly sourced, misapplication of sources, or without sources at all.

Previous version reverted to:

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

And a few days ago, before he 'retired' and then came back:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: I posted this on his talk page today, trying to explain that there is simply no way to treat this mass of controversy as one edit/discussion point and to stop restoring the whole lot of it. This was of course answered by a full revert on the article by him.

Discussions regarding some of the various issues this dispute has raised on the article talk page:

Comments:

Obviously I am on the other end of these recent reverts, but to illustrate that it is not just me, here are diffs of several other editors in the past challenging CrazyAces489's edits, none of which has deterred him from attempting to re-add all of them, both then and now. (these edits are all part of the current 'package' CrazyAces489 is trying to push:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

I hope it can be imparted to him that it is unacceptable to aggressively push all of these changes on the article without consensus. --SubSeven (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Article was stable from Feb 17 to May 17 when SubSeven did a massive reversion. I asked him to take this to an RFC to which he has refused. . His edit warring goes back a long way. I have documented them from Oct 2014. I have only debated this with SubSeven as of Dec 2015. Subseven has been arguing this with people on the page since 2006. CrazyAces489 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (fully) for one week. You are both edit warring, but I chose protection as an alternative to blocking you both, so that you can actually discuss the situation and come to a resolution.  Consider dispute resolution if necessary. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:76.70.6.43 reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:  - for Welcome to Palestine, as one example

Diffs of the user's reverts: For Welcome to Palestine
 * 1)
 * 2)

For United Nations Human Rights Council
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems like a vandalism-only account, conducting edit wars on multiple articles related to the I-P conflict with no Talk page discussion on any of them All these articles, related to the I-P conflict are under a 1RR restriction


 * for disruptively editing in contravention of ARBPIA 1RR restriction. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DisuseKid reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2015-07-03T03:32:56 (these first three are reverting the cast order)
 * 2) 2015-07-03T03:28:13
 * 3) 2015-07-03T03:24:32
 * 4) 2015-07-02T22:20:09 (which was a revert of, a plot detail revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (which was promptly reverted, and the editor has not used the talk page as advised)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first attempt, second attempt, another uninvolved editor ultimately agreed with me on the talk page, and that's the only feedback I've received so far.

Comments:


 * As linked to above, I left a note on the users talk page, also warning them of 3RR when I saw they had reverted me while I was leaving them a message. I submitted my talk page message, then went back and corrected the page one last time. The editor reverted my message on their talk page and reverted my change again, in defiance of the message I'd left them. If you filter the editors contributions to the Talk namespace, they've only ever made two edits to that namespace in their time here. :/ —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: I recommend a  42 hour block for DisuseKid because of a previous 2RR violation on June 30 in the article's history: &  and a 1 week full protection lock to prevent continuous reverts after the block has proceeded. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2RR isn't a "rule" though. It is a prior example of edit warring behavior, which is problematic, but this user is also new. I'd tend to err on the side of not biting the newbies, go for a 16-24 hour block to get their attention hopefully and bring them to the talk page (which I note this user posted a question to, and then sadly deleted it a short time later). I'd even be fine with an uninvolved admin just leaving the user a note, letting them know they violated the rule, and getting them to agree to discuss edits in the future instead of blindly reverting. I disagree with the full protection: it's not necessary when it's limited to this small number of editors, and the page was only recently semi-protected (which has cut back on the anon edits). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As evidenced by this recent interaction at Charleston church shooting — B-DisuseKid, R-VQuakr, R-DisuseKid — DisuseKid still prefers to debate via revert/editsum instead of article talk. Any block would tarnish her/his record forever, so it seems a bit harsh for a 14-day editor. I'd suggest some slack, but only if s/he says that s/he now knows the correct way and plans to use it from here forward. S/he could also show good faith by self-reverting in that article, thereby returning the situation to its proper state, and going to talk if s/he wants to pursue the debate. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That interchange was collegial, and certainly not evidence of a need for administrative action. I haven't had any issues with DisuseKid edit warring, so please don't drag that interchange into this. A bit of "discussion in edit summaries" is acceptable as long as the environment is productive - the point of WP:EW and WP:3RR is to prevent disruption. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was here representing Wikipedia, not you, so it's not like I was sticking my nose into your business. Editor behavior is everyone's concern, whether involved or not. That situation was notable because it was part of a pattern and therefore relevant to this report. As always, I'm open to correction by experienced consensus. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  01:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Of the three diffs you linked, the first was a non-controversial (maintenance) removal of a broken link, the second was insertion of a different, replacement link (not a revert), and the third was a WP:BRD-compliant removal with a new and quite reasonable rationale in the edit summary. You are on EW/N and suggested that DisuseKid needed to self-revert for some reason; I am replying that that particular set of edits documents a "pattern" of DisuseKid editing constructively. VQuakr (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . Although did violate 3RR with this series of 6 reverts:     , and the series of reverts between DisuseKid and  was definitely an edit war, a block would not benefit the project at this time.  Blocks are not punitive, and there is no apparent disruptive editing going on at the moment. DisuseKid, please remember that 3RR applies regardless of whether you are undoing the same material each time or different material, so if you frequently edit a particular page, you need to take specific care to watch your reverts. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like had taken this issue up a couple of days ago with this edit. Not sure if he's had any lucky though, as it looks like the editor has completely ignored this discussion of their behavior. At least there hasn't been any edit warring since this incident. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SLBedit reported by User:Oldstone James (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User reverts the content constantly, with reasons pretty obviously false. I tried to discuss the matter at his talk page, but he first refused to discuss and then started putting irrelevant Wiki-Help pages. After another edit revert, I tried to change the content for the first time, after what the user sent a report on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldstone James (talk • contribs)


 * as a clear "revenge report", see above. STOP editing disruptively, or you will very likely end up blocked for a longer term next time, or interaction-banned. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? You must hold a grudge against me. I tried to DISCUSS the matter at the user's talk page, he refused. I explained my point. What else do you need? O l J a  07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Filing a revenge report is not the right way to state your case; it is a disruption to this noticeboard and honestly comes across as petty. You had plenty of space in the report filed above this one to defend yourself if you felt it necessary. Also, accusing me of acting in a biased fashion isn't going to make your behavior look any better. As for this discussion, if you really feel the need to continue, take it to my talk page. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Zadon19 and User:MCIWS reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported: and

Edit-warring on multiple articles, the ones listed above plus a few more (see page histories of the articles listed since there are too many reverts to list) that are all subject to ARBIPA discretionary sanctions (diffs of DS-notice: Zadon19, MCIWS), as both of them very well know, since neither of them is a new user. They both also know the rules for 3RR, but have still both received a 3RR-warning (Zadon19, MCIWS). Both of them are POV-pushing, Zadon19 for Pakistan and MCIWS for India, and have been reverting each other multiple times on each of several articles (see page histories, with edit summaries like "lunatic" and "sock" (the pot calling the kettle black...). Both of them were told to stop by me before I had to do real life things for a while, but when I came back the articles were a mess, clearly showing that neither of them is here to build an encyclopaedia, only to fight for "their side", like many times before. The sock part of it, i.e. the catalogueing, will be dealt with separately, what's important now is to get them both out of circulation.

Comments:

Just a note I have not edited for any side as Kautilya accused me off I did however engage with the sock user MCIWS in a edit war I just wanted the articles back to their consensus state as you can obviously see hes adding pure pov to the said articles above I have added no "Pro-Pakistani" edits just removed his pov to a state before the edit war. Furthermore I have not POV pushed what so ever Kautilya being Indian will obviously state I was also pov pushing even though I have not added any content. Zadon19 (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not Indian, but I still say that both of you have been both edit-warring and POV-pushing, because you're responsible for *all* material you add to an article, even if you're just adding back material that someone else has removed. So if someone else replaces pro-Pakistan POV in an article with pro-Indian POV, and you just revert it, returning the article to what it was before, you're guilty of adding pro-Pakistan POV. And claiming that the other side started it is no excuse, as you ought to have learnt by now. Thomas.W talk 16:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

let me defend myself to these claims, First of all sir please see My Contributions. I have only Contributed to Various indo-Pak Articles with providing neutral claims and no Experienced editor has pointed me because I was right till this User Started reverting my contributions and by attacking me personally. I join Wikipedia only with the motto of contributing to the encyclopaedia and debating on Talk Pages so that I can present my claims with sources.

Now I will request Administrators to please see the Edit History of this Siachen Conflict and see my first edit on this article, I only Provided Many Neutral Reference to remove Citiation Needed Tag [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=670192566&oldid=670177385 this] and what he @ Zadon19 did is just reverted my contribution by attacking me personally for having socks and he neither filled a complaint at Sockpuppet investigation and continued attacking me personally even though in Reality This is my single Wikipedia Account. he continued attacking me personally on my Talk Page and various other articles and continued reverting my contributions without any reason.

For Example [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJim_Carter&type=revision&diff=670210775&oldid=670204933 this] I requested this experienced editor to Have a look on one article where figures were incorrect. But what this Biased POV Warrior @ Zadon19 did it just looked at my Contributions and attacked me personally there on Experienced Editors Talk Pages too.

Sir since he just crossed his limits, I angerly said him Lunatic''' and I feel sorry for it but belive me sir, he just forced me to speak such word. See [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siachen_conflict&type=revision&diff=670207200&oldid=670205174 this] he keep on reverting my contributions and attacking me personally. Sir please see the edit history of Indo-Pak Wars and Conflicts & Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 her keep on reverting my contributions. And I was well aware of this 3RR, since I didn't reverted him more than thrice but probably on one article I have exceed three revert rule. I wanted to take my contributions to talk pages of Respected articles but this @ Zadon19 Biased POV Warrior forced me everytime to revert him, and I was left with no option, even I requested various editors to fill a complaint against him but between this time he keep reverting my contributions. At last I Will Say to Dear Administrators since I have join Wikipedia with the motto of contribute this encyclopaedia I will request you to please forgive me this time, I promised you, I will not violate any Wikipedia policy in near future. MCIWS (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC) -->
 * Enough of this charade, just leave it to the administrators here at AN3. If it hadn't caused a lot of disruption here, and extra work for others, the Indo-Pakistani fighting here on en-WP would have been quite entertaining, though, reminding me of a game of chess, which I used to play when I was young, with today's show looking like one player sacrificing a pawn to take out one of the pawns of the other player. Thomas.W talk 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He again and again doing personal attacks on me, see the latest one [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough&diff=670228082&oldid=670225058 this] Now I hope Administrators will block him indefinitely for Gross Pushing WP:POV, Attacking editors personally, Making Unconstructive Edits on Enclycopdia see - [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Army&type=revision&diff=670161221&oldid=670053412 this] Reverting 7-8 times on various articles within an hour and even he reverted by various experienced editors but he continued reverting everyone also, doing personal attacks even to experienced editors see [Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947&type=revision&diff=670210559&oldid=670192458 this] MCIWS (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * due to the severity of the disruption spreading across four different articles. You are now both "officially" aware (as per the notices left on your talk pages by ) of the high standards we expect editors to maintain while editing articles related to India and Pakistan. Any further disruptive behavior from either of you once your blocks expire will result in sanctions as appropriate to prevent further disruption. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:174.57.225.234 reported by User:Jeh (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670249571 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670246398 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670246362 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 670246259 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 670246073 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 670245756 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 670245222 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670246073 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670245756 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670245222 by 172.56.13.254 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Favonian (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:172.56.13.254 reported by User:Jeh (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670250501 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670249320 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670249074 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 670247945 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 670246460 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 670246390 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 670246283 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 670246227 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 670246049 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 670245436 by 174.57.225.234 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Do not incite edit wars without proper sources"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Favonian (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:88.207.88.27 reported by User:All Rows4 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This IP editor is most likely trying to evade his block - making the exact same reverts as MehrdadFR was, before he was blocked for edit warring on this article earlier today. If so, it is probably appropriate to lengthen the block of the master, as well. All Rows4 (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No comment on the socking charge. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Hoestermann (Result: Reporter 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: /Talk:John F. Harvey and /Articles for deletion/John F. Harvey

Comments:

Hoestermann 22:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reporter blocked. At least five reverts in the last 24 hours. I had previously warned them for their comments on the other editor's talk page and I see they have stacked up at least four other warnings since.  Incidentally, the "edit warring" they were listing above is in fact three reverts over five days. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Svryantz reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: the only revision of the talk page at the time of the submission

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the whole talk page is about this

Comments: The user is trying to insert an original research about the Armenian origin of Suvorov based on the supposed name of his mother. We have on a regular basis Armenian users who come and insert this information, which was investigated at the talk page multiple times and found to be a hoax. The user was advised to read the policies, including WP:OR, but prefers to revert and call it personal attacks. I am afraid a block would be needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. To avoid a block for 3RR violation, Svryantz [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Svryantz&diff=prev&oldid=670283404 has agreed to wait for consensus] before changing the Alexander Suvorov article again. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Oldstone James reported by User:SLBedit (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 669808662 by SLBedit (talk) Official website announcement not a primary source"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670065254 by SLBedit (talk) Well, I guess it's you edit-warring now - I attempted to discuss the matter at your talk page, but you refused. It's me who has the reason to edit (c below)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Atlético Madrid */"
 * 2)   "start class"


 * Comments:

I started a discussion in talkpage, then user was blocked. User's block expired and now user is back reverting the same content. SLBedit (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2015 (UTC
 * because the user self-reverted. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * user added it back, this time without ==a section== SLBedit (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that he did so pursuant to the talk page discussion on the matter. It comes across as somewhat disingenuous not to mention that when you're reporting that he repeated the edit again. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought only other user should add it back, per guidelines. SLBedit (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand reported by User:LyThienDao1984 (Result: Malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: Another damned edit warrior


 * Result: Malformed report. There is no article or template called Microsoft Windows Family, and you didn't supply any diffs of edit warring. There is a differently-spelled template called Microsoft Windows family but nobody has touched it since May 23. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * hasn't edited over the last five days either... - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:73.216.29.240 reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  05:17, 6 July 2015 (although out of the 24-hour window)
 * 2)  06:19, 7 July 2015‎
 * 3)  15:39, 7 July 2015‎
 * 4)  15:45, 7 July 2015‎
 * 5)  15:58, 7 July 2015‎
 * 6)  18:59, 7 July 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

See Talk:Colleen Evans. Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * (uninvolved editor) - clearly a violation of the 3RR rule. Both experienced editors ( and ) who have reverted have pointed out to the IP editor that FB and YouTube are not considered RS. There is a very good discussion on the talk page which should be adhered to.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor has also subsequently involved themselves in disruptve edits to the article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Another revert added. - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Abuse from IP spills onto the talk page here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not abuse the talk page. You said to use the talk page for discussion and all you guys do it just make executive decisions because you think you're better than I am. Sorry for wanting to provide accurate information on a Wikipedia page. Silly me, I thought I didn't live in North Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.216.29.240 (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:79.64.172.4 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Quit your fucking whining and stop revising. The dictionary definition is one of an ARTIFICIAL pool for swiming in."
 * 2)  "Stop this edit war"
 * 3)  "They are man made. Stop changing this it is getting ridiculous"
 * 4)  "This is getting ridiculous and this is to be the final revision. Please refrain from reverting this to avoid the perfectly legitimate phrase "man-made""
 * 1)  "This is getting ridiculous and this is to be the final revision. Please refrain from reverting this to avoid the perfectly legitimate phrase "man-made""


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


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


 * Comments:

Silly edit-warring related to various attempts to make the lede in the text gender-neutral (basically a discussion about whether "man-made" is sexist or not...). Thomas.W talk 18:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User:A.Skromnitsky reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this is an active subject of discussion for the last couple of weeks at the talk page; the page was semi-protected twice

Comments: The user seems to believe that a talk page discussion, or, for this puprose, any discussion, does not belong to dispute resolution, whereas edit warring is a primary means of dispute resolution. Sorry to file here already the second report in two days, usually I am closing reports here, not filing them.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note also move warring by the same user.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The talk page discussion was beginning. A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, user doesn't want to discuss his changes. I asked him to discuss move first on talk page regarding this Neo-Nazi group but he still reverted--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see this 5th revert, after the user was reported--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

IP:1.32.74.227 reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: Malformed report)
Terminator Genisys:

IP user repeatedly remove film's poster without relevant reason.
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:OMPIRE reported by User:JesseRafe (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Warned after 3RR warning in edit summary, still repeated

I admit I didn't start a Talk Page right away but did try to converse or ask what was happening in edit summaries which were not responded to with any logical reasoning. Either blank or "duplicate article" which made no sense as the redirect was an entirely different article.

This user has a history of page blanking and many of his/her warnings are "final". S/He has issue with the content perhaps, I pointed out that this is not the proper way to nominate an article for deletion. And the edit was again wholesale reverted. JesseRafe (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * due to clear violation of WP:3RR and disruptive editing bordering on vandalism. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:195.11.172.122 reported by User:Rob984 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670379675 by Rob984 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670259851 by Snowded (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670227011 by Rob984 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 669980314 by Snowded (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Constituent country. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * due to violation of 3RR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:2.218.42.208 and User:F-INSAS reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: both blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported: and '''

Today's featured fight on the Indo-Pakistani Arena is between (🇵🇰 PAK) and  (🇮🇳 IND). Both have exceeded 3RR several times over, as can be seen from their contributions, so there are far too many edits to provide diffs to. Both are obvious socks of blocked or banned users, and are well aware of the discretionary sanctions that apply to all articles relating to India and Pakistan, broadly construed. There's also a third player involved, (🇵🇰 PAK), but they stopped at 2RR and handed the fight over to the more expendable IP. The articles they're fighting over today are articles that are usually fairly quiet, but since their usual targets were semi-protected for a month yesterday the fighting has spilled over to the articles being targeted today.
 * I've struck since he has just been indeffed as a sock of . Thomas.W talk 16:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: IP, F-INSAS

Comments:


 * Both reported editors blocked, IP for 31h and indef (as a CU-confirmed sock of ). Thomas.W talk 18:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:14.98.45.139 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked for 31h )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

IP edit-warring to get tonnes of fancruft into an article about an Indian soap-opera, not stopping even though they have been reverted by three different editors. Thomas.W talk 18:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Iranian empire reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Medes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Medes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Username indicates a nationalistic agenda. Poor English so the editor may not understand the warnings or our policies. Doug Weller (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . It looks like this editor has contributed nothing but significant disruption to those articles and apparently does have some sort of a bias behind their editing. It doesn't appear that communication will be an effective means of dealing with them and an indef may well be a necessary next step. It is arguably warranted as of now, but it's possible they're capable of contributing something productive. Although certainly not if they're unable to communicate. S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:History of Persia reported by User:Ogress (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670616218 by Kansas Bear (talk)"
 * 2)  "My previous edit included me adding evidence."
 * 3)  "WHY CANT YOU SEE THAT I PUT A LINK?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 670594845 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 5)  "Added reference for flag"
 * 6)  "A non copyright violating, version of the standard"
 * 1)  "Added reference for flag"
 * 2)  "A non copyright violating, version of the standard"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification of good faith revert found using STiki"
 * 2)   "Reverted again; better cite that"
 * 3)   "/* Recent edit to Parthian Empire */ reply"


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


 * Comments:

The user does not employ the talk page. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 03:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have used the talk page of many articles yet I am ignored. By adding a new image + good evidence I though that would be enough (but I was wrong that was not a good source as Kansas Bear told me). I don't understand why ogress said in my talk page that it was not his responsibilty to acctually look at the article before editing. I think thats what your suppose to do. It's not magic. And you don't report someone for something that's not an edit war. All that happened was I forgot to include in the edit summary that I added a link so I made another edit basically adding a space onto the word Parthia and then saying in the edit summary that I added a link. After that ogress did not read the article itself and reverted. I reverted yelling that i did add a link, how could he not see that. Then Kansas Bear told me that the website and website author was not a good sources so I added better sources. Thats not what i consider an edit war, it was really just inattention on Ogresses part and me not knowing what a good source is. Yet I should have asked for the matter to be resolved on the articles talk page and I apologize for not realizing that. History of Persia (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . Uh, the user who's being reported's defense appears to check out completely. It appears that they tried to add an image with a reliable source in good faith and were reverted by the reporter with no explanation, only a warning against adding unsourced content. When they pointed out that they did add a source, Ogress replied: "It is not my responsibility to "just look at the article" and magically understand your flag is cited." Contrary to this statement, it is your responsibility to look at the article and be fully informed if you're going to unilaterally revert an editor's good faith contribution. We don't ask for any sort of magical understanding, but we do expect a basic level of competence. Of course, mistakes and oversights happen. We're all human here. However, when this occurs, the appropriate response is, oh, I don't know...maybe an apology? What I do know is that it's certainly not a biting, hostile retort, followed by a report to the administrators. Oh, and as an aside, Kaveh Farrokh is a published academic who specializes in Iranian topics and quite apparently has expertise in Persian history, so the unilateral shutting down of that addition as an unreliably sourced is questionable at best, and flagrantly poor judgment at worst. Regardless, History of Persia is by all appearances a good-faith newcomer and their treatment in this incident has been completely out of sync with Wikipedia's collaberative behavioral standards. S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:213.205.194.213 reported by User:Altamel (Result: Page protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warn IP"
 * 2)   "Warn IP"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bramhall High School. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * All socks . Page protected for one month. S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Addendum. IPs blocked for one week. Account blocked indef. Protection remains the same S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Shibbolethink reported by User:Keri (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 670577856 by Shibbolethink (talk): See talk, consensus is obvious, and you should just adjust the inclusion instead of removing it wholesale. (TW)"
 * 2)  "rmv jewish claim, rmv "alleged" POV word,"
 * 3)  "/* Intellectual and teaching career */ add in info per talk, adjust for POV and others (edited with ProveIt)"
 * 1)  "/* Intellectual and teaching career */ add in info per talk, adjust for POV and others (edited with ProveIt)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Several sources regarding racist remarks by Kotsko */ re"
 * 2)   "/* Several sources regarding racist remarks by Kotsko */ no"
 * 3)   "/* Several sources regarding racist remarks by Kotsko */ BLP"
 * 4)   "/* Several sources regarding racist remarks by Kotsko */basic error"
 * 5)   "/* Several sources regarding racist remarks by Kotsko */ re"


 * Comments:

Editor has stated his intention to continue reverting. Keri (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not in any way state my intent to keep reverting, and I haven't violated 3RR. I have no intent to keep reverting. What you've linked here is my statement that I will revert and adjust the article as necessary to bring it to NPOV. I never said I was interested in edit warring. I'm not. I do think the amount of other editors involved will probably make it unnecessary for me to do so, as is stated in the Edit Warring rules themselves.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 22:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest you self-revert. You clearly have no understanding of BLP or NPOV and how it applies to BLP. Keri (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If, as you claim, there are many who agree with you about the article, then there will be no need to self revert. The same is true for me if another involved user DOES in fact revert my edits. I would not revert in that case, acknowledging that consensus would show through in the talk page combined with who reverts whom following 3RR and edit warring.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . This incident appears to be a legitimate content dispute that hasn't caused a significant amount of disruption so as to warrant any sort of intervention. I think both sides have merit to their viewpoints. I will say first off however that the content in question does not appear to be remotely breach of BLP. BLP is meant to protect living persons as much as possible and requires very strict policy compliance as such, but it does not unilaterally prevent any controversy or criticism sections. Furthermore, WP:UNDUE would require that a controversy section doesn't take up a disproportionate amount of space in the article. It certainly doesn't, as it doesn't even get into what the controversy was; it merely mentions a joke he made in poor taste. I would venture to say that if anything, undue weight is being given to an insignificant joke, rather than explaining the actual controversy. The subject clearly has generated controversy, and there's nothing wrong with discussing it in the article, it just absolutely has to be verifiable and neutral. Reliable sources are key when dealing with BLPs. If they can't be provided, the content certainly should be removed per BLP and that is not considered edit warring. However if they are being provided, it's a matter of giving it an appropriate amount of weight (if any) through consensus-forming, using dispute resolution if need be. It doesn't mean the content must be included and you can certainly still argue for its exclusion. It just means that if the disputed content is being added in good faith and in compliance with the core content policies, you're not licensed or encouraged by BLP to remove it, nor are you exempted from the edit warring policy. If anyone has any further questions regarding the relevant policies at play here, feel free to drop by my talk page. Regards, S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Erpert reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How about not redirecting while the discussion is ongoing?"
 * 2)  "I suggested a discussion on the talk page; what's wrong with having that? SNUGGUMS even said him/herself that the sources are reliable"
 * 3)  "See talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Melt My Heart to Stone. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User had reverted me three times in 12 hours. I have made two reverts, but I will not make a third. Instead, I am reporting the user in hope that it can be addressed by an admin instead. User does not seem to understand that the articles fails WP:GNG and WP:SONGS and should be redirect, at the very least. User is edit warring and claiming ownership of the article. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 20:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what Calvin's problem is, but s/he needs to chill out. First off, I am not claiming ownership of the article, but more importantly, I suggested a discussion on the talk page, and then I also suggested that action not be taken to redirect the article again while the discussion is going. If you'll notice on the talk page, whereas I'm trying to be calm, Calvin comes out of nowhere denouncing not only the article, but my editing of other articles as well (s/he even tried it on my talk page as well, but I put a stop to that). Edit-warring is never my intention, but basically, Calvin is just using battleground behavior to try to keep things the way s/he wants it.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 20:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My problem is that you're not adhering to Wikipedia's rules, policies and guidelines, specifically pertaining to music articles! And that you're clearly owning the article and won't let anyone else edit it, so much so that you reintroduced unsourced information amongst other issues. You're still ignoring WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. How many more times do I have to tell you? You're not listening and your ownership needs addressing. I'm denouncing the article because it massively fails criteria. Snuggums also redirect it saying that it fails notability but you reverted him too. If you think the article as it currently stands passes criteria, then yes I am concerned for creation of other articles which you have initiated and edited, because you clearly don't adhere to policy, and that's worrying for someone with an edit count of 25,000. The fact that you have a banner on your talk page saying "BATTLERS, CYBERBULLIES AND JUST PLAIN RUDE PEOPLE ARE NOT WELCOME TO POST HERE." is a red flag too; not only does it instantly create a sense of anger and hostility from you, it shows that other editors have clearly had similar problems and issues with you and you blame them for victimising you. I think some self-reflection and responsibility for actions is needed on your part. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  20:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't let anyone else edit the article? I'm sorry; I don't recall telling anyone not to edit it. And the banner on my page has nothing to do with this, nor do you have any idea what caused me to place the banner. Anyway, you're getting angrier and angrier for some crazy reason, and&mdash;you know what? This forum is to discuss edit-warring, nothing else, so trying to denounce my work in other areas because you were banned from my talk page isn't going to work. (BTW, the supposed "unsourced information" is apparently Adele's music being classified as blue-eyed soul, which is indeed sourced in her main article; maybe you should read WP:BLUE?).  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 22:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither of these editors is exactly covering themselves with glory, but Erpert's behaviour is much more problematic. Calvin should not be citing Erpert's PROD removal as a revert; it fits the technical definition, but plainly is not the sort of action that 3RR is intended to address. Erpert, however, responded with gross incivility when Calvin posted to his talk page (Calvin flubbed his use of a couple of templates, but that didn't justify Erpert's "Knock it off and stay off my talk page". Erpert has a long-running practice of personalizing and inflaming content disputes, casting aspersions against editors they are engaged in disputes with (note the ridiculous accusation of "character assassination" he levels here, and appears much more ready to make the editing environment so disruptive and unpleasant that other users avoid discussions with him rather than genuinely attempting to achieve consensus. Action needs to be taken; Erpert's rapidly turning a dispute over an utterly trivial article, where he stands alone against several experienced users, into a wikiwar is the sort of misbehaviour that he's engaged in for far too long. It's worse than standard edit warring. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the discussion has already been resolved, so you can go wikihound someone else.  Erpert  blah, blah, blah... 02:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . The dispute has been settled following a short and reasonable exchange between Snuggums and Erpert. This is not a major dispute and certainly not something that requires intervention, but unilaterally redirecting after a PROD is contested is not appropriate in the least. I doubt Snuggums did this intentionally and they did not push the issue until Erpert gave his consent to redirect the article. However Calvin's behavior seems pretty antagonistic and hostile and as Snuggums demonstrated, the matter could've easily been resolved with civil, policy-based rationale. PROD is a discussionless deletion allowed by a lack of objection. If an objection is raised, the proper thing to do is take your case to WP:AfD, period. S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Curse of Fenric reported by User:194.28.124.52 (Result: Declined)
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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] All the talk page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Buddy_Murphy

Comments:

194.28.124.52 (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue has already been through this board as well as BLPN, RSN, and ANI. Reporting it here after the editor announced (albeit quite crudely) that he is finished with that particular edit war doesn't seem constructive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't follow him around, so would have no idea what he posts to others Talk pages. 194.28.124.52 (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If I am guilty of edit warring then so is the reporter. I maintain that I have acted in good faith throughout this. 194 has not. There is a dispute, which as Gary noted I have now moved away from. It doesn't alter the fact that the dispute still exists, and I would be delighted if someone else would take it up because I've had enough of the stubborn conduct of all concerned. Curse of Fenric (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Both parties are guilty of edit warring over this and should the dispute continue the page will probably be protected. S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sarandawebalbania reported by User:Paulthomson87 (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=669424013

Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=670326196 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=670325844 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=648031491 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=647896641 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=646976302 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=646972624 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=636644979 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=636201885 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=636200999 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=635941348 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarand%C3%AB&oldid=635906542

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarandaweb

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarand%C3%AB#Albanian_website_on_English_wiki.3F_Sarandawebalbania_-_conflict_of_interest

Comments:

none. clear he needs to be stopped somehow.
 * and .  S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:69.22.242.52 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670405839 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670405483 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670323002 by Khestwol (talk)"
 * 4)  "So you couldn't locate the second source, yet you somehow knew it was primary text. Interesting. Once again, adding WELL SOURCED information, which you admit is primary text."
 * 5)  "Information is well-sourced."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ramadan. (TW)"

I have semi-protected the page. (I was pinged to look at it because I had semi-protected it once before.) I have also issued edit war warnings to the IP (original edit and four reversions) and to User:Ogress (three reversions). As the warning says, you should not edit-war even if you are sure you are right. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Ramadan, the pagan holiday */ new section"
 * Comments:
 * The IP has been editing multiple articles disruptively/vandalizing them, including Pashtuns (diff), Leila (name), etc. Khestwol (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

User has repeatedly hounded the ramadan page and violated the 3RR rule. I am also not the only one to have reverted her edits. 69.22.242.52 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * by . S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ogress reported by User:69.22.242.52 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

I did attempt to talk to the user on the talk page, and I am not the only person who has reverted that user for adding uncited OR. My report is above. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 20:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * by . S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DbivansMCMLXXXVI reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670603478 by Xyl 54 (talk) Edit warring: Removing entire sections that involve major accomplishments is not an appropriate response. Please use appropriate tags or edits"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670586903 by Trekphiler (talk) Edit warring. Removing entire mentions of subjects and accomplishments is not acceptable because of semantics or personal feelings. Use proper tags"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670585740 by Trekphiler (talk) Edit warring. If you have formatting concerns, please use standard wikipedia protocol. Reverting is not protocol for fixing formatting or grammar"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 670539868 by Trekphiler (talk) User removed context for importance of NACA contributions and the success that made the aircraft so notable."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 3RR warning
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:National_Advisory_Committee_for_Aeronautics


 * Comments:

Constant edit-warring against multiple editors without consensus. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Luppy-GT reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Please respond */ new section"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Karnak. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* July 2015 */ Amun"


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


 * Comments:

Two non-warning requests on user's talk page. He's edit-warring across a range of article.s Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

User:History of Persia reported by User:Ogress (Result: User agreement)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "no one is discusssing this on the talk page and Kaveh Farrokh is a published academic who specializes in Iranian topics and has expertise in Persian history also  Tertullian is an amazing source and should be used. If you disagree then see me  @ talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 670616218 by Kansas Bear (talk)"
 * 3)  "My previous edit included me adding evidence."
 * 4)  "WHY CANT YOU SEE THAT I PUT A LINK?"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 670594845 by Ogress (talk)"
 * 6)  "Added reference for flag"
 * 7)  "A non copyright violating, version of the standard"
 * 1)  "Added reference for flag"
 * 2)  "A non copyright violating, version of the standard"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification of good faith revert found using STiki"
 * 2)   "Reverted again; better cite that"
 * 3)   "/* Recent edit to Parthian Empire */ reply"
 * 4)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Flag/standard */ WP:RS"


 * Comments:

Flagrantly ignoring warnings and ignoring talk. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 00:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep trying to get me banned? Swarm already decloned your previous attempt and now your trying again? No one responds to me on the talk page so... i made and edit and told other users if they disagree THEN they can discuss it with me at the talk page. Swarm already explained it to you, it is your responsibilty to read the actual article. I think it sounds fair. I make an edit, if someone disagrees THEN the talk page be used. Doug and ogress should've done that History of Persia (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since you clearly do not have consensus, it is your responsibility to provide evidence, from reliable sources, to gain consensus. Farrokh is a college counselor and is not an academic historian. Tertullian is a primary source, which you have conveniently not linked where you found your information in his Apologeticum. You have not proven anything, so instead you continue to edit war. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an issue of WP:3RR. You have reverted that page five times and barely discussed. I have reverted you a grand total of two times and written on your page and the talk page numerous times. I even talked about evaluating the Apologeticum 's value as a RS. Please take it to the talk page. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 02:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If I give a link to where I found that sentence in his apologeticum, will you accept it and move on? History of Persia (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:History of Persia, if you agree to make no further edits at Parthian Empire until you get consensus on the talk page you may be able to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I shall wait, til someone agrees with .e on the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by History of Persia (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Closed with no block, per user's agreement to wait for support on the talk page before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Abierma3 reported by User:Arianewiki1 (Result: Two editors warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point&oldid=670650077]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point&oldid=670410715]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point&oldid=670094102]

Comments:

On this Omega Point talk page, there are multiple examples of reverts and WP:3RR violations by Abierma3 against different users, including Isambard Kingdom, Arianewiki1 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point&oldid=66813878] and William M. Connolley [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point&oldid=668155995] The quote that was deleted was discussed in Deletion of Quote [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omega_Point&action=edit&section=10] was explained to Aberma3, whom completely ignored the advice, which was clearly based on relevancy and incorrect referencing. I warned him of violation of the WP:3RR rule here, as well as on Abierma3 talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abierma3&action=edit&section=5].

On the Omega Point article itself, Abierma3 has made 28 separate reverts within the last month. There are three (maybe four) different examples of possible WP:3RR violations, the second of which, was warned be me here. [///en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abierma3&action=edit&section=6].

This third response here, is due to he continuing disruptive reversions on the Omega Point page, even though they were advised not too.

I note too, that NeilN earlier has also advise on possible Edit Warring by Abierma3. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Abierma3&action=edit&section=3]

Abierma3 seems to be rather overreactive is creating multiple disruptive edits, as seen from his contributions. There seems likely issues with, gatekeeping, maintaining WP:NPOV articles this Omega Point and avoid the necessary WP:NPOV or invalid referencing. These recent edits are seeming mostly earlier revisions of past edits to enforce the user's own POV.

Another user, Smk65536, has seemingly engaged in edit warring too, on multiple occasions, though it seems to me he has tried promote discussion without much success.

The continuous edit warring here makes it nearly impossible to engage in useful edits by other users. Blocking access or quarantining to this page might seem to be advisable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Section blanking requires explanation, it was not until after I twice restored the unexplained section blanking that the discussion "Deletion of Quote" began and consensus was later reached among editors to leave out the section. I'm not sure what you mean by "it seems to me [Smk65536] has tried promote discussion without much success." I have never shown an unwillingness to discuss any issue on the talk page for this article and have even referenced or directed users to the talk page in many of my edit summaries. Abierma3 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry. You were told not to WP:3RR edit war, then you respond and continue with this edit after the fact? [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega_Point&oldid=670686405] Frankly, just inexplicable! Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Abierma3 and User:Smk65536 are both warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Omega point, unless they get prior consensus on the talk page. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jazz Stewart reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Off-screen work */ These things are not required."
 * 2)  "/* Early life and background */ She was playing handball, football or hide seek, whatever it is, these things are not really important?"
 * 3)  "/* Off-screen work */ Stop promoting brands in Wikipedia."
 * 4)  "/* Off-screen work */"
 * 5)  "/* Early life and background */ She is not famous by being someone's niece.(despite the fact that, her aunts are Bollywood stars), her distant relatives are not important here, same thing apply for Alia Bhatt. People know her as Shraddha Kapoor itself"
 * 6)  "/* Off-screen work */"
 * 7)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 8)  "/* Off-screen work */"
 * 9)  "/* Off-screen work */"
 * 1)  "/* Early life and background */"
 * 2)  "/* Off-screen work */"
 * 3)  "/* Off-screen work */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) []
 * 2) []
 * 3) []
 * 4) []

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


 * Comments:

Several warnings for NPOV and 3rr exist on the page of the editor, [], [], [], and then three more in this []. This far the responses have been less then ideal. User:Krimuk90 has been doing the heavy lifting on this one to deal with most of the issues. The other issue is that the approach is bleeding onto other articles as well not just the Kapoor article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:PRwrestlinganalyst reported by User:Sherick (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 

Comments: User's original edits were reverted due to lack of sources and not following guidelines. When the user reverted the changes back, I took to the discussion pages (linked above); the user never responded, but continued reverting, and continued to add baseless edits. Attempted to use unofficial twitter page as a source. Claims to "know [the rules]pretty well, more than you actually." Borderline vandalism.

Update: User has gone well beyond 3RR Sherick (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sherick, thanks for giving me no warning whatsoever before reporting me, which im pretty sure you have to send before reporting someone (he did send me one, AFTER reporting me, which he then deleted from my talk page. Feel free to check on my talk page's history). And no, there's no vandalism, Sherick decided to change something several days ago (finisher's timeline: 2012-2014; used rarely thereafter) that has been left that way for several months now, with no reason or explanation as to why he changed it, only until he posted on the talk page with an explanation that actually supports the article the way it was before he edited it. As to adding the twitter source for the finishing move Sharpshooter, which I found in the The Beast in the East article, it's the only match report-like source out there because Cesaro's match was a dark match. Dark matches rarely get reported by the WWE official website, even less by other websites, therefor giving little to no chance to get a more traditional source. My intentions weren't to vandalise the article in any way, which i believe I didn't, but to keep the article true to the wrestler, so Wikipedia stays credible in the eyes of the reader and it's integrity isn't damaged. Again, my intentions were never to vandalize the article. PRwrestlinganalyst (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)




 * Your statement about the line "used rarely thereafter" having been "left that way for several months" is disingenuous. You inserted it yourself on April 21st, and since then, you have reinserted that material 13 times when it has been removed by various editors, not just . 50% of your 26 edits to this page have consisted of reverting "present" to "2014 - used rarely thereafter".  It's clear to me that you don't have the consensus for this phrase that you think you do, and this could definitely be considered edit warring, albeit in slow motion.  On the other hand, 100% of Sherick's 7 edits to this page have consisted of reverting material inserted by PRwrestlinganalyst, which is also clearly edit warring.


 * As an alternative to blocking you both, I have protected the page for a week. Start a discussion on the talk page, and come to a resolution, and use dispute resolution as necessary. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That is absolutely true on my part. I would point out as well that PRwrestlinganalyst has still yet to make a response to the topic on the talk page, or even to my post on his own talk page. He clearly has no interest in consensus or discussion, and that at the moment, his erroneous edits are what is currently on the page while it is protected. Sherick (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:104.51.6.147 reported by User:BU Rob13 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

This editors edits have repeatedly broken templates and links. ~ RobTalk 20:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:71.163.167.244 reported by User:Yamaguchi先生 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Smith_(reporter)&oldid=670845776

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Smith_%28reporter%29&type=revision&diff=670847024&oldid=670845776
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Smith_%28reporter%29&type=revision&diff=670851872&oldid=670847171
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Smith_%28reporter%29&type=revision&diff=670875036&oldid=670864437
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Smith_%28reporter%29&type=revision&diff=670877183&oldid=670875042
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandra_Smith_%28reporter%29&type=revision&diff=670886817&oldid=670883548

The editor has received a series of four warnings in escalation, all of which have been ignored. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.163.167.244 This is a simple matter of repeatedly adding unsourced WP:BLP content in excess of WP:3RR despite multiple requests to cease and decist or provide a valid source. Regards, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 21:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit warring and BLP violations. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:33BD:E020:B0B3:CC0E:73F5:3425 reported by User:PaleAqua (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported: User being reported: User being reported: 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
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff
 * 7) diff
 * 8) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP editor 2602:306:33BD:E020:* has been edit warring to try to change pronouns of a fictional transsexual character at the article for the transparent TV series. User:Mark in wiki has been reverting, citing MOS:IDENTITY and attempting to engage the IP editor in discussion. Other editors have also reverted.; including one revert that I have made trying to get 2602:* into discussion. PaleAqua (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See also PaleAqua (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * for two weeks. S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Machnovetc reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: 1 week)
Please see User talk:Machnovetc, section "OUN (B) – UPA". A bot reported a copyvio. I double-checked, removed the cut and paste and warned the user. The user with an obvious ignorance of wikipedia rules and possibly limited knowledge of English persists reinserting the same text. I made four warnings already, with no discussion. Please intervene. 00:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:NinjaRya reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670825626 by Cyphoidbomb (talk) WHAT DID I SAY?! Leave only this stuff on here! If anybody keeps on unding my edits, your getting en edit warning! So Stop It!"
 * 2)  "Only Adding Back A Some Stuff, DON'T ERASE!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 670640340 by Haleth (talk) Some Stuff Does Belong, While Other Stuff Doesn't"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 670476737 by Haleth (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 670476513 by Haleth (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 670476513 by Haleth (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) This wasn't on the article talk page, but User:Cyphoidbomb has warned them and attempted to get them to discuss the dispute (Special:Diff/670864238). Manually added by Bilorv at 19:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Comments:

The user has also been involved in other reversions and disputes in which they have failed to discuss any of their changes (e.g. on American Ninja Warrior). They show a persistent bad attitude, border on personal attacks and do not seem to be making positive contributions to the encyclopedia (see Special:Diff/670869860). This is my first AN3 report; apologies if this is posted in the wrong place or if I've done something wrong. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The user doesn't seem to understand this is a community project. He, for example, believes that he is "in charge" of Template:Justice League. Per their talk page history you can see that he's previously been warned for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. I first encountered him when he resubmitted content to an article about a character named "Leaf", which this editor has explained is a fabricated character. That should be quite telling. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've had similar experiences with NinjaRya on American Ninja Warrior, as Bilorv touched on. NinjaRya would add information; someone would remove it, citing a valid policy or guidelines; NinjaRya would continuously restore the content without any attempt to engage in discussion (e.g.    ), which they were repeatedly invited to. Any messages left on their user talk page would be removed and seemingly ignored. In the end, the editor is disruptive and not here to work with the community. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 01:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:49.244.193.218 reported by User:Rabins Sharma Lamichhane (Result: Pages protected)
Page: Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

Namaste! I'm suffering edits war for the pages Pokhara and Biratnagar from Anynomous. I have fixed the facts acording to the 2011 census data. Feel free to verify the data according to the latest CBS of Nepal.

I request you to prevent edits on those pages.

Thank you. Rabins Sharma Lamichhane (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Both pages have been semi-protected for one month. Regards, S warm   we ♥ our hive  06:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Spumuq reported by User:C.J. Griffin (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is currently engaged in edit warring and edit stalking across multiple pages. He was just called out on his own talk page by another user for edit warring on the Greece article. This user has a history of edit stalking and edit warring, especially on the Neoliberalism article, without providing any justification on the talk page for his revisions, which I have used extensively to justify my additions and revisions. I have been an editor on wikipedia nearly a decade and have rarely encountered such behavior. His revisions to the Neoliberalism and International Trade Union Confederation articles have just been reverted by another user:

C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Many editors revert C. J. Griffin,  this does not mean a conspiracy, it means that some of C. J. Griffin edits are bad.
 * C. J. Griffin did three edits on Neoliberalism in a few hours, , but I only did one revert, now C. J. Griffin accuses me of edit warring, why? C. J. Griffin is stalking me and reverting my edits and calling me troll, and there is an ongoing threat C. J. Griffin «will revert when I can», stop harassment. Spumuq (talq) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to include this, but C. J. Griffin always reverts  , so it is in the article despite no other editor supporting it, WP:BRD is forgotten and C. J. Griffin accuses me of edit warring, this is crazy! But C. J. Griffin is very efficient, always using their three revert allowance, so C. J. Griffin always wins Spumuq (talq) 15:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come now, a review of the history of the neoliberalism article demonstrates that you'll attempt to edit war nearly every addition or revision I make, even if I'm reverting anonymous IP's who are clearly engaging in vandalism, which is why the article had to be semi-protected in the fall of last year. This, sir, constitutes both trolling and harassment.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright I've reviewed both of your contributions pretty extensively and it appears to me that you're both edit warring. However, given the circumstances, Spumuq's behavior is clearly the greater problem. It's hard to tell what started the conflict between you two, although this incident in June might have generated some bad blood. That's just speculation, but according to my own entry in his block log (I don't exactly remember his previous actions), he has serious behavioral issues such as WP:BATTLEGROUND tendencies. From what I can tell, you were involved in an edit war and Spumuq jumped in on it without explanation, he then proceeded to revert other edits of yours on other pages. I agree that he appears to be hounding your edits despite previous problems with this, and ignoring multiple previous warnings and a block for both the hounding and edit warring. You're not completely blameless as far as substandard behavior goes. You have definitely seem to use the revert button liberally (no pun intended), including reversions without an explanation. This borders on disruptive and I did consider an edit warring block for you as well; let this be a warning to be careful when it comes to reverting. Even if you're sure you're in the right, edit warring does nothing but escalate conflicts that usually disrupt the project more than temporary changes you don't agree with do.
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result:Fully protected for 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) change lead to match consensus at WT:CARS, cleanup messy car infobox and remove engine infobox as the article is about the car, not the engine
 * 2) Reverted 1 edit by Eddaido (talk): Rv totally unconstructive edit.
 * 3) Undid revision 670827918 by Andy Dingley (talk) then don't be lazy and just readd the engine ffs

The names here, and  will be well known to any editors working around cars. They are both long-experienced and well familiar with edit-warring policy and ANI.

This article is on a significant British car from immediately before the Great War, to the point where one wonders why there wasn't already an article on it. Its engine also has an important history, being Austin's first such large engine and influential for Austin's designs well into the '20s. Eddaido created this article in April, from where it sat untouched for three months.

Luke doesn't have an OWN problem with this article, he extends it across the whole cars project. His way, or the highway. Editors in such projects are pretty tired of it – I know I certainly am. He seems to have a particular problem with infoboxes, so has been edit warring here to remove the second one for the engine. " remove engine infobox as the article is about the car, not the engine" Except that it's not just about the car, it's also about the engine (it has the infobox after all). More to the point, it can be about the engine as well. This is a notable engine in a notable car. As it was developed specifically for this chassis, it's entirely appropriate to cover it, and to cover it within the car article. This is also a small article (5k) and it needs expansion work, not nit-picking. We used to plan to grow articles to cover their topics better, not to get into this sort of worthless deletionist pissing match just because of personalities.

Eddaido reverted this and invited talk page comment. Luke deleted again as "totally unconstructive " (and didn't discuss) but did warn for vandalism. I hope I don't have to state the profoundly obvious that it was nothing of the sort, but exactly this "anyone who disagrees with me is a vandal" behaviour is a regular pattern for Luke.

I saw the vandalism warning and hadn't seen the article before. I have a long and acrimonious history with Eddaido, but if he's doing something constructive he should be left to do it. Creating articles used to be seen as such. The engine section belongs, so I restored it myself. I then started to edit it (I would agree with some issues here, like Luke's piping of the Austin link and the use of convert templates ) but Luke's two-minute reversion of an uninvolved editor as "lazy" doesn't allow much time for that.

I would have an easier time here without either of these editors around. But Eddaido is trying to write an article here, Luke just seems to be out to have everything his way (yet again). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as is pretty obvious, 3RR hasn't even been touched, so this case is about as frivolous as it gets. Secondly, it's well known that Andy has serious issues with me. Thirdly, representing me as "owning" the cars project is hilarious - the entire series of changes I've been making recently have been the express result of a consensus from a discussion on WT:CARS - go ahead, look it up, you'll see that straight away. And finally, Andy's entire complaint in the article was that the engine needed to be in the article - and when I reverted him to reinstate the changes that obviously complied with standard consensus of the WikiProject, I left the engine table in the article. Oh, and the vandalism warning was for wholesale reverting obvious fixes, such as formatting and the like, without even paying attention, across 10-15 articles. Frankly, I don't know who paid less attention here - Eddaido or Andy. But it's clear that Andy is desperate to get me blocked because he dislikes me that much. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't flatter yourself Luke. Also, this is the Edit Warring noticeboard, not the "I can count to THREE and I'm entitled to have my Civil Rights to have all my goes at other editors first" noticeboard.
 * If you'd let another editor do some editing, it would now be in much the same state as you want it. But no, two minutes and you just have to revert again because you have to have the last word on everything to do with cars. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also I don't much care if I'm "not welcome" on your talk: page, I'm required to notify you there. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You reported me here without me violating 3RR or without any remotely recent edit warring warning; so the case is frivolous. And that's just based on generic things, not even taking into the context of what actually happened. I'll note that you've deliberately avoided the obvious - the information you wanted in the article has stayed in that article. Every single time you do something like this, you make it more and more obvious that you're trying everything to get one over me due to your grudge. The entire language of your frivolous report shows that clearly - as does the fact you were in such a rush to post it that you didn't even bother signing it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Experienced users should know better, and I see no discussion at the talk page.Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

See a whole bunch more of the same at (and probably more)
 * Morris Oxford Six
 * Morris Oxford bullnose
 * Morris Oxford flatnose
 * Morris Oxford Empire models

These are not about "consensus" at the cars project, they're largely about Luke wanting to remove coverage of engines from car articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except, it isn't, and Andy knows that all too well. I removed those as part of a general cleanup, but at no point have I reverted specifically to re-remove the engine tables; indeed, on any edit that specifically restored said tables, I haven't reverted him. But of course, Andy is desperate to get me blocked by any means necessary, so mere facts won't get in his way. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And as further evidence of that... there was never an engine infobox on Morris Oxford flatnose, or Morris Oxford Six. Of course, had Andy actually been paying attention to what was going on and not just making assumptions about me, then he'd realize that his case was woefully weak. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus, any editor acting in good faith (which Andy blatantly isn't) would've asked me why I removed the engine infoboxes rather than just throwing around frivolous accusations, but there we go. Had they asked me to reinstate them, I would've done so pending a larger discussion - again, no one did. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You were invited to discuss this on the Austin 30hp article. You didn't, you just reverted Eddaido again and gave him a totally spurious warning for vandalism. When I discussed any of this on your talk page, the "tell Luke off here" link, (even to agree with you over the marque naming issue) you reverted that as "what part of "you're not welcome here" have you failed to understand?". Clearly you are not interested in discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I find this all very interesting and I have to say I am right heavily on the same side as Andy. I even put a : ) on Lukeno94's talk page in case he found it charming. Seems he didn't! I think all the edits complained of rest on a few principles (whether or not they are considered good practice) might they all be discussed at a central talk point? Lukno94's talk page? regards to all, Eddaido (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MehrdadFR reported by User:Averysoda (Result: Filer 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: MehrdadFR didn't use the talk page even once, despite I encouraged him to do so.

Comments: Despite MehrdadFR was blocked in March and four days ago for edit-warring and breaking 3RR in several articles, his negative conduct persists. I believe a longer blockade is necessary, if not a permanent one. How many opportunities can a person get?--Averysoda (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a pure manipulation because first edit hasn't been "revert" at all, it was inserting of reliable material which Averysoda later removed. --MehrdadFR (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Beside manipulating, it should be noted how previous blockade resulted in both cases:
 * Article "United Against Nuclear Iran": I've inserted sources, Averysoda has removed it. Edit warring goes on...
 * Article "Anti-Iranian_sentiment": I've inserted sourced material, Averysoda has removed it. Edit warring goes on...
 * As mentioned above, nothing constructive but pure vandalism with pro-Israeli motives. --MehrdadFR (talk) 07:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Leaving your ad hominem attacks out, your first edit was a revert because it removed long-standing sourced categories like Executed juvenile offenders, LGBT people from Iran, LGBT Muslims, and you cinically replaced them with accusations of pedophilia (based on poor sources). But that's not even the main point. 3RR is not how many reverts you can do, but to avoid edit-warring. You must open a discussion on the talk page before making controversial changes without consensus.--Averysoda (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My first edit still wasn't revert, and replacing categories are based on the existing material plus two additional sources from Duke University Press. You call them "poor" simply because you WP:DONTLIKE it. Human Rights Watch also offers the same story, and so does Paula Ettelbrick as executive director of the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission who told the press "It was not a gay case". Your claim They were executed for gays, not pedophiles isn't supported by absolutely anything, and it shows how far you're able to go with your pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian agenda. --MehrdadFR (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither MehrdadFR nor Averysoda has broken 3RR at Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. However they are edit-warring and neither has written to the talk page. I recommend that both be banned from that article. Zerotalk 13:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * See note posted above. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Averysoda has been blocked indef as a sock by User:Ponyo. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Averysoda reported by User:MehrdadFR (Result: Indef)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

First problem is WP:3RR violated in less then 24 hours. Second problem is removal of WP:RS, all of them academic sources: This user constantly implies that every time before inserting sourced material I should consult him. Third problem is ignoring conversation, I sent him a message and asked not to remove sourced content, not to demand "censuses" every times when he disagree with academic sources, and to use talk page for any complaints. He simply reverted my message. Fourth problem are his threats: Stop it or you will be blocked again and Trust me, you are the one who will get indefinitely blocked, sooner or later. Fifth, and I believe a major problem, is he is trying to involve me in edit wars in every single article which I edited before (every time by significant removal of material), and he is doing the same with many other editors. Most of his contributions are just pro-Israeli systematic deletions for the purpose of engaging edit wars. Result is strongly inclination toward vandalism-only edits and maltreatment of constructive users. --MehrdadFR (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Averysoda has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Wlglunight93. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * by a checkuser per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93. EdJohnston (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais reported by User:Detoner (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Comments:

This user is being very disruptive. He is changing the original quote from the source and keeps reverting me. The last edit in it's summary claims he is restoring it to the original state before his edit, which is false. That is yet another revert done by him. <b style="color:navy">Detoner</b> (<b style="color:blue">talk</b>) 22:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Protected for a week. The alternative was to block both editors for going way past WP:3RR. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This a disruptive POV-pusher from Nikola Tesla talk-page who didn't got to change that Tesla was born in Croatia so now wants to alter the text in the Military Frontier article where Tesla was born in. Whoever saw Tesla talk page, he certainly remember the disruption these group of users created to the community, unfortunately only one of them was permanently banned, but this user keeps the same pattern. PS: Thank you Black Kite, I hope this users goes to the talk-page and gets consensus for his changes. FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is bad mouthing and false. It is done in an effort to discredit me in an effort to justify edit warring, when it is obvious that FkpCascais had manipulated the original quote and went to edit warring to leave it in the article. I will consider to make a report of this bad mouthing, with the advice of editors participating here. <b style="color:navy">Detoner</b> (<b style="color:blue">talk</b>) 23:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that there are 2 separate disputes there. We are resolving one on the talk page and this report is not concerning that. This report is concerning the edit done by the reported user who manipulated the original quote and when I restored it he went to edit warring. Thank you. <b style="color:navy">Detoner</b> (<b style="color:blue">talk</b>) 22:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:BöriShad reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indef)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: []

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User notified:

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

Comments:

User:BöriShad has been edit warring over a multitude of articles, with an extremely pro-Turkic POV. Anyone that disagrees with said user is subjected to edit-warring, foaming-at-the-mouth racist rants,, accusations of sockpuppetry, and accusations of supposed ethnicity(I think you also an iranianvery typical for an superior aryan-iranian I believe this "editor" suffers from battleground mentality(ie. the constant edit warring) and is not here to build an encyclopedia but to right great wrongs against Turkic peoples(Page was cristal clear until iranians ruined it.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avar_Khaganate&curid=34349463&diff=671027661&oldid=671027015   That page edited by pan-iranians, check former version of that page. These page was quiet clear until pan-iranians destroyed them.]). --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – per WP:NOTHERE. The above complaint provides an apt summary of this user's behavior and tone of voice. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Butterley Engineering reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Username block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 21st century */"
 * 2)  "/* 21st century */"
 * 3)  "Butterley Engineering is back."
 * 4)  "/* 21st century */"
 * 5)  "Butterley Engineering is back."
 * 1)  "/* 21st century */"
 * 2)  "Butterley Engineering is back."
 * 1)  "/* 21st century */"
 * 2)  "Butterley Engineering is back."
 * 1)  "Butterley Engineering is back."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Butterley Company. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Butterley Company. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Butterley Company. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced content, despite multiple warnings to add reliable sources. Username is also a blatant violation of the username policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – for username by User:Orangemike. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Final warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"
 * 6)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sri Vaembu Aathi Muthumari Amman Temple. (TW)"

As stated below, thought I have left many help and warning templates on their talk page, the only response has been to revert, especially the removal of valid maintenance templates. 220  of  Borg
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Editor has made no attempts to communicate. Has not used any summaries to explain their action in any way. Note this is a new fairly new editor ~ 220 edits in 2 years. I have added personal notes to the end of the warning templates. 220  of  Borg 10:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nb. The page in question was created by user Dillipan. 220  of  Borg 10:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Dillipan removed maintenance tags on July 9, 10 and 11 and has done a similar removal at Kosapet. He has never left a message on a talk page, nor has he responded to this edit warring complaint. Something is needed to get his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Olehal09 reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: User agreement)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Adding "allocation of guilt"."
 * 2)  "Please stop. We should only use secondary sources on such subject, peer reviews, acording to the guide lines.  Neither do the book support your claim that all of these conspiracy theorists think about jews."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 671050504 by YnysPrydein (talk) It don't. Such dubius sources should have peer reviews, and from proper academics. We are not in a position to judge material."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 671049059 by YnysPrydein (talk) Book no peer reviews,  states a lot of things without evidence or footnotes. Write on about their people, jews. Why? Not satisfactory."
 * 5)  "I removed feminism and the stuff about the jews. Of what I have read those people are not mentioned."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Now at 3RR at Aryan - I was going to give this editor a 3RR warning for that but noticed that a 3RR warning was given this morning at 3:45am.. He's not the only one over 3RR at White genocide conspiracy theory. Just to clarify, his latest edit removed " Jewish-driven mass ", one of the phrases being edit-warred over. Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear edit warring despite warnings. User has a strong POV which they seem to think overrides RS (see Talk:White_genocide_conspiracy_theory and User_talk:EvergreenFir. So far I'm losing hope this editor can manage their POV and remain constructive.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The person I'm warring with are claiming two articles made by sociologist from a University overrides the other articles and sources on the page. I just can't agree with him because you can't base an article on some elements of a broader movement. If you are doing that we would destroy the whole encyclopedia. But I have udnerstood your points and agree, I will stop editing the article and wait for a conculsion. Olehal09 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User has agreed to 'stop editing the article and wait for a conclusion'. I assume this means, he will wait for a talk page consensus that supports his  changes before editing again. Meanwhile, another admin has semiprotected the article, which should help. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:MiztuhX reported by User:Maile66 (Result: Fully protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Prior to the edit warring

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2 edits combined July 11
 * 2) 4 edits on July 12
 * 3) 14 edits on July 12

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page for the last three months.

Comments:

No consensus was reached, so today the editor decided to act on his own.

This editor opened a Dispute resolution, and before any action has been taken has decided to act on his own. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to see Maile66, since the last time he responded to one of my posts on the Battle of the Alamo Talk Page was on 6 May 2015‎ with regards to a book that didn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP despite being vetted for FA. That's the last I heard of Maile66.


 * Now, after waiting about a month for editors to contemplate the addition of the Santa Anna quote, I checked the The Battle of the Alamo Talk Page to find no activity, so I decided to open a dispute (as I had previously stated several times on the talk page, to settle the matter). Never before had I engaged in "edit warring" to settle differences.


 * Later, when I checked the dispute page, I read Robert McClenon's notice that there needed to be additional recent discussion on the talk page to begin an investigation, so I restarted discussion on 9 July on the talk page.


 * On that same day, Karanacs (an editor who disagreed with my manner of editing one word or one sentence at a time) advised that: "[I would] be a much more credible editor if [I'd] work to improve the article in general rather than spewing rants over one or two words at a time" and "You will get much further if you look at the big picture rather than try to argue one word at a time." Talk:Mexican Texas  Since Karanacs was the main editor who disagreed with my one edit on the Battle of the Alamo, and Maile66 was nowhere to be found, I took Karanacs' words as consensus between Karanacs and I, as a tacit approval, to edit the article (not to "edit war").


 * Furthermore, the charge of edit warring is unsubstantiated because: 1) my talk page contributions previous to this show undoubtedly that I discuss ideas on talk pages and do not resort to "edit warring", 2) I only began editing the page once I was advised by Karanacs to implement larger changes, and 3)Maile66 has no say in this matter because Maile66 dropped out of the discussion a long time ago for whatever reason... MiztuhX (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - User:TomStar81 fully protected the article for six months. Discussion will continue at DRN if the editors agree, but is voluntary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Gunbirddriver reported by User:EyeTruth (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The user Gunbirddriver has done only one revert so far, but I'm reporting this now (even though 3RR has not yet been violated) because he has a history of very aggressive edit-warring in which he tends to exercise his opinion as superior to what sources say, for which he has been banned before. This user has dragged me into his edit-warring before, and even fabricated accusations that got me banned, but when the admin that issued the ban later realized that they were false, he apologized and did his best to correct it. So I'm trying to avoid going through that again with Gunbirddriver. EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

(Cont'd). Over the past week, I've been working on the article to eventually prepare it for FA nomination. I'm familiar with the subject, and I contributed in getting it to GA status. So recently, I've been adding citations to passages in the article that didn't have any, adding more information to bring the article to FA quality, and doing general copy-editing. But yesterday the user Gunbirddriver changed several things related to the edits I made. A number of the changes he made were distinctively wrong (although some of them were constructive). For example, in THIS EDIT he changed what the cited source says and replaced it with his own original research. And in THIS EDIT, asserting that the passage, which is almost as is in the cited source, is wrong, he changes it by removing specific names and generalizing it. I corrected those edits, thanked him for the constructive ones and continued with the general copyediting on the article. Then he returned a few hours ago and simply reverted everything including the copyedits, and instructed that I take it all to the talkpage. He is essentially telling me to go to the talkpage and get permission to correct hyphens and dashes, correct singular verbs to plural, add commanders and citations, rephrase sentences to fit the article's coherent narrative, and correct stuff that read contrary to their cited sources. The act reeks of spite, and I don't want to indulge it again. EyeTruth (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * l left a note for User:Gunbirddriver and asked them to respond here. Of course, a single revert isn't usually an edit war but you can introduce a long-term pattern of editing if you can document it. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Response

My primary goal is to make sure the articles presented in wikipedia are accurate and readable, that they convey the essential information while providing citations and resources for the reader to go deeper if they would like. I find it very odd to be brought to the administrative board when there is no case to be made against me, but this is typical behavior for this editor.

To reveiw the current situation, EyeTruth has been making a number of changes to an article that is already at Good Article status. These edits obscured the articles narrative and confused the reader in unnecessary detail. I assumed he made these edits in good faith, allowed a number of them to stand and reverted the ones that obscurred the narative, giving reasons for the changes in the edit summary for each change here through here. As we know, the preference to limit edit warring is Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. However, instead of going to the talk page as one would expect from an experienced editor, he reverted the changes. These were reverted back and a direct call was made for him to go to the talk page if he did not understand why these changes were being made as shown here. Instead, he reverted again, breaking the three revert rule and then submitted my name here at the Administrators Board for edit warring.

As to the specific details of his contention of bad faith editing on my part, a closer examination will reveal these claims to be false. For instance, regarding those forces involved in the battle, multiple sources indicate that the 2nd Guards Tank Army and 2nd Tank Army attacked Das Reich, and that the 1st Tank Army and the 3rd Rifle Corps were attacking Totenkopf. The armour of the 5th Guards Tank Army was involved primarily with the attack upon the 1SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte. Thus for EyeTruth to say the armour of the 5th Guards Tank Army composed one side of the battle and were opposed on the other side by the whole of the II SS Panzer Corps is to ignore those Russian units involved in attacking the two other divisions of the II SS Panzer Corps. The sentence I added followed his sentence and citation. It was not intended to be supported by his citation (of course), but plenty of citations could be found to do so. It's an apples to oranges comparison and an obvious correction, one that you would think would not lead to an argument or a trip to the Administrator's page. I am sure we could have worked it out on the talk page. Instead we are here. As EyeTruth points out, the page we are discussing was indeeed nominated for Good Article status back at the end of August 2013, but had become bloated by the additions of EyeTruth with extraneous detail and with the unneccesary retalling of the Battle of Kursk article. With the impetous of a reveiw for GA status 260 edits followed and the article was cut down from 104K to 64K. I was heavily involved in these edits. During this time User EyeTruth did not participate in any significant way. He had been involved in multiple trips to the administrative board and had misled administrator Nick D into issuing the block shown above on my account. The end result of all the contention was that he disappeared as a wikipedia editor for over a year, and was not significantly involved in the edits from September through December 2013 that resulted in the article reaching GA status. I hate to bother them about this user again, but editors Irondome, Sturmvogel 66 and Diannaa (librarian support) are familiar with the issues with this editor, as is administrator Nick-D.

User Eyetruth has a long history of disruptive editing, making misleading statements and attacking the character of his fellow editors. All caps and bold are common features when he is trying to advance an argument. For my part, a review of my record will show there is no pattern of edit waring. In general, I attempt to look to encourage the other editors and will keep edits in if they can at all be justified. On the other hand, User Eyetruth in this instance has broken the three revert rule, is edit warring now, and has involved the administrators unnecessarily.

I believe the correct action would be to sanction User EyeTruth to discourage this kind of behavior. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * EyeTruth (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (To keep this clear and readable, please don't respond next to each point. It’s better to do it in a separate paragraph below my whole response if needed, thanks).
 * It's an outrageous lie that I broke the 3RR. But thankfully that's any easy lie to see through for anyone.
 * The claim Gunbirddriver made above about 2nd Guards Tank Army and 2nd Tank Army is straight up wrong. In THIS EDIT to the article he changed what the CITED SOURCE says, replacing it with his own opinions; which the cited source, in fact, explicitly debunks: 5th Guards Tank Army attacked all three divisions of the SS Panzer Corps (it's blatantly right there in the cited source).
 * Gunbirddriver has a history of forcing his opinion over information supported by cited sources. It was this aggressive manner of edit-warring during a content-dispute in the article Battle of Kursk that got him blocked by admin Nick-D.
 * The content-dispute began in May 2013 when Gunbirddriver removed every mention of the term "Blitzkrieg" from the article because he believes it was wrong to have it in the article. I opposed this because, at that time, I had three written works by three different historians that used the term to characterize the German intention for the battle of Kursk. However, Gunbirddriver had the support of three other editors. So I took the issue to DRN, it ended in limbo with no decision being reached, but it succeeded in eventually attracting the attention of several other editors. Eventually many more editors ended up supporting the inclusion of the term because there were over a dozen sources supporting it, but NOT A SINGLE source could be brought forward to support it's exclusion.
 * In fact, I offered for the most NPOV solution, which is to include in the article that several other historians did not mention anything about blitzkrieg in regards to Kursk. But Gunbirddriver had already let the content-dispute become his personal war, and he refused that option.
 * In such a clear-cut dispute, there was no reasonable way it could have dragged out over several months as it did, but Gunbirdrvier was able to pull it off with his highly polarizing style of manipulating the dispute by fabricating accusations, exaggerating my actions and twisting statements. And initially I always fell for his devices and often overreacted with rude remarks, which only turned other editors against me, but I quickly learned. As more editors got involved, Gunbirddriver, still insisting on the correctness of his opinion, continued edit-warring, and he eventually got blocked.
 * Gunbirddriver, your accusation that I misled Nick-D is very ridiculous. Nick-D moderated the content-dispute in Battle of Kursk for several weeks, and was thoroughly familiar with all the nitty-gritty of that dispute. To say that I was the one that made him block you sounds like an insult to his intelligence.
 * I don't know how Gunbirddriver can claim with a straight face that I only contributed insignificantly to the article Battle of Prokhorovka. Last time I checked the X!s Tool two months ago, I was the number 1 content-contributor to the article. It was the huge overhaul I implemented in the article in the summer of 2013 that spurred the user Azx2 to nominate it for GA. Granted, the article still needed a lot of work at that point, but I eventually slacked out due to busy schedule.
 * EyeTruth (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. A long list of past problems doesn't make an effective AN3 complaint. Use WP:Dispute resolution if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes EdJohnston, as I mentioned in my first comment there hasn't been a violation yet. But given Gunbirddriver's history of aggressive edit-warring, he is clearly trying to start an edit war that is completely pointless, just like the one that got him banned. The fact is still that presently, he is trying to enforce his own personal opinion above that of cited sources. He did not even try to deny any claim I made about his current edits in my first comment because it is simply true. His response above, in summary says: I know this is how it happened, so I changed the passage in the article without bothering to back it up with cited sources (besides, it will be completely impossible for him to find reliable sources because he is confusing Tank Armies with Tank Corps). There is also the fact that he was making broad reversions, which included corrections of typos and bad grammar. This clearly shows he is already seeing this as his personal war. He will continue his edit warring. EyeTruth (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:95.56.14.240 reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on FourFiveSeconds. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has made 3 reverts and is edit warring. Also messing about with the genres. I've made two reverts but am now reporting him as he is not listening and I don't want to get into an edit war with an IP. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 09:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC) IP has since made a fourth revert on the article. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 11:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. A brand-new IP is genre-warring across multiple articles. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Basically blogging reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added content"
 * 2)  "/* Fictional history */Added content."
 * 3)  "/* Fictional history */Fixed typo."
 * 4)  "/* Han Solo */Added co tent."
 * 5)  "/* Leia Organa Solo */Added content."
 * 6)  "/* Kira Solo */Added content."
 * 7)  "Added content by plot leaks."
 * 8)  "Added content."
 * 9)  "Fixed typo."
 * 1)  "Added content."
 * 2)  "Fixed typo."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Solo family. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2015 */"
 * 3)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ I withdrew the report since you have replied"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Addition of unsourced information */ new section"
 * 2)   "reply"


 * Comments:

User is adding spoiler information supposedly from the unreleased Star Wars: The Force Awakens but has so far declined to state where they are getting their information. I withdrew a prior report because they did make contact with me, but they have persisted in their edits. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * for disruptive editing; I had done so before I saw this report.  Having looked more closely at the edit patterns at Solo family, I see that you also violated 3RR on that page.  Reverting good faith edits is not an exception to 3RR, and you must take care to avoid edit warring in future. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I truly am not attempting to disagree with your warning in any way, I accept your warning; but is that the case even if the information is not sourced in any way and the user declines to put one? 331dot (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Reading about it more carefully I answered my own question(i.e. what you said). Again, I accept your warning, and thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity's sake, yes, even unsourced information is not an exception to 3RR. The only valid exceptions are listed here. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:24.23.146.196 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Shielding of Illegal Immigrants and The Death of Edwin Ramos */  Type"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 671196167 by Agtx (talk) Playing politics with edits."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 671129579 by Gobonobo (talk) Sourced via Wikipedia.  Stop injecting politics and bias into articles."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Shielding of Ramos & The Murder of The Bologna Family */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Shielding of Ramos & The Murder of The Bologna Family */"


 * Comments:

Unfortunately after being warned, this user does not appear to be interested in consensus building. Attempts to resolve on the talk page were met with accusations of personal bias and no attempt to engage. This user has made a similar edit (with a similar edit summary) from User: (. Agtx (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Lights N reported by User:CorporateM (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

Edit-warring has not been resolved after discussion on my Talk page and the article Talk page, where this editor makes repeated accusations of corporate malfeasance and whitewashing. I believe I am obligated to surpass 3RR as required by WP:BLP, WP:BLPGROUP and WP:COMMONSENSE. The Source provided for contentious material about a living person is a Wordpress blog called "Retraction Watch". The Journal of Immunology was eventually added, but once I got access to it, I saw that it was just a one-paragraph notice. CorporateM (Talk) 23:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Lights N has been warnedagainst making any further reverts at Aethlon Medical until a proper discussion of his material has occurred. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:はぐれがらす reported by User:Miracle dream (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Page:

User being reported: This user got two warning of edit war in the same topic Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  02:41, 13 July 2015 (Reverted to 208.80.67.33 (talk) at 05:20, 10 July 2015's post due to inacurate edit and use of exaggeated Communist Chinese sourse.)
 * 2)  14:47, 13 July 2015 (RVT to 208.80.67.33 (talk) at 05:20, 10 July 2015's edit. Guess is not enough reason to RVT.)
 * 3)  15:04, 13 July 2015 (RVT to 208.80.67.33 (talk) at 05:20, 10 July 2015's edit. Sourse from China isn't problem. Exaggeration & one-sided view is problem.)
 * 4)  16:34, 13 July 2015 
 * 5)  17:16, 13 July 2015 (→‎1937: Full-scale invasion of China: correction)
 * 6)  17:41, 13 July 2015
 * 7)  18:13, 13 July 2015
 * 8)  23:12, 13 July 2015 (Undid revision 671287879 by GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) I thought and edited. But you just RVT it without thinking. Use talk page.)

The same thing happened in 26 June 2015
 * 1) 03:19, 26 June 2015  (Undid revision 668706066 by Rajmaan (talk) inaccurate.)
 * 2) 11:40, 26 June 2015 (→‎Around the Battle of Shanghai: added bombing of Shanghai International Settlement)
 * 3)  13:08, 26 June 2015 (→‎Around the Battle of Shanghai: added brief course of battle on the ground)
 * 4)   20:03, 26 June 2015 (→‎Jinan incident: added victims of incident)
 * 5)   05:28, 27 June 2015 (→‎Jinan incident: re-added contents of damages. Simply discribing the facts is not POV.)
 * Comments:This user got two warning of edit war in the same topic. It seems this user is a single purpose editor. Most of his edition is about Second Sino Japanese war since he created his account. Some edition in article Tungchow mutiny is also a part of Second sino Japanese war. He is a strong POV editor and did not assume good faith to other users ,. I think he is not being here to build an encyclopedia. Miracle dream (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2015‎


 * for violating 3RR. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SimpsonsMan1234 reported by User:68.37.227.226 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated revision of content regarding notation of certain releases in the Rare Replay compilation, usually without offering any argument or explanation behind his revision. Attempted to warn him and suggest taking it to the talk page, but the edit was removed almost immediately for being "nonsense". Talk page history indicates this is not the first time this has occurred. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

-I did not break any rules as I was correcting an article with accurate information. The response I received was indeed unnecessary for many reasons therefore I have broke no rules. The user I was reverting edits with provided inaccurate information. You did NOT post the same information on 136.181.195.25's talk page whereas you should have. I did not break any rules, I read your post and deleted it because there was no need to leave it on my wall. Posting it on edit warring was not a good move because you did not post a warning on my page where I would have read it. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The information being added was accurate as is; Kazooie, Tooie, and PD are XBLA ports of N64 games, just as the additions said. Heck, there was nothing contradictory about the way the page was already set up, using the list format instead of a table, and it lacked the console listing, hence negating this whole issue in the first place. Also, 136.181.195.25 only made two edits, thus not breaking the 3-revert rule, whereas you made four edits. And I did warn you first; you reverted and ignored it, remember? -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a compromise between the two sides, I've reverted the table back to its original three-column list format, thus removing the question of which platform to denote entirely. Most articles on video game compilations don't list version or original platform anyway, and the games' original platforms aren't listed in the compilation itself (for obvious reasons), only their original release dates, so it's inconsequential in the grand scheme. -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

---So you're okay with providing misinformation? They are not the Nintendo 64 ports, they are the XBLA ports for the millionth time. I specifically wrote 'Platform Version' and writing Nintendo 64 is inaccurate. I also specified the release date being based on the Nintendo 64 version. My edit is fine so there's also no need to change it back to where it was. I'm going to change it back to a more presentable table but eliminating the platform versions despite what info I put is correct. I'm also going to suggest you to make an account too. SimpsonsMan1234 (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not inaccurate, though; they're XBLA ports of N64 games, which is why everyone keeps saying they're XBLA ports of N64 games in the table. Also, how is the table "more appealing"? The alternative method was more condensed and didn't leave a bunch of empty space; compare to other compilation articles like Sonic Mega Collection, Mega Man X Collection, Pac-Man Museum, et al. (And making it means you're further violating 3RR in the middle of determining whether you violated 3RR...) -- 68.37.227.226 (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * for violating 3RR. Regardless of whether you think you were right, you were edit warring and did violate the three-revert rule.  Your edits did not fall under any of the very limited exceptions to that rule. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Musiclover john reported by User:Defgirl12 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucia_Cole&oldid=671354787

There is just a ton. This individual has created this fake profile. Fake Wikipedia page and is just going overboard.

Talk:Lucia Cole

Comments:

Several individuals have attempted to remove the page of the user. They appear to be a catfish.

Yeah I've been following this and I don't think we should delete the page immediately based on these allegations, but all that's going on here is people constantly reverting each other, so something needs to make it stop. I contacted BBB23 about it here and basically explained the situation in as few words as possible. It's a complicated situation so I think judgment on who's "right" is subjective, but it's not subjective that somebody needs to step in and stop the war.  poli  05:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * protection upgraded to full protection because editor(s) involved are autoconfirmed. Next time you file a report here, the admins who regularly patrol this board would appreciate if you could follow the template, including the requested diffs etc.  It makes it easier to evaluate a situation. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Socks abound from User:Musiclover john. Lucia Cole is a very complicated hoax. Cole does not appear as a listed artist for any of the record labels and there is no evidence from sources that this artist is real. Keegan (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)