Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive288

User:Accurate Nuanced Clear reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * All times are in UTC

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) 03:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) 21:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC) " Restored - so far a majority of two people agree this is within wikipedia guidelines. SEE TALK PAGE for extensive explanation "
 * 4) 09:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC) " Undid revision 671354759 by AussieLegend "
 * 5) 14:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC) " Please see discussion on talk page. I've written - no one has responded. They need to justify DESTRUCTION. This edit is backed up by two people. Contribute something CONSTRUCTIVE - this is not an exclusive club "

Diff of edit warring warning: with clarification.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is an edit-warring report, not a report of a 3RR breach. Accurate Nuanced Clear made a number of edits to Sydney that were opposed by another editor who cited WP:NOTNEWSPAPER in his reversion. Accurate Nuanced Clear almost immediately reverted with no explanation. The other editor subsequently reverted again, this time explaining in his edit summary "not at all deserving of its own section, unencyclopedic, undue weight, news style writing". Accurate Nuanced Clear's almost immediate response was to again revert without explanation. reverted again several hours later, this time explaining "goes against dozens of wiki policies and guidelines, eg WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:BALASPS. sydney has seen many controversial laws implemented over its 200+ year history. none of them need this kind of coverage" in his edit summary. Some time later Accurate Nuanced Clear again reverted. It was only then that Accurate Nuanced Clear started to discuss, first at HappyWaldo's talk page with what seems more an attack than a serious attempt at resolution, and then at Talk:Sydney. The subsequent discussion at Talk:Sydney demonstrates clear opposition to Accurate Nuanced Clear's edits in their current form. Upon discovering this I reverted to the status quo and left a warning on Accurate Nuanced Clear's talk page, with clarification, about edit-warring. However, Accurate Nuanced Clear posted to my talk page and then reverted at Sydney without waiting for a reply. He did not bother to further particpate in the discussion at Talk:Sydney despite there being several comments since his last post. I asked Accurate Nuanced Clear to revert his last change but he did not, and went silent. Another editor reverted Accurate Nuanced Clear's edits with another request to discuss but instead, Accurate Nuanced Clear reverted yet again. Accurate Nuanced Clear does not seem interested in coming to consensus on the issue, only to insert his edits as he wants to, edit-warring if he deems it necessary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I should probably add that Accurate Nuanced Clear's edit summaries are less than accurate:
 * "Restored - so far a majority of two people agree this is within wikipedia guidelines. SEE TALK PAGE for extensive explanation." - No editor has "agree[d] this is within wikipedia guidelines", much less two.
 * "Reverted page to STATUS QUO - Please refer to REVERT policy: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting". I SEEK MEDIATION of this dispute !" - The edit was not a reversion to the status quo at all, it was a reversion to his preferred version.
 * "Please see discussion on talk page. I've written - no one has responded. They need to justify DESTRUCTION. This edit is backed up by two people. Contribute something CONSTRUCTIVE - this is not an exclusive club" - In fact three editors have responded to the discussion and nobody has supported his edits. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Accurate Nuanced Clear has significantly changed his post after I replied to it, I'm moving my response here so it's clear that I replied to this version and not the changed version.
 * You eventually explained on the talk page why you think the content should be included but despite the fact that two editors have publicly stated that they do not support the edits as they stand, you haven't responded to their concerns. HappyWaldo suggested "It might merit a sentence somewhere in the article, not an entire section with a ridiculously specific and overlong title" and suggested creating a crime section and adding a note there, since this is already in Crime in Sydney but you've been too busy reverting, twice since Winner 42 made his suggestion. Your invitation to HappyWaldo to propose a solution seems to demonstrate that you haven't even read the comments. That another editor didn't revert you is not an indication of support.  simply fixed a number of citations, and made no comment at all. I can't see any other editor making edits other than reversions of your content, and there are three of them. Of course nothing justifies your persistent edit-warring with multiple editors. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For the record, Accuarate Nuanced Clear's claim that I destroyed his headline below is bogus. He did that himself, in this edit, and in the following edit he called me "AussieLoser", which is clearly inappropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

ANCs response:

1) The fact that I changed my post "after" you replied to it has no meaning whatsoever. It is my HABIT to improve the clarity of my writing. Anyone can check for themselves and see the CONTENT is little changed. I think this 'observation' of your says alot about the filters you are using in this discussion . 2) I COMPLETELY took notice of HappyWaldo's concerns - indeed, I answered them DIRECTLY in the talkpage, under each of the three policies he cited. The fact you have not seen that show that you CLEARLY have not properly looked into this. . 3) I cannot see any statement by Winner42 on the talk page or my page. More importantly, the Lockout has a VERY DIRECT and in fact QUITE LARGE affect on the ENTERTAINMENT in Sydney. Hence the reason it deserves a mention. It may be a LAW, but it has only an indirect link to CRIMINALITY. This law affects ALL (innocent) people who are considering going out in Sydney. Indeed, it is not actually possible to be a criminal under this law unless you are a venue or staff of such. It is 10 x more related to ENTERTAINMENT in SYDNEY than it is to LAWS in Sydney. This to me is blindingly obvious. . 4) I think it's commonsense that if someone LEAVES CONTENT IN TACT and goes to the trouble of IMPROVING it, that is tacit support for inclusion. I feel you are biased in your approach to this. The amount of time you've spent on it is telling. As for me, I'm off ! I don't have time for this minutae. If it's so important to you to censor the information about the lockout in Sydney - feel free. I'm sure all the international readers of WP will thankyou for the lack of vital information about the city when they travel there and find their schedules thrown into chaos by the ignorance you helped create with your VERY enthusiastic censorship. Again: STATE YOUR POLITICAL INTEREST IN THIS! BYE BYE ! Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk)


 * Response by Accurate Nuanced Clear

(including reinstatement of headline destroyed by AussieLegend)

1)This is quite an unbalanced representation. HappyWaldo completely failed to engage in an attempt to reach consensus, and simply DELETED my work with short comments in the summary. By contrast I started the consensus-building process by offering a thorough explanation of why I thought the section was worthy for inclusion in the the talk page for "Sydney": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sydney#Inclusion_of_information_on_lockout_laws_in_the_section_.27Entertainment.27

I have SINCE DIRECTLY invited CONSENSUS-BUILDING (see pt 5)

2)Just because I did not start the consensus-building process immediately should not damn me. I haven't contributed to WP for A LONG time, so am unfamiliar with the myriad of secondary and tertiary rules. Is there a rule that you must immediately justify a reversal of DELETION of your contribution?

3)As far as I'm aware, the rules also say that reversions should ONLY be done if really necessary.

POLICY QUOTES: "Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen."

"Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement."

"A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the perceived problem. The result will be an improved article, a more knowledgeable editor and greater harmony"

4)AussieLegend has made false claims and accusations:

a) AussieLegend above claimed that my statement that the new section was within WP guidelines was false.

But when I said the changes were backed by two editors I was referring to myself and to the other editor (‎Nihiltres) who did NOT delete the material about the lockout but simply improved it, which is clearly tacit approval for the INCLUSION of the information.

b) AussieLegend said: "The subsequent discussion at Talk:Sydney demonstrates clear opposition to Accurate Nuanced Clear's edits in their current form"

This is another misrepresentation. Here is the reality:
 * Two editors support the CONTENT - myself and Nihiltres ~ so far
 * ONE editor opposes the CONTENT - HappyWaldo, who reverted on that basis
 * TWO editors reverted for the ADMINSTRATIVE (non-content) reason that the content was the subject of an edit war - AussieLegend (who is now admitting he ALSO opposes the content), and User666777, who has chimed in after a two-year absence from WP

The fact is, HappyWaldo is equally engaged in an edit war if we are to follow AussieLegend's standards.

5) In addition I have now included an invitation to HappyWaldo to try to reach consensus, which I've included on the Sydney talk page and on his: Dear HappyWaldo, considering that the lockout laws ARE now a major feature of the night-time ENTERTAINMENT situation in Sydney, since they entirely GOVERN *ALL* situations in which locals and internationals engage in entertainment in the traditional entertainment districts of Sydney, what is your proposal for at least MENTIONING the basics of it?

6) One reason I haven't partly because of frustration at overzealous, aggressive, combatitive editing I encountered last time I was here - now YEARS ago. It seems to me WP is in danger of becoming an exclusive cabal, as stated here: http://daggle.com/closed-unfriendly-world-wikipedia-2853 and https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3cxedn/i_am_steve_huffman_the_new_ceo_of_reddit_ama/cszx5hr Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk)

7) Personal attacks? No: demand for accountability. I want to know what possible conflicts of interests exist with these editors. Sockpuppeting has long been a problem on WP

I want HappyWaldo to state any connections with political parties in NSW, the hospitality industry, the liquor industry, the tourism industry or any other industry. I want AussieLegend to state any friendly connections with HappyWaldo. I want User666777 to state how he found out about the changes to the page 'Sydney' and why he chose, after an absence of two years, to make the deletion of this section his sudden interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accurate Nuanced Clear (talk • contribs) 15:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's considered to be very poor form to significantly alter your posts after somebody has already replied to them. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sedo121212 reported by User:Ritchie333 (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: (also see above diff on user's talk page talking about the content)

Comments:

This user wants to add some content to the article that nobody else is really sure is relevant. A conversation is developing, but the editor appears to be logging out and reverting anyway (last diff is an IP but edit summary matches behaviour of the others). As I have reverted once on this debate, and was responsible to getting it to good article status, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED in this debate and request another admin handle this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . blocked as a sock as well. ceradon ( talk  •  contribs ) 19:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:109.151.114.1 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
 * 2)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
 * 3)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
 * 4)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Ratchet & Clank: Tools of Destruction"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  Talk:Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction
 * 2)   "So, IP-- I see you've reverted it again in spite of the discussion here. What's your reasoning?" (BlusterBlaster)


 * Comments:
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Evropariver reported by User:Athenean (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, across numerous talkpages.

Comments: This user is pushing a bizarre creationist/Ancient Egyptian POV throughout the encyclopedia. While technically not in breach of 3RR, he has edit-warred across the encyclopedia. As of this writing, in the last 12 hours or so I am counting: One rv at Mathematics, 2 rv at Chemistry ,  2 rv at Writing , 1 rv at Ancient History , 1 rv at Dinosaur , 2 rv at Herodicus ,  2 rv at Biology , 2 rv at City , 2 rv at Human , 1 rv at Civilization. Together with the 3 reverts at Earth, this is whopping 19 reverts in the last 12 hours alone. He has been repeatedly warned on his talkpage but continues to edit-war. Several users have told him his conduct is problematic but he refuses to listen, maintaining he is "right" and everybody else wrong. Athenean (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Also note, he has been reverted by many other users, due to his clumsy and crude POV-pushing. Characteristic of his mentality is the fact that instead of trying to defend his actions, he has gone on the offensive by filing a copycat report. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – 72 hours. Large number of reverts across multiple articles. He seems to have distinctive personal opinions that he is willing to edit war about. If your own opinion is out of the mainstream (or at least, differs from the established content in that specific article) you are well advised to get consensus before changing it. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Athenean reported by User:Evropariver (Result: Filer blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes. Comments: This user is damaging sourced content based on his biased Greek POV throughout the encyclopedia. He also did source falsification in the 2 reverts above, the rest of his reverts in a number of articles was removal of reliably-sourced content and addition of POV images. On the talk page one can not maintain a debate with him, he says that the whole articles on sciences must emphasize only on Ancient Greece, despite on stronger contributions by much earlier civilisations acknowledged by primnary sources(Aristotle) and secondary sources(Oxfor University Press) and keeps damaging the content. He says that I should listen to him(agree with the extreme view), otherwise if I disagree he rejects to discuss and repeats that I must listen to him and he is right, then as part of his manipulations lies that I personally attack him. In fact, he personally attacked me, calling me as "being from a country with a much less interesting and much shorter history, with far fewer contributions to human civilization (to put it mildly), than his own." , finally he acted the Greatest of all and said that "because I pretend not to listen to him, it means that interacting with me is a total waste of time" While technically not in breach of 3RR, he has edit-warred across the encyclopedia. In the last 24 hours or so I am counting: 2rv at Biology, where he made source falsifications with the source I added, 1 rv at Demeter ,  1 rv at Hermes , 1 rv at Herodicus , 1 rv at Weight , 1 rv at History of medicine ,  1 rv at Civilisation , 2 rv at Human , 2 rv at City , pushing 2 pictures of his city Athens and deleting others, 2 rv at Writing , 1 rv at Medicine  this were 17 reverts today alone. --Evropariver (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is yet another example of this user's tendentious behaviour. He creates this disruptive tit-for-tat report which indicates no understanding of the disruption he has caused pushing his peculiar creationist POV on Dinosaurs and his peculiar Egyptians-came-first POV which he tried to impose on a wide swath of articles through relentless edit-warring against multiple editors using OR, ethnicity-based attacks and dubious sources which have found no support from the wikiprojects he tried to contact. Not only that but he has also been warned on his talkpage for copyright violations on multiple articles. Seldom have I seen such a path of edit-warring disruption from a single user on so many articles. This user needs to be blocked asap to prevent further disruption. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean that I must not be active, I am not, compared to the most active users, but to such users is attributed most of the contribution in Wikipedia, so your example is totally wrong. The statement about disruption is the "reverse" of the truth, the two users, the reported and the commenting, keep damaging well-sourced content just because are two and more in number, they both maintain the same agenda and work in team, combined have much of reverts. Unlike them, that I used personal attacks is a regular lie, my statement in the project should just be checked.Evropariver (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have trouble stating accurate facts? Are the two Greek users the only ones who keep reverting you? Has any other user agreed with your disruptive edits? How many users other than the two Greek users have reverted you? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Unlike them, that I used personal attacks is a regular lie,: So you think you have not attacked the ethnicity of other editors when you open threads in Wikiprojects under the title "Alone against nationalists in edit war" and you comment On nationalist, by some Athenian(Greek) users, arrogantly falsificating the source I added,.... Have you forgotten so soon or do you have some other problem? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A third-party person form the project had a look on the case and said that "I did nothing wrong just cited the sourced info", so yes Dr.K, though reverted by others only you the two say that I am dispruptive, which is justification of your edits of nationalist bias which is not an offense but you are trying to claim it is to get me banned.--Evropariver (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why have you "forgotten" to add the rest of the comments of the "third-party person"?
 * You are clearly trying to mislead here, aren't you? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Filer blocked 72 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Al_Khazar reported by User:J.K Nakkila (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (other unrelated edits added to article since)

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: Long going edit war conserning the inclusion of Pantsir-S1 in the list. Other users on the talk page seemrd to agree about inclusion of the section that User:Al_Khazar keeps deleting from the list while User:Amakuha readds it. This was discussed on User:Al_Khazar talkpage, but User:Al_Khazar deleted it for whatever reason. J.K Nakkila (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I've recently come back from my one month Wikibreak, so please don't make this stituation look like an edit war and see what it truly is. The "other users on the talk page that seemrd to agree about the inclusion" is none other than User:Amakuha. The entire stituation can be summarized as two editors not knowing what WP:FRINGE is and attempting to create an edit war out of unconfirmable reports. Another important note I should add is that WP:BLANKING is not prohibited by Wikipedia's standards and indicates that I have already read your counterproductive complaints. Khazar (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 week by . &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . While this is not an ongoing, rapid edit war, it is certainly a long-running one. I have read the discussion that has been going on since February, and while not an unreasonable debate in February, its revival in June appeared to satisfy most of the credible objections being presented (i.e., multiple sources were eventually provided which resulted in the other user who was objecting ceding that it qualified for inclusion); at some point Khazar simply kept beating the dead horse, and not hearing the good faith attempts to address his complaints. Ultimately, his main objection (as he stated above) was that the content in question was an "extreme" or "fringe" viewpoint that strictly required an exceptional amount of reliable sources. He was never unable to substantiate that claim at all and it appears to be totally baseless&mdash;I'm not sure how anyone can read WP:FRINGE and think that it applies to this content. This is either an indication of bad faith misrepresentation of policy, or evidence of a strong bias that has reached the point of disruption. Whichever it is, a longer disruptive editing block is warranted over the standard edit warring block. Regards, S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:109.151.114.1 reported by User:Bilorv (Result: Blocked 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"
 * 2)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v, the exact same reason as before."
 * 3)  "Restored improperly removed section, rv v"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) See Talk:Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. Added manually by Bilorv at 21:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

The user was blocked yesterday for the exact same content dispute. A 24 hour block has not worked. They have not broken 3RR yet, but I see no point in reverting again just to watch them overstep an arbitrary boundary. They are clearly not going to help Wikipedia; they failed to discuss their edits, even after attempts to reason with them. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Editing to add: here is the previous report I made involving this user; they were blocked for 24 hours by Swarm. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing again: okay, this definitely oversteps 3RR. The IP has now made 6 reverts within the past 60 minutes (123456). I'll stop making updates now. I think the admin dealing with this will get the gist. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 21:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Inependantyo reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1)  "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Provided previously left out, but already cited, time period information"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Added cited content, removal without also removing the rest of the material cited from the same publication is vandalism"
 * 2)  "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Added already sourced content"
 * 3)  "/* Traditions of Native American slavery */Removal of half-fact. Leaving out parts of facts is irresponsible and leads to the confusion of the reader."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "/* Slavery among Native Americans in the United States */ new section"
 * 2)  "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:
 * 1)  "/* Slavery among Native Americans in the United States */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * Please review Inependantyo's edit history; the editor made a dozen reverts at Apache on 13 July, for which she/he was blocked 24 hours. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. Edit warring at Slavery among Native Americans in the United States. This is the second block in less than a week, for an account created on July 7. The user must be here on Wikipedia to impart great truths to the world and for WP:SOAPBOX reasons. Adding mentions of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apache&diff=prev&oldid=671532880 genocide and ethnic cleansing] to the lead of Apache does fit that pattern.  EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Arichuvadi reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "lead section largely reduced and box office info added"
 * 2)  "/* Production */ alexa camera information is included in production, we dont have to include that in lead"
 * 3)  "copy edit and thnx for the edit red pen of doom"
 * 4)  "reduced lead section"
 * 5)  "/* Production */"
 * 6)  "/* Production */"
 * 7)  "copy edit"
 * 8)  "references"
 * 9)  "copy edit"
 * 10)  "Rv"
 * 11)  "/* Production */ please check main article"
 * 12)  "copy edit and typo"
 * 13)  "Rv low quality grammar and edits"
 * 14)  "Rv"
 * 15)  "/* Box office */ Rv"
 * 16)  "/* Overseas */ Rv"
 * 17)  "references"
 * 18)  "/* Overseas */"
 * 19)  "/* Box office */ Rv amateur edits, poor grammar"
 * 20)  "/* Production */"
 * 21)  "infobox"
 * 1)  "/* Overseas */"
 * 2)  "/* Box office */ Rv amateur edits, poor grammar"
 * 3)  "/* Production */"
 * 4)  "infobox"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted 1 edit by Rkorkayy (talk) to last revision by Nizil Shah. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Budget of Baahubali */"


 * Comments:

Being extremely disruptive, reverts to older versions of the article (in the process, many other good edits are undone) and refuses to co-operate. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Please take care not to edit war yourself, even when dealing with disruptive editors. Remember that 3RR applies to any reverts on an article within a 24 hour period, regardless of the content being reverted. S warm   we ♥ our hive  04:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Marchoctober reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Both editors warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 671578582 by Kailash29792 (talk)Restoring Unexplained deletion of content, please see talk page"
 * @Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.


 * @Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.
 * @Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.


 * 1)  "restoring deleted sources by User:Kailash29792"
 * @Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.


 * 1)  "Undid revision 671577818 by Kailash29792 (talk) thats not an rfc to be followed, keeping information in the infobox is most common on wikipedia, continue as is and discuss on talk page"
 * @Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.


 * 1)  "Undid revision 671555611 by Kailash29792 (talk)restoring deleted information from infobox"
 * @Kailash29792 Please read and understand the comment I made, I also encourage you to look at the diff I undid, so the comment makes it clear.


 * 1)  "Undid revision 671427500 by Kailash29792 (talk) Please review the edit again you have deleted information not present in box office section."
 * @Kailash29792 this edit is restoring sourced information you deleted as seen in this diff below:

@Kailash29792 You have violated the rule see below
 * diff
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 Diffs attempting to hide information which is well sourced @Kailash29792 @Kailash29792 diffs Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: @Kailash29792
 * diff --> Deletes budget information from infobox of article
 * diff1
 * diff2
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * diff1
 * diff2
 * diff3
 * diff4
 * Comments:

Making edits against consensus, and refuses to co-operate. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 Edits are not against consensus !! The discussion started only today and you are already talking about me going against consensus? How can consensus be obtained within a day ? Also you deleted well sourced information from the article and started this section on talk page to hide the information, you have to first attain consensus to remove the well sourced information and not to add which was already present on the article, pretty much every movie/film has the budget information in the lead and infobox you are trying to go hard against normal way of wikipedia to hide information.

Please see inline responses for other questions he raised.

Marchoctober (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Both editors are warned for violating 3RR. This usually results in an automatic block but I am going to choose to refrain in hopes that you will both cease reverting in order to avoid being blocked. Feel free to ping me if either party reverts again. S warm   we ♥ our hive  04:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)  S warm   we ♥ our hive  04:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Discuss this in the talk page.. Wiki main page is not for this kind of discussion. I request all to refrain from vandalizing this page further before reaching any consensus."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 671520835 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) Then let wiki remain as it is till we reach a consensus at discussions page."
 * 3)  "biased view, sources simply citing a self published report in violation of WP:NEWSORG"

Despite being a brand new user, they discussed this on my page and threatened me with "escalation" while also stating something so blatantly untrue about consensus the page had to be locked down: diff. I believe this is a blatant sock.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* WP:NEWSORG */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Potential material for plagiarism section */ cite"
 * 3)   "/* The Plagiarism Controversy section over which Edit warring took place on the main article */ note"

by for one week. S warm  we ♥ our hive  04:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Jobas reported by User:Calm321 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts and edit-warring:


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


 * Comments:

user:Jobas keeps on reverting sourced materials on the Mia Khalifa page. He has not as of yet engaged in talk page discussions and has been reverting any attempt to state the religious identity of the person in question. The controversial nature of the figure warrants details into her religious identity and the reasons have been stated here. Wikipedia is not the place for religiously motivated censorship of this nature. Calm321 (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * there is no edit war going here he only picking my edits. The reference of AND  of 15.7 it didn't arrived to the level of The three-revert rule (An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.). and the same of  (the edit was in 2 july) and  and  (the edit in 3.7), the user is trying here and in Arabic wiki here which was refused, he try to pushing and including irrelevnt information (already included once) in this article espeacially that this figure is a porn star and stated that she is not practicing so pushing her religion in evey place in inside the article has no sense.--Jobas (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * S warm  we ♥ our hive  04:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:12.180.133.18 reported by User:Nixie9 (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   Jul-15 08:38
 * 2)   Jul-15 07:36
 * 3)   Jul-14 11:52

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Anon abandoned discussion, in which he made progress, and has unilaterally deleted and reverted 3x within 24 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixie9 (talk • contribs)


 * Nixie9 has non-legitimately reverted my constructive, reasoned edits. I have explained my edits on R. H. Quaytman's talk page. Here is a list of three reverts by Nixie9, who has also falsely accused me of having bad intent. If you read my comments on the talk page, you will see that my edits (such as trimming unnecessary information about her child, and deleting illegitimate sources like a Facebook picture link, a *comment* on a blog, and links to other Wikipedia articles) are legitimate and improve R. H. Quaytman's article.


 * 1. 13:10, 14 July 2015‎
 * 2. 15:58, 14 July 2015‎
 * 3. 12:31, 15 July 2015‎


 * -- 12.180.133.18 (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Anon's legitimate edits were accepted, and amusingly, in the 3 diffs above, he includes my small change implementing the edits he argued for. However, Anon has repeatedly implemented/reverted additional, personal bias edits, deleting the relevant and well sourced content under discussion. <font color="EE6633">Nixie9 <font color="Blue">✉ 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The following is false about my edits: "personal bias edits, deleting the relevant and well sourced content" 12.180.133.18 (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "unilaterally" edit warring; there are always at least two parties involved.  you reverted as many times as the anonymous editor did, so if we're going to call hir behavior edit warring, then yours was as well. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Raw-WikiEditor reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Declined )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "this is a village page not a constituency page"
 * 2)  ""Vin09" u say there are no temples, no theaters, no schools and these are errors? and u want other websites as reference? I live here. I respect if you some data, not removing it."
 * 3)  ""Vin09" stop acting like a fool. Add data if possible but don't spoil this page."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Gampalagudem. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Gampalagudem. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Gampalagudem. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* Final warning */"


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


 * Comments:

I have revoked my case yesterday after User:Philg88 suggestion. But the user continues to give me unnecessary warnings, those do not have any reason. The user continues to add WP:POV and reverts my edits at Gampalagudem. Gave final warning directly for adding sourced info and removing junk like theatres etc., by me. Today the user referred to Tiruvuru and warned of WP:OR, but no where there exist such thing, as no such edit was made by me in the last 27 days at Tiruvuru page. Check warnings. I've clearly mentioned on his talk page about his errors and even the admin also assisted, he tries to blame me at User_talk:Philg88. Need intervention.--Vin09 (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I will deal with the matter on 's talk page. Philg88 ♦talk 11:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Wiki hamze reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "2 years ago, readers accepted to remove name of a unheard, new and  rare religion which is put among top well-know 3 religions. even nobody has heard it self!"
 * 2)  "you have not proposed an logical argument to put your rare and strange belief among major 3 ones. second, Mormonism is not a branch of Christianity, they have new prophet, just study a little."
 * 3)  ""first, 4-5 milion is a threshold that you defined, why that? second, it is totally wrong,  at least I know that mormonism has more population, third, I am sure that 99% of earth's population has not heard Bahai"
 * 4)  "I wondered how someone put a tiny unheard religious among top 3. You should have a good excuse to put it there, otherwise a lot of others deserve to be there."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Bahai, again */"


 * Comments:

They are removing certain content against consensus, the same content had been discussed earlier on the article's talk page and this user was a part of the discussion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . Favonian (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jackson's The Daddy reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alastair Cook. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Alastair Cook. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Alastair Cook. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated addition of POV edits, including the wholly inappropriate line "He has bravely slaughtered defenceless animals and posed proudly next to his victims." Only sourced to the Daily Mail, which isn't a reliable source, and they've made 0 attempts to respond, rather they've just reverted again and again. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious BLP violation. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 02:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Buswkycaveshottest reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Warned user)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 12:18, 9 July 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:37, 16 July 2015
 * 2) 16:48, 16 July 2015
 * 3) 17:43, 16 July 2015
 * 4) 21:01, 16 July 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:27, 16 July 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:31, 16 July 2015

Comments: User:Buswkycaveshottest ist likely a sock of User:115ash


 * . Alessandro, those are three reverts, not four, as consecutive reverts (your first and second diff) count as one. (Also, please use UTC times or — simpler — don't indicate times at all, as your local times can be quite confusing for people in other timezones.) That said, the user is certainly edit warring and ignoring consensus. They have already been urged to join the existing talkpage discussion — hopefully, they will. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC). Sorry, I misspoke; I meant to say, your first diff wasn't a revert. The "previous version reverted to" that you give isn't something the user reverted to — indeed it's your version. So, only three reverts. But edit warring, yes. Bishonen &#124; talk 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC).

User:Scytsari reported by User:Vanjagenije (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Take it to the talk page until a consensus is reached please. I believe he is an automated bot - no way he is reverting 1 second after me."
 * 2)  "Take it to the talk page until a consensus is reached please."
 * 3)  "Take it to the talk page or some other forum with your nationalistic agenda."
 * 4)  "Tired of these vandals/sockpuppets with nationalistic agendas, these people were all persian/tajik - common sense dictates such as well as academia"


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

There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about this exact issue (Talk:Tajiks. Scytsari is not participating, and those who do participate tend to agree that those images added by Scytsari should be removed.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * User openly says that he is not interested to discuss the issue on the talk page: .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  20:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Comment I came here to report both users, both User:Scytsari and User:Vanjagenije. User:Vanjagenije's reporting only User:Scytsari without mentioning their involvement doesn't look god, nor does trying to game the system by reverting three times in three minutes and then heading right here. User:Vanjagenije already gave the diffs of User:Scytsari's edit warring, here are the diffs of User:Vanjagenije equally intense edit warring,, , restoring to this version . Both users need time to cool off.Jeppiz (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment is very bad-faith. Scytsari made four reverts, while I made just three. WP:3rr allows three reverts. How can that be "equally intense". Even more important, I am the one who initiated a civil, argumented discussion on the talk page, while Scytsari openly says he does not want to take part in the discussion .  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think your action is even worse. Scytsari is an inexperienced user who fell into your trap. You were obviously baiting Scytsari; you revert three times in three minutes(!) and two minutes after your third revert you're here filing a report. I've never seen so obvious baiting, and it's completely unworthy of an experienced user. Extreme edit warring, baiting an inexperienced user and deliberately gaming the system. I definitely think you should be blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. After his first revert, I left him ameesage on his talk page informing him about the 3 revert rule . So, he knew that he might be blocked, yet he reverted three more times. He may be inexipienced, I agree, but he at least knows to read.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I leave it for the reviewing admin to decide. You were edit warring and you tried to game the system. That's contrary to the spirit of 3RR, and of Wikipedie. I would have reported you both had you not already reported Scytsari. Nothing more to add in this discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I have fully protected the article (again), reviewing admins may still want to hand out block(s). --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm of the belief that Vanjagenije has his hands clean here. He did not violate 3RR; he was only acting according to the consensus reached on the the talk page - something which Scytsari did not participate it in as of late, despite his saying 'take it to the talk page'. Oops, I didn't see his posts on the talk page. Elspamo4 (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Elspamo4 is the user who started the edit war by reverting as soon as the page protection was listed and has performed the same edit four times in a week themselves. Jeppiz (talk) 08:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cthornley85 reported by User:General Ization (Result: Not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Duggar family */"
 * 2)  "/* Duggar family */"
 * 3)  "/* Duggar family */Keep my edit there."
 * 4)  "/* Duggar family */Doesnt need to be said exactly right. Keep it how I edited."
 * 5)  "/* Duggar family */"
 * 1)  "/* Duggar family */Doesnt need to be said exactly right. Keep it how I edited."
 * 2)  "/* Duggar family */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 19 Kids and Counting. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2015 */ comment"


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


 * Comments:


 * Clearly edit warring. However, this is a new user (account is a week old), and almost all the edits are on the Duggar page. It might have helped if one of the reverting editors had left a better edit summary explaining why the earlier version was better (grammatically, more specific, etc.) This editor might not even be aware of the 3RR rule (although now that  (the real one) has informed them of it, they have no further excuse).  I think this problem might go away now that the editor has been informed.  If not a slight block might make it more effective.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the editor still doesn't understand. Their response to this report was misplaced here and would indicate that they have missed the point.  I agree that – possibly – better edit summaries by reverting editors (me included, though well past 3RR by then) might have helped.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization  <font color="#000666">Talk   03:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also please note that their most recent reversion was almost an hour after my 3RR warning on their Talk page and 20 minutes after my more detailed explanation of the original reason why their edit was being reverted, so I'm not sure being better informed is really the problem here. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   03:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You could well be right, . But they are clearly confused. They responded to 's non-constructive notice on their own talk page, then respond to the edit warring in the wrong place. I just put a message on their talk page to reiterate your comment.  Perhaps that will help.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . Well they haven't edit warred but they have replied a couple of times since the above comments and it appears they really don't understand the problem at hand. It looks like it was explained thoroughly and in detail to them and if they can't understand the problem, there's not much choice besides a preventative block. However, given the fact that they've decided to quit the project in response to the complaints against them, there doesn't appear to be a need. If they do in fact return, and continue the edit war, please do reactivate this report, file a new one, or get in contact with me so we can address it. Thanks, S warm   we ♥ our hive  05:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Shame really,  really did give it a nice shot to politely explain things.   Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 13:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. Agreed there's nothing to do here for now. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"><font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   15:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:202.86.32.122 reported by User:Agtx (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid vandalism 672072530 by Glen (talk)His listed official page is on Twitter.  If twitter is ok then so is facebook."
 * 2)  "Undid repeated vandalism 671950778 by Agtx (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid repeated vandalism 671946873 by Aladdin Sane (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid vandalism 671944656 by Aladdin Sane (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid vandalism 671936990 by Ebyabe (talk) Longterm Link Removed by Vandal."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2015 */"


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


 * Comments:

User has been warned about adding link to Facebook fan group and invited to comment on talk page, but continues to add link without discussion. Calls other users "vandals" for removing the link. agt x 02:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Blocked 31 hours by <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

User:JJMC89 reported by User:Iamahashtag (Result no violation )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.96.36.149 (talk) to last revision by JJMC89. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.96.36.149 (talk) to last revision by JJMC89. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.96.36.149 (talk) to last revision by JJMC89. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.96.36.149 (talk) to last revision by JJMC89. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by 86.96.36.149 (talk) to last revision by Andrew c. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Clear 3RR violation. Iamahashtag (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that the IP being reverted has been blocked, and is also suspected of sockpupetry. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverting sockpuppetry of blocked users is a specific exemption to 3RR. KrakatoaKatie 08:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sunboys0111 reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Artists with the most number-one songs */"
 * 2)  "/* Records and other notable achievements */"
 * 3)  "/* Artists with the most number-one songs */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Hot Dance Club Songs. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on Hot Dance Club Songs. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User has violated 3RR and reverted two editors a total of three times. Edit warring, ownership and refusal to explain actions in the form of edit summaries. Has been given warnings. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User has now made a fourth reverting against a third editor, see here. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b>  11:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:59.101.64.54 reported by User:General Ization (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 672302236 by TFBCT1 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 672301937 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 672301746 by TFBCT1 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 672301292 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 672300835 by General Ization (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 672300085 by TFBCT1 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 672298949 by TFBCT1 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 672283405 by TFBCT1 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of supercentenarians who died in 2015. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Clear violation of 3RR rule. However, having said that, the individual the ip is attempting to add might belong on the list. See THIS (although I'm not sure the source is RS).  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  18:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Miss Paris Slue reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Please note
 * This is not a classic violation of 3RR. It is however a report on a highly disruptive editor who has engaged on high-volume, long-term edit-warring across many Byzantium-related articles and who has also used IP socks to avoid detection. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. Please check also the contributions of the user dated 17 June and before.
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice. (TW★TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Long-term edit-warring disruption on multiple Byzantium-related articles changing the name of the Byzantine Empire to Eastern Roman Empire. After a lull of a few weeks started again today. The user has also used sock IPs to edit-war in the past. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Miss Paris Slue. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Swarm. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anytime, Dr. S warm   we ♥ our hive  21:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Bikersur reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672325689 by Dbrodbeck (talk) I agree. The section you restored is too long to stand on one loose source. I summarized previously. If you'd like to summarize in different manner"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 672245644 by Andy Dingley (talk) Again, the section was not blanked. It was summarized. Please review edits prior to reverting"
 * 3)  "the section was summarized, not blanked. it cannot exist as stands, given one non-major source repeated throughout"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* July 2015 */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Section blanking and other edits */"


 * Comments:

These three are today, but this editor has been edit warring for over a week. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  21:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Caperescientiam reported by User:John from Idegon (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672232622 by John from Idegon (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bear Creek High School (Denver, Colorado). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Talkback (User talk:John from Idegon) (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

There is discussion at my talk page diff and some education templates placed on his page (pretty much the entire page). I strongly suspect (see user contributions 138.86.176.123 that this relates to recent vandalism that got this IP blocked. John from Idegon (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to me that the IP that was reverting your vandalism reversions is this editor doing so anonymously. However, if they were doing so, I suspect they were trying to get back at you for unilaterally reverting their good faith additions to the article. Even if they were unsourced, unsourced content does not automatically require immediate deletion, particularly when added in good faith, by newcomers, on start-class, low-importance articles. You're repping WP:RETENTION on your talk page? Sheesh. Welcoming a user with a warning, making no effort to explain WP:V or WP:RS, deleting rather than tagging, leaving an unhelpful and condescending reply to them after they suggest you're not necessarily doing the right thing, edit warring just as much as they are, and then reporting them here. I'm not going to block this editor per WP:BITE and the fact that they have not broken 3RR. You know there's nothing wrong with being nice to somebody, explaining civilly what exactly the problem is and how they can fix it, and then maybe coming up with some sort of compromise or only deleting the content if they're unable to provide sources after being given an opportunity to get acquainted with the project and incrementally improve the quality of their contributions. They're not jumping in and disrupting Obama, they're trying to expand a stub on their high school that hasn't been edited otherwise all freaking year. . S warm   we ♥ our hive  22:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Whyedithere reported by User:Drmargi (Result: 72h)
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 user's talk page: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a habitual editor warrior who rarely engages in discussion. He's seen the removal of all character descriptions somewhere, decided that's the only way to do it, and is prepared to edit war it into place. He won't engage in discussion (notice his dismissive comment on the article talk page, and no response on his talk page.) This is going nowhere, despite his having been reverted by three (now four) editors. --Drmargi (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See also this treasure he left on my talk page, demonstrating his issues with civility. --Drmargi (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As explained at Talk:Hawaii Five-0, Whyedithere created List of Hawaii Five-0 characters by copying and pasting the character descriptions from Hawaii Five-0. He then deleted all of the descriptions from the article without any explanation as to why, or what he was doing, and was reverted by . Two hours ago Whyedithere reverted. This time I reverted him with an explanation, and explained why on his talk page, but while doing that he reverted again. Giving him the benefit of the doubt (even though he had waited less than 3 minutes to revert) I reverted him again, and left a warning on his talk page. That was ignored and he just reverted again. This time I headed to the article's talk page and started a discussion. His only contribution to the discussion was to say "You really need a life dude.". Since I opened the discussion he has reverted the article again,, posted inappropriately to Drmargi's talk page. blanked his talk page and gone quiet. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . This is, by my own reckoning, a lenient first block in spite of serious and ongoing behavioral issues with this editor. I did strongly consider an indefinite block but somewhat felt that we may not be at that point quite yet. I hope they can be persuaded to change their behavior and I definitely think that if they don't do so, the next block will need to be significantly longer if not indefinite. S warm   we ♥ our hive  23:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DurChalen123 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked 1 week)
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:

After being blocked for 72 hours for edit warring on Portuguese conquest of Goa, DurChalen came back with outdated sources, original research, and edit warring to force his opinions into Portuguese conquest of Goa, Ismail I, Yusuf Adil Shah, and Afonso de Albuquerque articles. DurChalen has now taken to using Britannica and writing his own opinion regardless of what the Britannica article actually says(original research). --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw the edit warring at Portuguese conquest of Goa and blocked for a week as the editor was blocked for edit warring on that article just a few days ago. I then saw the link on the talk page to this, but it should address all the problems. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  22:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:104.33.119.29 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Semi)
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:

User has been re-inserting preferred wording despite reverts from multiple editors, discussion at Talk page, edit-warring advisory, etc. Not sure whether page protection may be the better approach here, but they're clearly not listening so far. DonIago (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. The revert here has been made by more than one IP over a period of weeks. EdJohnston (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Butt888 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)
 * 12)
 * 13)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Newly-registered user was adding the results of Leg 3 that hasn't been aired in Canada and continuously added back that gives unsourced claiming. ApprenticeFan <font color="#919191">work 06:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . First of all, you didn't even warn this new user that their behavior was unacceptable until 5 minutes after you filed this report here. Second, you didn't notify this user that the report had been filed, which is required -- as per the box at the top of this page with the giant red text. This user is new, and may not be aware of the norms that their edits were violating. Filing a report without trying to actually converse with the editor is BITEy at best. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:SantiLak reported by User:Plbogen (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Edited Version:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plbogen (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm really frustrated that this user seems to want to police this article and insists on reverting all of my changes even when he admits they are good.
 * You are describing three reverts, one of which was more than 2 months ago. I haven't violated 3RR, this can be solved through discussion and instead of discussing it, you're just filing a complaint. - SantiLak  (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sick of fighting with you and your manipulation of the arcane corners of Wikipedia only to have you revert anything I do when I'm not looking again. I want an admin involved in this. Because I no longer trust you. Plbogen (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * – 3 days. Both editors have been alerted under WP:ARBGC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great so in three days he reverts my edits again like he did last time? Plbogen (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins are unlikely to put up with a long-running edit war. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. From the talk page, it is hard to figure out what the argument is about. It may be easier to try to solve the points in dispute one at a time. An WP:RFC or a WP:3O can bring in outside opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The dispute is that anytime I add to the article he reverts it. After the last incident, he waited until I hadn't been on wiki for a few weeks to revert it again. He wants the article to not only have no criticism whatsoever, but he also insists on putting back in broken citations, citations that don't match what is being said or misrepresent. The other editor appears to have a vested interest in skewing article to make the pro-gun crowd look more positive. When I cited other pro-gun blogs criticising this one and accusing them of theft of articles he declares that the other gun blogs are not reliable and that therefore the criticism is made up and deletes it. Plbogen (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From a reading of the talk page I don't get any of this. If the situation was really as one-sided as this you'd probably be able to get some admin action. You'd need to provide thorough documentation including all the diffs. Let me know once you've been able to collect the information. The tone of your comment does suggest that your summary may not be completely neutral. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Over three days I made some changes, cleaned up on referenced things, bad links and updated some information..
 * SantiLak without any talk discussion or attempt to fix the problems reverts all of my changes.
 * An IP user comes in and restores my changes with SantiLak reverting again and warns me about him and advises me to preemptively support all of my changes in a talk thread. To which SantiLak stalks him in to there.
 * I then do so.
 * No comment is made in response in a days time, so I figure the matter is done and don't look at it until yesterday and see that SantiLak reverted my changes again a month after the first incident.
 * SantiLak then does two more reversions.
 * So then I try just expanding the article without removing some of the uncited parts.
 * SantiLak does some editing (mostly gutting) and I add some more information, which he then also reverts.
 * He did some final revisions and I added so more content right before you protected the page.
 * I'm going to check back on the page when the protection expires and I fully expect him to revert it then. I've also let him know that I won't be disputing any of his changes made since this began (other than the reverts) and I happy for him to update (but not revert) as well as let him know I won't be further engaging him in talk. Plbogen (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Glider87 reported by User:Kbrose (Result: page protected, user blocked 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported: and

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terabyte&oldid=671017158

Previous version reverted to: good version:

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

Page: Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Editors User:Glider87 and User:Fnagaton have reappeared from a long hiatus to restart the battle about maintaining the ambiguity surrounding the binary prefixes, this has been discussed at length in the talk pages of MOSNUM and various articles, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Several editors have pointed out the obvious behavior of suckpuppetry by these two users. Glider87 continued the exact same reverts when Fnagaton reached 3RR level (included in the cited diffs) and fell silent. Glider87 all of a sudden emerged from a two-year editing hiatus. They are clearly sockpuppets of the same master.

My warning for edit warring on the user's talk page was removed with the edit summary "Reverting vandalism...":

This pattern of behavior by these two user accounts has endured for years, yet no permanent action has been forthcoming to stop the enormous amount of waste of other editors' time and effort that these users have created.

The linkage of these two accounts is also emphasized in this comment by Glider87 on Fnagaton's talk page: 

User:Fnagaton and User:Glider87 are WP:SPA single-purpose editors who only spring into action when an issue arises that is connected with the binary prefixes, or a new user uses them in an article. In addition their only other purpose has been to support edits by their master over the years.


 * and I did both because I have no confidence that the other editor will not resume the edit war. If you believe these two accounts to be related, WP:SPI is thataway. Otherwise, this appears to be a dispute over references, so work it out on the talk page. KrakatoaKatie 19:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:209.49.242.34 reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672629812 by Human3015 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 672630043 by CAPTAIN RAJU (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 672630267 by Human3015 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 672631537 by Staszek Lem (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Sardarji joke. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Edit War */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

IP is reverting multiple users. Adding purely unsourced matter.  Human 3015  knock knock • 20:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:87.21.184.6 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */Explade the page information inovations Selfie Shoes inventor by Miz Mooz mode use by sensore consists in or of cross lega modalite Shoefie click toe feet girls Selfie."
 * 2)  "/* External links */Explande Selfie and new future Selfie shoes Miz Mooz experiment inovation company"
 * 3)  "/* Group selfies */Explade page information best Sefie inovation future Selfie Shoes by Miz Mooz New York City"
 * 4)  "/* Group selfies */Explade pace Selfie"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User keeps adding, or attempting to add, external links with nonsense explanations. Warnings for vandalism were issued before 3rr warning. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Article semiprotected six months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:GabrielKuka reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )
This is not a formal violation of 3RR. However the reported user resumed his edit-warring on Pelasgians after he got blocked in May for the identical reason. The reported user also promotes Illyrian fringe theories by disruptively edit-warring across multiple Balkan-related articles. What's worse he promotes his fringe ideas without using any references.
 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Please note
 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Pelasgians are ancestors of Illyrians not greeks, otherwise why ancient greek scientists consider them Illyrians?!"
 * 1)  "Pelasgians are ancestors of Illyrians not greeks, otherwise why ancient greek scientists consider them Illyrians?!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Pelasgians. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Got blocked for 48 hours in May by for edit-warring on the same article. Started the identical edit-warring today on the same article. Promotes POV eliminating references to ancient Greeks and replacing them with Illyrians without bothering to even use any type of reference. His edit-warring disruption is long-term and across multiple articles. Also uses uncivil remarks to promote his POV. It also appears this user is campaigning for the WP:TRUTH. Typical case of tendentious editing. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the next step is an indefinite block. User has no interest in discussion but persists in unsourced fringe commentary about Illyrians. "Please do not change the information because Pelasgians are the ancestors of Illyrians not greeks!" Don't ask him how he knows these things, he just knows them. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. He seems to think he is the only one who knows the TRUTH and edit wars to promote it. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 01:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Janney is a leading expert on Lost Cause and she cites Catton as RS -- he's the most famous cicvil war historian"
 * 2)  "Catton"
 * 3)  "/* top */ quote"
 * 4)  "the article should state what the critics complain about--no  need to Announce the Truth here"
 * 5)  "/* top */ neutral phrasing please"
 * 6)  "restore links--no showing on talk page why there is a problem--all deal with the topic ofthe article"


 * Comments:

Warned: VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Notified: VQuakr (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * True enough-- i got caught up in a 6-way edit war involving four different sections of the article  and was carelessly hyperactive. My apologies.Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Rjensen is warned he may be blocked if he reverts again at Lost Cause of the Confederacy without first getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Jjgoatin reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672516008 by Spartan7W (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 672642453 by NeilN (talk)  I need a SOURCE for where he attended college"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672642453 by NeilN (talk)  I need a SOURCE for where he attended college"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672642453 by NeilN (talk)  I need a SOURCE for where he attended college"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672642453 by NeilN (talk)  I need a SOURCE for where he attended college"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2015 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "copied from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Kasich&curid=3358923&diff=672651601&oldid=672642680"


 * Comments:

Note I copied 's talk page post to this article's talk page. However the old Talk:John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016 was a redirect so Jjgoatin would have still seen it. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Also edit warring here. Note POV and talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't help that Jjgoatin is continuing his edit war on this page. (See history).  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 03:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:CFCF reported by Ozzie10aaaa (Result: No blocks. Discussion returned to WPMED)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

Page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine Diffs of the users reverts
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diffs of attempt to talk to individual
 * 
 * 

Notified am asking for a warning /temporary block,based on Edit_warring thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 


 * One of those diffs is the archiving of a notice concerning Wikimania 2015 - which ended three days ago. Why exactly do you think it needs to remain on the noticeboard? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * your referring to #2 in the archive process the same post of #1 and #3 was contained (wikimania post was not issue, when the archive was placed the one im concerned about (that was reverted 3 times was reverted as well)...(specifically "neurons/NIH" is the post title.)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am willing to go with just a warning, but all editors should please respect Edit_warring--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * They should also respect WP:NOTFORUM. It might have helped if the disputed post had actually explained why it was relevant to WikiProject Medicine. You don't appear to be either suggesting that it is relevant to an existing article, nor proposing any new article, and it isn't entirely clear that the subject matter even falls within the scope of the project: "medical and health content". Quite possibly it might be at some undetermined point of time in the future, but for now experiments on controlling rats by wireless-operated brain probes seem to be firmly in the realm of fundamental neuroscientific research, and comments about " reinvent[ing] the remote control toy car as the remote control mouse" are well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Which doesn't mean that contributors violating WP:NOTFORUM may not also be held accountable. And incidentally, you'd copy-pasted material from the article you linked without marking it as a quotation - which might possibly make WP:NOT3RR relevant here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * again I am referring to this 3RR link Edit_warring thank you (that is not correct the quotation  was present in this form...neurons)...with the appropriate link--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Italics aren't quotation marks. And you really aren't helping your case - you haven't given any explanation as to why you think the WikiProject Medicine talk page is an appropriate place to be posting comments about remote control mice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * that comment was made by another editor you should ask them (before CFCF 3RR).........BTW are you an administrator?AndyTheGrump --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

, I have no axe to grind with you and I would hope this discussion could be closed before any of us makes a fool out of ourselves. I understand your wish to have these articles seen by a wider audience, but there are better fora for that.-- CFCF  🍌 (email) 20:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * as is indicated in the upper left hand corner I informed you twice, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Since CFCF is already reported I'd like to raise a slow edit war they're involved in at Electronic cigarette aerosol CFCF adds 19:35, 7 July 2015 <&Blank> CFCF reverts removal 19:39, 7 July 2015 (WP:NPOV) CFCF re-adds 16:03, 13 July 2015 (Reverted to revision 670723632 by QuackGuru (talk): I think you'll find the opposite. (TW)) This was the talk at the time (4 against 2 for, CFCF Blank comment point to WP:Hatnote) CFCF amends Vapor -> Smoke 16:03, 13 July 2015 <&Blank> CFCF Re Adds 13:10, 16 July 2015 <&Blank> CFCF re Adds 15:33, 16 July 2015 (Reverted to revision 671706248 by CFCF (talk): Consensus holds this should be here. (TW)) This was the talk at the time (only 4 new comments, two from me, Two from QuackGuru) CFCF re-adds 14:30, 17 July 2015 (Vd) ''This was the talk at the time (only 2 new comments) CFCF reverts 15:45, 22 July 2015 (The dab link should remain) CFCF reverts 19:53, 22 July 2015 (Then let us leave it at the most stabil version) 6 Reverts to force inclusion of disputed content he added in 9 days, never more than 2 in a day but it has all the hallmarks of a slow edit war 4 other editors have removed it in that time. SPACKlick (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Further evidence of this editors behavior reverting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest this discussion be closed. This carries no standing, as is clearly evident from the previous case which was brought at WP:ANI by . Also I have no idea where you are getting your for/against numbers from. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 21:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * the editor who posted the evidence of behavior above, is showing the reverting behavior--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Issue of whether or not this constitutes edit warring aside, I also feel that WP:NOTAFORUM should be read by Ozzie10aaaa, as several posts in recent times appear unrelated to this wikiproject, or wikipedia in general. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * of course 3RR is what is being discussed (though I agree with Mathew Ferguson, this was the wrong approach 3RR  is not correct)...BTW CFCF has posted a link asking for help apparently ,,,is that allowed?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally lets discussion on the talk page at WT:MED Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Recent battle groundish behavior by CFCF on another article


 * CFCF added an NPOV tag to the article Sex differences in psychology without explanation, and without discussion on Talk page. There have been no recent edits or Talk page discussions that suggested the need for an NPOV tag.
 * I removed the tag and suggested discussion on the Talk page.
 * CFCF restored the NPOV tag. No explanation was given for the restore.
 * NFCF added a section to the article talk page, simply titled "NPOV," and added: "This article uses a number of old or primary sources to explain differences in sex/gender that do not exist."
 * I responded to CFCF's claim: "That is an over-broad statement, and it is factually incorrect.  First, let's not rehash our older discussions (see above [on the Talk page]).  Second, if you wish to challenge a specific finding or topic, please do so, and include references.  Before placing (or restoring) a NPOV tag, please wait for discussion and consensus here on the Talk page."  I again removed the NPOV tag.
 * NFCF restored the NPOV tag yet again, without waiting for further discussion or consensus on the Talk page.
 * Another user chimed in on the Talk page and asked "What current, secondary sources are available on this article topic? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
 * NFCF gave no response to this user, and, so far, has not responded to my comment on the Talk page.
 * In response to WeijiBaikeBianji's query, I added a list of relevant and recent secondary sources.  NFCF has not responded to that.
 * Despite no support for an NPOV tag, NFCF placed an NPOV tag on the article three times in one day, each time without an explanation. That may not technically be a 3RR violation, but...
 * This pattern of editing by NFCF is not collaborative, but, instead, has been rather battlegroundish. Memills (talk)
 * User:Memills I am seeing three edits over a day with talk page discussion here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is what I stated above. Although technically not a 3RR violation, it comes close, and, the pattern of editing is battlegroundish and non-collaborative.Memills (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Memills I am seeing three edits over a day with talk page discussion here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is what I stated above. Although technically not a 3RR violation, it comes close, and, the pattern of editing is battlegroundish and non-collaborative.Memills (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem. --Ronz (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given this, might User:Doc James, or another admin, consider re-opening this case? Memills (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the above rises to a significant level of concern. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc, you closed per not 3RR and that's absolutely right but 3RR is not the only way something can be an edit war. "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.". I think this merits looking at for the fact that CFCF in some cases Reverts repeatedly without discussing to seek consensus or seeking dispute resolution. SPACKlick (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears CFCF has been edit-warring in The Pirate Bay since 11:30, 13 June 2015, ignored and still is ignoring WP:EL and the ELN discussion, and didn't even join any of the discussion until after I made the comment above. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * CFCF as responded admirably to my concerns . I think we'll get some consensus quickly now. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:*sammy* reported by User:Blaue Max (Result: malformed report)
User:*sammy* started an edit war on Algerian War, he pushed his point of view and broke a consensus established several times here and here without trying to reach a new consensus despite being asked on the talkpage. He acts similarly and on the exact same subject than banned user Historian Student (and its numerous sockpuppets), so it's possibly another case of sockpuppetry. Blaue Max (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * KrakatoaKatie 03:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DogukanOdaci reported by User:Heimdallr of Æsir (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
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]
 * 5) [diff]

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

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

I warned him both in the Turkey page and in his User Talk page:

Comments:

Long-term edit-warring disruption in the Turkey article. The user has also received warnings from other users for his disruptive edits in the Northern Cyprus article. He keeps changing/reverting the GDP numbers in the infobox without making a logical explanation for justifying his changes. This behavior amounts to trolling. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * for disruptive editing. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:DogukanOdaci continues the same disruptive edits in the Turkey article despite receiving a 24 hour block. Heimdallr of Æsir (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Truth only 1 reported by User:Ogress (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Provide evidence and then make change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kachhi_(caste)#Shakya"
 * 2)  "Yeah you take it to talk and stop warring. Stop misleading."
 * 3)  "This sentence "Kachhi community of North India adopted "Shakya" surname" is misleading. Any addition on wiki must be by evidence not by whim or bias."
 * 4)  "Removing the first line. Please provide a reliable evidence and then feel free to revert it back."
 * 5)  "Cannot find any evidence that current people in India/Nepal have adopted the surname falsely. This article needs detailed profiling about Shakya in modern times."
 * 1)  "Cannot find any evidence that current people in India/Nepal have adopted the surname falsely. This article needs detailed profiling about Shakya in modern times."


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


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


 * Comments:

User:Natsume96 reported by User:onel5969 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

In addition, he's made several edits (and revisions) on the 2 other pages I listed above, based on the assumption that this is a valid nickname.


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Natsume96

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

This is obviously a good faith edit by Natsume. The issue is they do not seem to understand the nature of a reliable source (either that, or I don't!), nor the 3RR rule. I came across this situation while doing my daily Stiki patrol and the Pingas dab page came up. When I investigated whether or not this was a valid change, I came across both the other articles. He reverted changes rapidly, and was less than civil in his discussion on the talk page, so I began this report. I waited a bit, as it seemed to have calmed down, but then he reverted twice more (last two above). In addition he incorrectly posted edit warring tags on my talk page and 's talk page. Several editors have attempted to explain to him, but he does not seem to want to engage in a dialogue.

Comments:


 * They have way exceeded 3RR and are repeatedly leaving the same warning/threat on my talk page, even after repeated deletions. --<font color="#666666">‖ Ebyabe talk - Health and Welfare  ‖ 15:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . Favonian (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:12.125.1.78 reported by User:A guy saved by Jesus (Result: Blocked)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (also assuming ownership of article with this diff)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (not article's talk page, but user talk page)

Comments: This user has repeatedly added the Houston Astros to the list of teams that Scott Kazmir has played for, despite the fact that Kazmir has not yet made his Astros debut. This goes against established WikiProject Baseball practice and is therefore disurptive. I would also like to note that they have been making the exact same type of edit repeatedly on Aramis Ramírez. They have never used an edit summary with these reverts and have not responded to talk page comments either, despite my several attempts to explain to them that this type of editing is unacceptable.

--A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Mostly per this diff where he asserts he is free to do whatever he wants, regardless of consensus at the WP:BASEBALL project. There was also an edit war at Aramis Ramírez. EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Abhiram895 reported by User:Magentic Manifestations (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User already warned multiple times by myself, User:LeoFrank and User:Freakmighty in User talk:Abhiram895

Comments:

Long-term edit-warring disruption in the Visakhapatnam Airport. He keeps changing the airport to international and adds airlines/destinations without sources repeatedly.He is playing with the article vandalizing it. Already warned for disruptive edits to articles Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Pune Airport and Vijayawada Airport. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Abhiram895 is warned against making any further unsourced changes to airport articles. For example, he keeps changing Visakhapatnam Airport to assert that 'International' is part of its name, while a move discussion on the talk page rejected that name in 2014. You must get consensus on talk before trying to make any further name changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:HardstyleGB reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672977525 by Ogress (talk) edited with another words, don't edit my CORRECT editions because you want, thanks."
 * 2)  "I've added the source which says that it's the own language of the Valencian Community. The source it's official website of the Spanish Senate."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 672977616 by HardstyleGB (talk) This edition is BAD because another user was editing it so my last edition just WENT TO NORMAL... Don't revert my own work if it has references."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 672977315 by Ogress (talk) No, it's not any incorrect information. Also, there aren't any grammar mistakes. "although it can be referred to the catalan language" is correct in English"
 * 5)  "I've improved better the intro of the article. Valencian is a language spoken in the Valencian Community and it's the own language of the valencian region."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672977315 by Ogress (talk) No, it's not any incorrect information. Also, there aren't any grammar mistakes. "although it can be referred to the catalan language" is correct in English"
 * 2)  "I've improved better the intro of the article. Valencian is a language spoken in the Valencian Community and it's the own language of the valencian region."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New introduction */ reply"


 * Comments:

I was also going to make a report on the IPs that reverted Valencian in turns, and while I obviously can't show that those IPs belong to this user, he was the one who initially introduced the controversial edit, and also the one who reverted back to it after multiple warnings to the IP users to avoid doing that and discuss on the talk page instead. I think even if it not proven to be sockpuppetry (I am aware of an investigation on this being ongoing), the user is engaging in edit warring: as evidence of maliciousness, I'd like to show his latest revert summary where he falsely claims that I had neglected to add corroborating sources to the talk page before editing. I have gone to great lengths to make sure I linked to the exact diff that showed my talk page changes. This cannot be attributed to mistakes. LjL (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. HardstyleGB wants Valencian to be called a separate language, and not be considered only a local name used by Valencians to refer to the Catalan language. He reverts the article to enforce that opinion, trying to use some quotes from the Spanish Constitution (not scholarly work by linguists) as proof. I'm also semiprotecting the article due to my suspicion about two IPs that are echoing the same edits as HardstyleGB. Hardstyle removed from this noticeboard Ogress's comment that an SPI had been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/HardstyleGB. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ogress reported by User:HardstyleGB (Result: Filer blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 672977315 by Ogress (talk): This is ungrammatical. take it to the talk page."
 * 2)  "rv: grammar, incorrect information)"
 * 1)  "rv: grammar, incorrect information)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Near violating the three-revert rule on Valencian. (TW)" this is not the warning but the second diff from above, repeated. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  20:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New introduction */ reply"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on User:Ogress talk page


 * Comments:

This user kept reverting my changes because he wanted. I've added trustworthy sources (a link to the Spanish Senate official website) while this user kept and kept reverting my changes. Then, I've defended myself in the talk page saying what I'm editing (I only added a phrase to the article) and another user kept reverting my changes. This user also has threatened me with things like "If you'll keep editing you will be blocked/banned" while he reverted my changes because he wanted. I am involved in the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Valencian&action=history) and I've added my reasons to make the edit: the only thing that changes it's a new phrase which I've added.

Also this user accuses me to use another different IP to make reverts while my Wikipedia account was always logged in my computer. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valencian&action=history In the history of the article you can see that a lot of unidentified users edited this article, while he accuses me to be the user with a IP starting with 41.*** while my IP starts with 151.***
 * I fail to see edit warring or violation of 3RR. The Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page and the Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on User:Ogress talk page do not actual link to attempts to resolve the dispute or to discuss with me on my talk page.


 * I edited the page twice because it was an unsourced edit in incomprehensible English, then tried to talk to you on talk:Valencian about your broken English addition to the page. This is not edit warring. I also did not threaten you, I informed you that you can be blocked for edit warring, and repeated this information when you started yelling on the talk page. "Then this user added to my talk page the "stop hand" image saying that "don't violate the 3 revert rule although your account can be banned" and I mean really, I mean for real ?" Yes, for real, your edit warring can get you blocked. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I edited the talk page of the Valencian article to prove that my editions were legit and they are correct with a trustworthy source. Then, you could make something better with your time and stop reporting users because you don't agree with them. Now you reported me to "sock puppeting" whatever... do something with your life, ok ? As for example improve Wikipedia, not spending your time in this things. As I said before my IP starts with 151 and I've made different editions on Wikipedia with my own IP but talking with you is like talking with the walls. HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 22:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)


 * I don't know if one of you two is the person editing (and repeatedly reverting) now from various anonymous IP addresses, but if it is, that should stop. If it doesn't, I will request locking of the page from anonymous edits. This should be discussed further on the talk page instead. I have added a reference to the official Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua stance on the matter on the talk page, and hopefully that should clear things up. LjL (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reported for sockpuppetting; I have not edited the page since 10:25 pm yesterday (UTC−7) and do not support the addition of the ungrammatical material that is being spammed there. I'm fine with protection since the user is also misreporting me for edit warring and apparently socking. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash!  21:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You were reverting my changes without reasons so yes, you were doing a bad use of the website. Also you can grow up and use your time to make better things. Sockpuppet investigations/HardstyleGB take a look at it ;). Anyways, the "comments" box are for comments related to the report. HardstyleGB User_Talk:HardstyleGB 23:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC +1)
 * Result: Filer blocked per another report. The article has been semiprotected due to the likelihood of IP socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

User:100.38.85.114 reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 673039582 by Carniolus (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 673039271 by Carniolus (talk) the originals official insta acc. and it isnt fake I WORK on set"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 673038438 by Carniolus (talk) it is an interview and look on the instagram acc in the tble read she is there"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 673027091 by Carniolus (talk)movie pilot is very relible and it seems real as the cast can verify it"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 673013080 by Callmemirela (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 672951034 by Callmemirela (talk) she is listed that she is playing aurora."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Originals (TV series). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* July 2015 */"


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


 * Comments:

It should be noted that the IP has also edit warred on The Good Dinosaur with the same user (not me). Callmemirela  {Talk}   &#9809;  17:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Was going to report this user when I noticed this was already open. Has reverted at least 5 more times since this report is filed. Finally engaged on the talk page, albeit it in a pretty uncivil manner, but I don't think they understand.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 23:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

– by User:NeilN for block evasion. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Jemima West. EdJohnston (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Blackknight12 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Blackknight12 moved page Ellalan (monarch) to Elara (monarch) over redirect: Join the discussion now then."
 * 2)  "Blackknight12 moved page Ellalan (monarch) to Elara (monarch) over redirect: Most common name"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* title */ how dare you"
 * 2)   "/* title */ reply"
 * 3)   "/* title */ reply"


 * Comments:

User's misbehavior is unilateral PAGE moves against consensus. He moved the page and *then* offered to discuss it - against a consensus that lasted since 2009, which he took part in, and in the wake of an edit war by a sock over the issue of the page's proper nomenclature. It hasn't been 24 hours since that edit war. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 09:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Move protected the page until 21 July. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Blackknight12 reported by User:Copperchloride (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:

Comments: Persistent disruptive editing. Unilateral Reverts of a 4 month-old edit without discussion. Violation of 3RR. User's recent splurge in Edit warring also extending to other articles Ellalan (monarch). --<font color="##0000FF">CuCl2 (chat  spy acquaint) 08:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * recently decided to move the page unilaterally against a long-standing consensus in the wake of a sockpuppet edit-war on the subject less than 24 hours ago. He did so by posting this after doing exactly what he claims was done to the page... unilaterally moving the page against consensus. He was involved in trying to get the page moved during the 2009 consensus as well. I have no idea why he is trying to move the page to another language form, because he has not discussed it. This behavior is completely inappropriate, and for someone who has been editing since 2008 it is inexcusable. Ogress <sub style="color:#BA55D3;">smash! 09:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly I think the 2 ANIs against me should become the one as it is the same thing. Secondly I was no where near that sockpuppet edit war, that has nothing to do with me.
 * I have been involved with this article since I have been here and never have I vandalized it, or intend to. I have been in many discussion pertaining to this article and I have been clear as to my intensions. Also I have not broken any 3-reverts rule violations. There was a discussion in 2009, which resulted in no consensus (as remarked by admin User:SpacemanSpiff) and the issue can up again in 2014 with no consensus. Later in 2015 Copperchloride moved the article (a controversial one without a requested move) hence my reasons for reverting it back. I may have acted a bit rash but I think it is wrong and unfair for Copperchloride's moved to be considered valid in the way that he did. Below is a history of the moves upto April 2015--Blackknight12 (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ellalan: 8 March 2006‎ - 19 July 2006‎ - Clozapine (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,399 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Ellaalan to Elara (King): Ellaalan is not the common name.)
 * Elara: 19 July 2006‎ - 22 April 2008‎ GlassCobra (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (4,653 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Elara (King) to Elara (monarch): WP:MOS)
 * Ellalan: 27 October 2009 - 4 November 2009‎ Tamilstyle (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,701 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Elara (monarch) to Elalan (monarch): The right name)
 * Elara: 4 November 2009‎ - 5 April 2015 SpacemanSpiff (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (6,722 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Elalan (monarch) to Elara (monarch) over redirect: User has been moving pages without consensus) (undo | thank)
 * Ellalan: 5 April 2015‎ Copperchloride (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (14,265 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Copperchloride moved page Elara (monarch) to Ellalan (monarch) over redirect: Discussion pertaining to related section in talk page; Original name of the monarch) (undo | thank)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:111.95.123.152 reported by User:331dot (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Passenger */ Oripay Pussy need protection from Cambridge Bay ?"
 * 2)  "/* Passenger */ Hey Oripay need additional protection ?"
 * 3)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 4)  "/* Passenger */ Hey Oripay are u really bunghole Filipino kid !"
 * 5)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 6)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 7)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 8)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 9)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 10)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 11)  "/* Passenger */"
 * 12)  "/* Passenger */ Hey Oripay if u stop disturb Indonesian airport I will end this game but if not keep continue"
 * 13)  "/* Passenger */ What's ur answer Oripay ?"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Clark International Airport. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Not entirely sure what the dispute is but it seems unrelated to the page itself; IP user doesn't seem to have replied to talk page posts and is trying to debate the issue in the edit summary 331dot (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I wander administrator needs to semi protection from airports seens and then already activate protection from mactan Cebu airport. Oripaypaykim (talk) 10:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hoewever, I suspect they will be back under another IP. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:XyZAn and User:179.210.105.123 reported by User:SPACKlick (Result: No action)


There has been an ongoing edit war at Chris Froome between an IP editor and User:XyZAn that I stumbled into on a pending edits review. XyZAn was reverting without edit comments excepting "reverting IP fail", and "rv irrelevant red link".
 * XyZAn: 19:40 18 July, 12:46 20 July, 08:31 21 July, 13:59 21 July, 15:22 22 July, 8:57 23 July, 12:30 23 July, 12:34 23 July

The only discussion XyZAn engaged in across that period was Aahahaha move along pathetic IP in response to a talk page warning for unconstructive edits at 15:23 on the 22 July and then joining a discussion about the edit on the Ip's talk page at 12:34 today in which they opened withI agree with, you are adding nothing of value to the article, are being disruptive to existing editors and are not even part of the cycling wiki project. David Kinjah is NOT a notable cyclist, he does not fulfil the notability guide so thus does NOT need linking. the conversation is hard to link as the IP has removed comments they consider attacks.

The IP's edit comments include "rv vandalism","rv idiot fail" in response to rv IP fail,"obviously not irrelevant. stop editing disruptively.","unexplained unnecessary edit, with spelling errors","rv pointless edit by disruptive user","no reason to remove it)"," rv persistent vandalism"," yet again, no explanation given. pure vandalism" and "rvv" Again there was no talk page usage to discuss the reverting until 12:30 today.
 * 179.210.105.123: 18:09 18 July, 00:41 19 July, 22:59 20 July, 11:42 21 July, 23:12 21 July, 03:30 23 July, 10:45 23 July, 12:29 23 July, 12:33 23 July, 13:14 23 July

Could someone take a look and deploy appropriate warnings? ''Note: While I was typing this was added to the users page, don't know if that means anything. SPACKlick (talk) 14:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)''

Here, for the record, is the disgraceful history of this dispute: nothing whatsoever to do with content, but simply someone with an account feeling it their right to be pointlessly obnoxious towards someone without one.


 * I made a fairly small edit, removing the judgement-laden and verbose "arguably Kenya's only elite cyclist" and adding a link to the as yet non-existent article about said cyclist.
 * the user reverted the edit without explanation.
 * I restored the edit.
 * the user reverted, again with no explanation, but with a personal attack: "reverting IP fail"
 * I restored the edit. I also left the user a warning.
 * the user deleted the template, and reverted the edit again, this time with the bizarre summary "rv irrelevant red link".
 * I restored the edit, and left the user a second warning.
 * Denisarona reverted the edit, and then restored it two minutes later, with no explanation (about 90% of this user's edits are reverts and they are rarely if ever explained, but that's a whole other story).
 * the user reverted the edit, again with no explanation, and again with a personal attack: "fix ip fail".
 * the user then requested page protection, claiming "since July 10th multiple IP edits which are causing BLP issues regarding the topic of doping and lack of evidence". Checking the history, I found four such edits; one on 14th, two on 15th and one on 18th.  The request for page protection made on 21st July was evidently spurious, and was simply intended to gain the user the upper hand in their little game.
 * The page was not semi-protected as the user wished, but instead pending-change protected
 * I restored my edit, and it was accepted by a third party. I left a third warning.
 * The user then sought pending change reviewer status, claiming "Would be helpful to keep on top of BLP issues". Thus far, the only edits they have accepted have been their own, to Chris Froome, starting with a badly spelled partial revert of my edit.
 * They responded to my warning with another personal attack: "Aahahaha move along pathetic IP"
 * They continued to revert without ever bothering to leave a meaningful edit summary:, ,
 * Next, like a small child asking their mother for something that their father refused, they tried again to get the page protected, falsely claiming "persistent IP vandalism".. The request was declined.
 * They made one more unexplained revert.

So, there you have it. 9 reverts by this person, not a single one accompanied by an explanation; multiple personal attacks; several false accusations of vandalism; two spurious requests for page protection; and a spurious request for pending change reviewer status to try to get the upper hand in their stupid little game. If they had any reason for reverting, other than to disrupt and provoke, they'd have said it in an edit summary, wouldn't they? Or on the talk page of the article. But they didn't.

So who comes out of this having been given extra editing privileges, encouragement to keep on disruptively editing and a free pass to violate the 3RR? And who gets accused of "unhelpful edits"? Well done, User:SPACKlick; well done. 179.210.105.123 (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think, as you can see from my edit history, that I don't feel or project any idea whatsoever about "owning a page". I've had edits reverted without explanation so this cannot always be the case. The article was perfectly stable until stage 10 of this years Tour de France, where Froome took the stage win. Since then there's been enough disruptive activity that User:BaldBoris requested protection for the page. It got denied and so this week I simply re requested it with the intention to try stop the doping related edits. See the last edit and revert made on the page- it's a small disruptive edit an ip made insinuating Froome is a doper and another editor made the reversion. SPACKlick then placed a template in your talk page which you immediately took as a personal attack. That was clearly not the intention or the reason for the template being posted. SPACKlick even said as much informing you that the template was the 'closest they could find'. Myself, Densarona and BaldBoris them asked you to stop on your talk page, giving you more information on why we were asking, but you continued to edit, but you took all that as a personal attack. Rather than open up a two way reasonable dialogue where could have placed the red link against the notability guide to see nice and for all if he passed. So I took a step back, as SPACKlick recommended.
 * In final, you can see that through my whole editing history none of them have been disruptive and all have been constructive for the benefit of the various pages. To claim anything to the contrary is just plainly incorrect. You too have violated 3RR, been blatantly obnoxious, made snide remarks in edit summaries and made false claims of vandalism. To claim everything is a personal attack on you when editors make contact is also plainly incorrect. XyZAn (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Grow up. You had no interest in "two way reasonable dialogue". And what's the point of your lengthy rambling about people making doping claims? You reverted with no explanation 9 times. There have been only 5 edits inserting doping claims in the same period, not one of which you dealt with. You posted nothing on the talk page; you explained nothing in edit summaries. Your sole intention was to disrupt. I am sure you found it great fun. 179.210.105.123 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 I don't have to deal with the doping claims in order to protect a page against future edits, I was aware of them and took it from there. My sole intention has never been to disrupt (as is clear from the rest of my edit history, something you seem to be ignoring), from my POV (some may suggest there's a bias on it, but that is not my intention) it seems to be that if anyone challenges, questions or criticises (even constructively) an edit you've made you reply with an angry outburst, a prime example would be the comments left on User:SPACKlicks talk page. That editor has clearly tried to explain and clear up the actions they made, they've been the calm mediator throughout and all you're replying with is angry over the top messages. XyZAn (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. There was no edit warring between these two users in the last 24 hours. Both the IP and User:XyZAn are encouraged to use the talk page. The discussion so far on this noticeboard is longer by far than any previous talk about these questions. But a review of the comments here isn't reassuring about the diplomatic skills of either party. "Your sole intention was to disrupt", or "Aahahaha move along pathetic IP."  EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course. It would be absurd to clearly tell people who revert for no reason at all that such behaviour is disruptive.  I've never seen anyone warned for such behaviour, and I think it's quite likely that I never will.  On the other hand, people getting warned, attacked, harassed and blocked for complaining when people revert for no reason is standard.  179.210.105.123 (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Zozs reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Reverting Altenmann
 * 2)  Reverting Altenmann
 * 3)  Reverting Bobrayner
 * 4)  Reverting Altenmann
 * 5)  Reverting LinkinPark
 * 6)  Reverting someone
 * 7)  Reverting someone


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  I'm not bothering to give you one diff, just see the Talk:Marxism–Leninism (its large)


 * Comments:

User's misbehavior and its dominating the article, making it impossible for user to change the article... Also, he's pressing forward a WP:FRINGE theory. He's using barely reliable sources to claim that Marxism–Leninism was invented by Stalin personally, that its non-Marxist, non-communist and non-socialist and claiming that Marxists-Leninists used "Marx and Lenin's words being merely used as justification, selected opportunistically and taken out of context" ... First, this is not the dominant narrative anywhere—not within the communist movement (or within Marxists circles) and not the dominant narrative in historical writings.... He's use of sources to support controversial information should also be criticised; using sources like History for the IB Diploma: Communism in Crisis, "Г. Лисичкин (G. Lisichkin), Мифы и реальность, Новый мир (Novy Mir), 1989, № 3, p. 59 (Russian)" (which is the only thing he could find), ""State capitalism" in the Soviet Union, M.C. Howard and J.E. King" (a Trotskyist source—he uses one Trotskyist article to state that all Trotskyist believe this and that..)... He also uses negative and emotional language; ""Marxism-Leninism" also contains outright deviations from Marxism and Leninism's core principles, such as "socialism in one country"—outright deviations sounds highly negative....

I've currently reverted back to the version before Zozs began changing the lead ..

While we don't need to block him, the main problem is that his edits and behaviour is making it impossible for all the other users to fix the article. Something has to change! ... I suggest protecting the page, reverting back to the the pre-Zozs, pre-me, pre-every user involved in this conflict lead (as I have done), so that all of us can begin to discuss and fix this article (I've currently reverted, as mentioned, to the pre-Zozs, pre-me internvention lead). --TIAYN (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * see Dispute resolution noticeboard–he's doing the same thing there too...
 * This is an entirely wrong description of my actions on the article. I never wrote that "Marxism-Leninism was invented by Stalin personally" - instead, "Marxism–Leninism is the political ideology adopted by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Comintern during Joseph Stalin's rule," is wrote, which is backed up by several sources within the references section. Furthermore I also never wrote that it is "non-Marxist, non-communist and non-socialist"; I only documented the criticism some groups of Marxists have about the "Marxist-Leninist" ideology, according to reliable sources. "State capitalism" in the Soviet Union, M.C. Howard and J.E. King" is not a Trotskyist source; it's an independent source documenting the arguments of certain groups of Marxists who believe the USSR to be state capitalist. That is why "Other types of communists and Marxists have been critical of Marxism–Leninism. Trotskyists argue the Marxist–Leninist states never established socialism; others argue they established state capitalism." is wrote. Trotskyists, in particular, have argued that the USSR wasn't socialist; certain groups of non-Trotskyist communists have argued that it constituted 'state capitalism'. Obviously, these are relevant views which are represented as certain groups' criticism. I never wrote that was the "truth" - I only wrote that's the critical views of certain political groups, so any accusation of "fringe" is absurd. As for "Marx and Lenin's words being merely used as justification, selected opportunistically and taken out of context", that's actually a neutral statement which does not concern the criticism made by Marxists, but rather the view of the the cited historian on how Marxism-Leninism developed, which I would say represents the majority scholarly view, but if you dispute this, you could bring some sources in the talk page.


 * I could spend some time here describing TIAYN's entirely illegitimate behaviour for years accross several articles, but I fear it would be an entire waste and it is obvious to anyone who has ever had to "cooperate" with him in an article anyway. Zozs (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And of course, TIAYN reverting to the old version, destroying dozens of revisions on the article, when "my" version was the final result after long debates on the talk page a few months ago is completely illegitimate. Zozs (talk) 13:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There has never been consensus, only participants who have given up on discussing with you... Have you ever noticed Zozs that users (other than me) constantly drop by the talk page to criticise you're lead? Maybe theres a reason for that... --TIAYN (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What you portray as "Given up discussing with me" actually means they failed to bring any reliable sources in which would justify the removal of the currently written information, then quietly stopped edit warring to push their POV through after being disproven on the talk page. It's not "my" lead, it's the article's lead. And obviously, criticism of articles' leads constantly occurs in talk pages, especially involving controversial subjects like this. When a fundamental change is proposed from what is currently the "final result" of discussions, only occurs when the proposed lead is better than the current lead as judged by Wikipedia guidelines involving quality of sources, mainstream scholarly view, etc. Zozs (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Zozs is warned that they may be blocked if they make any further edits at Marxism-Leninism that are not supported by a consensus on the talk page. Zozs seems to be acting like a a defender of a FRINGE or small-minority viewpoint. Zozs should work patiently to win over the other editors on Talk. If he can't do so, he should let the argument go. I'm also leaving them a notice that Marxism-Leninism is covered by the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBEE. An example of Zozs' style of argumentation can be seen at Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Nyth83 reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:DOB is rather subjective and does not really apply here"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 673156325 by Jax 0677 (talk) no such rule"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 673159618 by MrX (talk) sources are fine"
 * 4)  "/* Members */ restore middle names per PROPER source already in article."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 673206736 by Aoidh (talk)re-add ages as relevant and sourced."
 * 6)  "Sources are proper and wikipedia is nothing BUT trivia. Restore information to state before FOUR different editors removed the SAME information. (with sources added)  Please reach a consensus in the discussion on the talk page."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 673235973 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) Revert vandalism DO NOT REMOVE SOURCED INFORMATION WHILE THE DISCUSSION IS ONGOING"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:EW"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Echosmith. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Birth dates and middle names */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * Related discussions: here and here.
 * The disputed content is under discussion on the talk page. Every one of those adove edits were an attempt to restore content to the article that was repeatedly removed by FIVE different editors, some even after the proper sources were added.  I claim exemption under WP:NOT3RR rule 4 regarding continual vandalism, as the repeated removal of the same content by numerous editors in what appears to me to be an attempt to avoid the 3RR rule themselves, constitutes very disruptive editing. None of the content removals should have been made by anybody after the second revert.  Nyth  63  03:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, now there is a SIXTH editor that has again removed the same information. There really does not need to be more contributors to this edit dispute.  Nyth 63  03:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  contribs ) 03:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Truth only 1 reported by User:Ogress (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "standard choice of words"
 * 2)  "Provide evidence and then make change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kachhi_(caste)#Shakya"
 * 3)  "Yeah you take it to talk and stop warring. Stop misleading."
 * 4)  "This sentence "Kachhi community of North India adopted "Shakya" surname" is misleading. Any addition on wiki must be by evidence not by whim or bias."
 * 5)  "Removing the first line. Please provide a reliable evidence and then feel free to revert it back."
 * 6)  "Cannot find any evidence that current people in India/Nepal have adopted the surname falsely. This article needs detailed profiling about Shakya in modern times."
 * 1)  "Cannot find any evidence that current people in India/Nepal have adopted the surname falsely. This article needs detailed profiling about Shakya in modern times."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shakya. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * <font color="#cc0000">w <font color="#00cc00">L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 07:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Gumercindogracindo reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

No discussion on the article talk page as this is a very simple case of a user repeatedly adding a wikilink when the same article is already linked just above. This user has made this edit something like 13 times overall. He/she has been blocked twice before. Bretonbanquet (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - 3 months. Editor has been blocked twice before and edits at 2015 MTV Europe Music Awards were also problematic. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Atlantacity reported by User:Müdigkeit (Result: Stale)
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: '''none '''

Comments:

Please also evaluate the others user's conduct- no 3rr violation, but surely edit-warring. Müdigkeit (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See also Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm, quite likely to be a WP:COI involved and the editor is likely a serial sockpuppeteer. Original account  is currently indefinitely blocked for serial sockpuppetry, meat puppetry and a WP:COI.  Previously used Twitter account to ask supporters to edit her article to attack Buiter and promote Mees.  WCM email 10:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Has now breached 3RR. WCM email 10:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Had already breached 3rr, but you, WCM, are also edit warring. There was no reason to continue editwarring. If someone partipiciates in an editwar, you should report and wait; and definitely not revert and continue the edit war!--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Addition: The talk page has been used, now, and in addition to the actions done to the user breaching 3rr, the article might need protection to ensure a discussion. I also strongly encourage the other reverters and editwarriors to use the talk page, to explain their reverts.
 * Now using an IP sock to support her edits, alleging bias in editors and lacking WP:AGF. See .  WCM email 14:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Silber47 reported by User:139.179.230.2 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Revision reverted to: 08:52, 25 July 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:27, 25 July 2015
 * 2) 18:16, 25 July 2015
 * 3) 03:16, 26 July 2015
 * 4) 06:35, 26 July 2015

The user insists on removing the word "Kurd" from the article, reverted at least four edits that added it back. Two Austrian IPs also seems to be involved in performing same reverts at the same time period, (05:14, 25 July 2015, 05:26, 26 July 2015), could be the same person trying to evade the ban.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I warned the user that if he wants to remove sourced information, he needs to explain his reasons. He doesn't dispute the truth of the information, but just insists on removing it, mentioning something called "Wikipedia's ethic standards". Looking at his contributions, he did the same thing repeatedly throughout the day.--139.179.230.2 (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What a nonsene, I have removed "gayKurd" by one of his plenty dynamic IPs and he threatened to report me. He is using different IPs for some sorts of violations and vandalism on this page, I am just removing vandalism from this page. Why someone want have (exception "gayKurd student", ->vandalism) "ethnic Kurd student" is for me not clear, because it is not relevant and the change was not made by me, its clearly low ethic, I have repeated only. And this edit war with dynamic IPs is a violation. --Silber47 (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

"Looking at his contributions, he did the same thing repeatedly throughout the day.--139.179.230.2 (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)"

I am just removing vandalism from this page throughout the day.--Silber47 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you want some change, please use talk instaed of dynamic IPs and stop violating this page. --Silber47 (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Some of my edits on this page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Talk page: Stop hiding and producing disinformation. --Silber47 (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your accusations are absurd. If I was a vandal whose interest in Wikipedia consists of adding "gayKurd" to articles, why would I bother to report your violations of Wikipedia rules? I merely noticed that you removed information from article that was sourced, without showing any reason. I added the info again, and asked you to show a reason if you deem it necessary that the info should not be mentioned in the article. Instead, you reverted it again, which, together with your activities earlier today, constitute 3-reverts rule violation. Even if it wasn't, your style is still very problematic by the way: you cannot remove sourced information without citing any reason. The fact that you also helped with reverting some vandalisms does not absolve you.--139.179.230.2 (talk) 08:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it was you, but you threatened me after I reverted this change and you acussed me of vandalism. This was clearly not vandalism. And I don't trust you. There some IPs acting like you (very likely you). --Silber47 (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your accusations are not true, I always added why I am reverting. Quite unlike you. You have problems with "sourced information", that doesn't mean you can add everything, only because it is sourced. --Silber47 (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This user is carrying forward his edit war without relevant explanation. --Silber47 (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Martin IIIa reported by User:Stormwatch (Result: Page protected – consider dispute resolution)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

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

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

Comments:

Martin IIIa wants to move "Shock Wave" (the game's original title) to "Shockwave Assault" (the game's expanded version). This would be like having a page for Street Fighter II Turbo, but not for the original Street Fighter II. Anyone who has a clue about video games can see the absurdity of this move. --Stormwatch (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Protection duration is 6 months because of the very slow moving nature of this dispute. When the dispute is resolved, any admin has my explicit consent to unprotect the page. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:188.78.134.205 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Page protected)
Page:

Page: Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This IP has been range-hopping and edit warring over numerous articles, with the intent of removing the word/s Basque. Subsequent "discussions" with said IP have revealed their dislike of any sources stating Inigo Arista was Basque. After posting 4 sources, the IP said none of the sources were viewable, thus unverifiable. I linked all 4 sources to which the IP stated "Please no more lies".

Said IP now appears to be stalking user:Iñaki LL's edits.

Not sure a block would be a viable option(not that I would complain), but page protection over the pages involved would be gratefully accepted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - all of the pages listed above. Full protection was used because the content dispute raised by the IP editor is not obviously invalid.  If the IP editor continues to be disruptive (esp. re: the wikihounding) let me know and I will rangeblock as necessary. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DrFleischman reported by User:Bdell555 (Result: Wrong forum)
Page:

User being reported:

NOTE: this concerns a request for a cease and desist re false allegations of edit warring and editing against consensus. So this is NOT a 3RR report. I realize this is accordingly an unconventional request. I'm looking for a solution to the problem here without reference to the Wikipedia bureaucracy and think that in this case it would start with third party comment(s) about this allegation. I believe we are at otherwise at an impasse.

I think this is appropriate forum for it to be established for this editor what edit warring is and is not. I've asked this editor before to cease with the edit warring accusations on my Talk page but they continue elsewhere. The latest charge is "BLP violation, edit warring, see talk - please achieve consensus before restoring content." GIven that this is the nth time this allegation has been made and it appears likely to continue to be made, I would like a finding of fact as to whether this true or not, and if not true, that there be a statement by a third party (such as an admin) to that effect.

This is the second time I've been accused of edit warring despite the passage of least 10 days between my editing of the article. The latest "offence" of mine is 1RR in 13 days. And the facts behind that edit are that at least eight (yes, 8) editors have concluded that The Sunday Times may be cited here. This was pointed out in detail on the article Talk page to DrFleischman but he reverted anyway with the edit summary allegation at issue, with his Talk page response to my observations about the state of consensus limited to "I disagree". There was no Talk page response at all to my or the comments of others the previous time, 13 days earlier. The edit at issue here uses language specifically proposed by and seconded by. I asked DrFleischman to respond to the comments of these two editors and he continues to refuse to do so. The other half dozen editors here who do not agree with DrFleischman that the The Sunday Times article may not be cited in the body of the article, even with attribution and with an observation about the nature of the sourcing, include, , , , and. If I have not correctly identified the views of these editors they can comment here. I would add that since changed "The Times" to "The Sunday Times" Prokaryotes is arguably a ninth editor who does not agree that the Sunday Times article may not be cited.

By my cursory count just one editor, in a comment warning against "uncritically sampling from the establishment's doctrinal system", agreed with DrFleishman that there is a BLP violation here and I accordingly submit that it is false to claim that I am editing against consensus. To his credit, DrFleishman has not reacted to this apparent consensus by declaring that "too many nutcases (are) patrolling this (Talk) page" like he did last time his view was the minority view. The accusations against me of edit warring and editing against consensus are in my view being levelled as a substitute to substantive Talk page argument. Were the accusations to be seen as unsubstantiated, I believe this would compel DrFleishman to engage substantively with myself and/or the other editors I have identified. A response more creative, and more accurate, than "BLP violation, edit warring, against consensus" may accordingly be hoped for.-Brian Dell (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As demonstrated by this complaint, Brian regularly posts walls of confusing text and then demands that his fellow contributors respond point-for-point. That simply isn't a realistic expectation after the 10th or so wall of text. In this case, I don't understand if he's here for a content dispute or a conduct dispute. If this is about content, then it's the wrong place. If it's about conduct, then I'd like to know what I've done wrong. Yes, I repeatedly accused him of edit warring, but I never accused him of violating 3RR, and of course edit wars can be slow-moving. I suggested that if he thought consensus was in his favor he should request for close, but unfortunately he came here instead. WP:ANRFC is the appropriate place for this dispute, IMO. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I wrote that before realizing we're at ANEW, not ANI. I haven't been accused of edit warring so this is clearly the wrong forum. If he doesn't like me accusing him of edit warring he can tell me that on my user talk, and if that doesn't satisfy him I suppose he can ask an admin for help "educating" me. But taking this to the ANEW is a waste of everyone's time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Pracar reported by User:Sabbatino (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ''He doesn't take it to the talk page and just edits as he wishes. I wrote him to take it there, but nothing happened.''

Comments:

User doesn't try to take it to the talk page. Adds dubious sources which have nationalist flavor (I believe such things don't belong here). He gives absurd reasons for his reverts and calls almost everything "censorship?". Furthermore, he is engaged in edit war with various users over the subject.

I listed only the most recent reverts which were done today. If you need more details, you can look at the logs or ask me for help in providing more information. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Pracar has made fifteen reversions in under three hours, as of half an hour ago (see here). He has been asked to discuss his concerns at the talk page but has refused to do so. Many of the user's edits break the format of the page, adding poor grammar and syntax, and are fringe POV. He cites as a source a file from a dubious web site that requires one to download a pdf file; I have not risked downloading the file, but it appears to be in Russian and is an inappropriate source to cite. His editing is highly disruptive, he will not engage in discussion, and he has violated 3RR many times over.  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that any series of consecutive edits counts as one revert for the purpose of 3RR, so the editor in question only performed 7 reverts, not 15. (I'm certainly not saying 7 is acceptable, but it's important to be clear on the specifics of a bright-line rule.) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * for violating 3RR; block length due in part to severity of disruption.
 * Your editing behavior is severely out of line with Wikipedia community standards. You cannot just revert whenever you want, nor should you be calling editorial disagreement "censorship" and "unexplained removal" when people are clearly explaining their edits in edit summaries and on talk pages.  You are notified that this page falls within the discretionary sanctions topic area of Eastern Europe, and that any further disruption in this topic area will almost certainly lead to further sanctions.  The required alert message has been posted to your talk page. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Tyler Gonzalez reported by User:Callmemirela (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "→‎Is Lana a wrestler?: new section"


 * Comments:

This discussion caught my attention at WP:ANI I reverted this user twice for removal of maintenance tags. They have now reverted 4 times and will climb that mountain to 5, 6 and 7. They recently may have breached the 3RR line for the addition of wrestler to Lana's description in the lead. Following some back and forth with the user, WikiLeon added the maintenance tag and opened a section on the talk page to discuss the matter. However, it lead to this. Callmemirela  {Talk}   &#9809;  06:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to the filing of this report, User:Tyler Gonzalez removed all of the disputed "wrestler" mentions from the article in question. I'm not sure if this is an "admission of a mistake" on Tyler Gonzalez's or not. But I thought I'd mention it, FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Padukati raju reported by User:Ricky81682 (Result: 24h)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Editor has been edit warring in numerous places to remove the film Baahubali: The Beginning from being considered a Tamil film.

Edits at Baahubali: and  and first at List of highest-grossing Indian films:

The editor does not seem interested in discussion and instead responds with rants

I ask the editor to join the talk page here. Instead of discussing it, the editor proceeds to do the following reversions.
 * 1)  (undo to make a point)
 * 2)  (undo which restores screwing up of table)
 * 3)  (undo which remove film again without discussion)

There remains discussions at Talk:Baahubali:_The_Beginning and Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films but the editor has not commented there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . S warm   we ♥ our hive  21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 672981332 by 2.242.45.13 (talk) per Talk page and WP:RS"
 * 2)  "this is per discussion and consensus on the talk page"


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


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


 * Comments:

Further, there is also the revert from 20:06, 24 July 2015 "rv. non-RS and OR per talk page". This user tries to press through his point of view for months now (I gave up a previous confrontation with him/her because of I was overhelmed by his/her "attack"), dispite several other views (given by serious citations) by other authors. Usually he/she refers to a "talk consensus" that has never been reached, but simply pushed through by his/her extreme high activity on WP. This user does not wait for answers, if nobody responds in 2 "few minutes" then he/she claims a consensus which euqals his/her view. Further he is extremely present on WP I often suspect more than one person behind this login. ZH8000 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Response Per BOLD, ZH8000 should present their reasoning on the talk page. Responsible editors spent quite some time on the talk page discussing the best sources for the speaking-population of German. There is longstanding WPLANG consensus for Parkvall (2010), and another editor made a convincing case for Ammon (2014). ZH8000 wants to replace the latter with an unverified source they got off the web. No discussion, no evidence that it is a RS, no reason to remove Ammon (2014). It would appear to be yet another case of cherry-picking sources for the purpose of population inflation. This is a perennial problem with language articles, where people often want to exaggerate their favorite language. — kwami (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * . As Kwami says, the reporter has not attempted to discuss the dispute or seek dispute resolution. There is no 3RR violation. S warm   we ♥ our hive  21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)