Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive289

User:71.82.105.171 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 1w)
User being reported:

What is the recourse with an anon IP who habitually does long-term edit warring, never bunching it up within a 24-hour period? As you can see at User talk:71.82.105.171, ever since this editor joined in June, he has been the subject of near-constant warnings from multiple editors for his disruptive editing. In particular, he was a history of the same consistently reverted edit, containing some POV nonsense term, reverted by at least six different editors at X-Men: First Class, as can be seen at:
 * 02:52, 27 June 2015
 * 20:36, 27 June 2015
 * 07:06, 29 June 2015
 * 23:02, 14 July 2015
 * 01:08, 15 July 2015
 * 03:10, 15 July 2015
 * 03:42, 15 July 2015
 * 03:02, 16 July 2015
 * 17:11, 17 July 2015
 * 17:39, 20 July 2015
 * 00:07, 21 July 2015
 * 18:19, 27 July 2015

The same ridiculous edit ... a dozen times in one month. Reverted by a half-dozen editors.

Never once has he replied to warnings on his talk page. And he is never, ever going to stop. He is gaming the system by staying under 3RR &mdash; which does nonetheless state: "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to 'win' a content dispute."
 * for the persistent edit warring and for other disruptive behavior. S warm   we ♥ our hive  21:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Alensmith reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Declined )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "did not removed terrorist"
 * 2)  "removed word terrorist as per consensus see talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 673329770 by Human3015 (talk) Don't do disruptive editing,dont revert against consensus see talk page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Welcome to the club, you should know this as a General Knowledge  */ new section"
 * 2)   "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Yakub Memon. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* You are on 3rr */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply to Alensmith"
 * 2)   "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply."
 * 3)   "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply to Alensmith"
 * 4)   "/* WP:TERRORIST */ reply."


 * Comments:

This editor has removed consensus matter from article for 3 times. You can see on talk page that there has been consensus for that word which was added by one admin. This page is getting daily thousands of views (7000-15000), this subject is under discretionary sanctions of IPA. Considering that he action should be taken against this editor. Human3015 (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also considering that revering 4 times is not necessary to take action against editors. Yakub Memon is going to be hanged in 3 days, so his page has been attacked by his supporters and opposers. Because he is in news these days, this page is getting record number of views and this editor is removing consensus text from the lead. Involved editor is aware of discretionary sanctions. --Human3015 (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have discussed argued and then edited.I removed the word Terrorist as per consensus among various editors.Only User Human seems to be pushing his POV by working against consensus see here discussion.Talk:Yakub Memon.Alensmith (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * . Alensmith, I looked at the talk page and arguing that there is consensus seems a bit of stretch with one editor on either side and one sitting on the fence. But, the bright line hasn't been crossed - yet. Perhaps you all should try to draw more editors into the discussion (post a note on WP:IN for instance?). --regentspark (comment) 21:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, I will make just one comment, yes we should bring more editors, but problem is that Alensmith is removing that word without resolving that matter, at least he should have been patient. He can again start same kind of edit war tomorrow. At least you protect the page. He declared on talk page that there is consensus to remove word "terrorist" from lead. You can read his comments on talk page. Now after your decision he will conclude that there is consensus from your side to remove that word. He is new and doesn't know policies. --Human3015 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Human3015, Alensmith hasn't yet crossed the 3RR line so there really is no action to take here. I've watchlisted the page. --regentspark (comment) 23:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Ajbutler reported by User:Richard Ye (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  - 4th revert in 24 hours

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

3RR violation by COI user. Article is subject of ongoing edit war concerning "controversy" section of a politician; User:Ajbutler is the campaign manager who is constantly reverting the inclusion of the section. On multiple occasions he has been warned on his talk page of the conflict of interest; each time he has not responded, reverted the change, and blanked his talk page. Richard Yetalk 03:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm merely putting the page back the way it was before the last page protection was put in place. The "controversy" continues to NOT be worthy of inclusion on the page. The issue was resolved months ago. /ajbutler
 * As I noted to you in one of my edit summaries when I reverted your content removals earlier this year, page protection on Wikipedia merely protects the current version of the page (unless there's defamation or other similar issues, see WP:PREFER) and does not reflect a ruling on what the correct version of a page should be. Protection is meant as a way for editors to cool off and discuss the contentious edits on the talk page, which you have consistently refused to do. Furthermore, violating the three revert rule for cases like this is only allowed in clear cut cases of vandalism, copyright infringement, and defamation (see WP:NOT3RR), none of which was the case in this instance. I also believe, since you've already outed yourself, that you've previously violated 3RR, but with an IP edit when you reverted me earlier in the year. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:301:77D2:15E0:E893:3F67:2257:E50 reported by User:General Ization (Result: blocked/protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You don't have "consensus.""
 * 2)  "It's "consensus." Learn spelling, please. Stop disruptive editing and vandalism or you will be reported."
 * 3)  "Proper grammar? I believe it's "demonym," not "denomym." The name of John Kasich's religion is Anglicanism."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on John Kasich. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This IPv6 is (based on behavioral evidence) related to, which has earlier today been editing disruptively over the exact same issue and who was recently (7/22) blocked for edit warring at that article.  General Ization  Talk   01:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Has previously used this address: in older vandalism  Spartan 7W   §  02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On further review, over the religion infobox parameter at John Kasich, was  who proceeded to, and then the IP returned to the article to war over the edit (diffs above).  I believe this (as well as the content of summaries) shows that the IP and the registered user are related, and I suggest for the purposes of this noticeboard all of the reverts be considered to have been made by the same editor.  General Ization   Talk   02:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now the IP has made the exact same edit. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And the IP as well, though I will point out that that IP does begin with a different range, but it could still be someone related to the others. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at this after all.  General Ization  Talk   04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All users and  Rjd0060 (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

MarnetteD repeated edit warring (Result: IP blocked)
KIOI KQIV etc etc etc. Kid whines and complains about material being poorly sourced when it comes from a related page within Wikipedia - pages I might add which get left alone.
 * User:
 * Page:

See my other post on the main AN board. I am 72 years old have been teaching and working in the entertainment business for over 50 years and am tired of having my work challenged by kids and bean counters who have zero direct knowledge of the topic at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.157.201 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 28 July 2015‎


 * Aside from this being malformed and incorrect anyone looking into it will need these links
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273 where this persons editing is discussed.
 * the current IPs talk page where I tried to explain things and was told that they would be happy to edit war to add unsourced info.
 * This looks like a WP:BOOMERANG situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:66.102.157.201 blocked 24 hours for promising to edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: User:66.102.157.201 blocked 24 hours for promising to edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:74.14.132.144 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  ""A long standing consensus"? of english people? What about to give credits to Québécois like the french wiki does? Stop the neocolonialism bullshit."
 * 2)  "First nation traditions are Canadian? Québec traditions are Canadian? Acadian traditions are Canadian? If you don't know what a culture is, at least, have some respect and don't make it yours."
 * 3)  "Poutine = Quebec dish now popular in Canada. Stop the cultural appropriation. Good to know that poutine is popular outside Quebec but Quebec gets the credits one that... like Texan cuisine or Louisiana get theirs. BTW Québec is a nation (2006 motion)."


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


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

Note that Bearcat made a comment there yesterday, after this edit warrior started up and was asked to come to the talk page, though it is an older thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Now attempting to engage on the IP users talk page, no luck yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Refuses to interact on talk page, edit warred after warning issued. There is an old discussion on the talk page that was added to yesterday after the warning was given, no dice. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * -- slakr \ talk / 02:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rockypedia reported by User:Eclipsoid (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Beauty pageants */ the "applause" break isn't part of the quote; other than that, this is fine"
 * 2)  "/* Beauty pageants */ reverting some pretty clear white-washing - they didn't dump Trump because he "made comments", they dumped him for these specific comments"
 * 3)  "/* Beauty pageants */ Per MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, over 40 words gets blockquoted"
 * 4)  "sorry, that quote is the direct reason, and cited as such, for the pageants being dropped from NBC and Univision. Revert again and it's going to an admin."
 * 5)  "revert edits by ThomasPaine1776 that are clearly intended to remove negative material and then bury those edits"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Mexican immigrants comments */ cmt"

My edits are attempts to restore sourced material that was clearly notable; two users (Thomas Paine1776 and Eclipsoid) have been consistently removing any material from the Trump page that could be construed as negative or critical of the subject, the material was there long before I restored it; I regard this as white-washing. Thomas Paine1776 has already been topic-banned from the Trump page. Also possibility of sock-puppetry there between the two, see User:Eclipsoid for this. My interest in the page is to prevent whitewashing, nothing more. Rockypedia (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Please also note the personal attack here:  Eclipsoid (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought my note to you was quite civil, actually, considering that you posted an ominous-looking "edit-warring" notice on my talk page without signing it. You've never forgotten to sign any of your other posts with four ~'s, was it coincidence that a "warning" was designed to look like it wasn't from you on my talk page? Regardless, I'm still trying to keep it civil, and I don't appreciate you attempting to frame my comments here as a "personal attack", when it clearly wasn't. Rockypedia (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You have funny ideas about civility. In your first contact with me, you accused me of trying to intimidate you; accused me of impersonating an admin; accused me of white-washing a biography; accused me of being a sockpuppet... then you pointedly told me to stop editing the article altogether.  I'm not sure how any of this was supposed to be helpful. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, none of those things are true. Let's take it one-by-one: (1) Your posting of a warning without signing it could certainly be seen as an attempt to intimidate. If that was an honest mistake, fine, but you didn't forget to sign anything else that you've posted. (2) see #1. (3) Your whitewashing of the Trump bio isn't an accusation, it's a fact, easily discovered by anyone that looks at your edit history. (4) I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet; I mentioned that it's a possibility, given the similarity of tone and editing done by you and Thomas Paine1776. Others will make that call. (5) I never told you to stop editing the article; I said that I'd rather see NPOV edits than the whitewashing that's currently going on. Rockypedia (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Both of you are reminded that this article falls within the discretionary sanctions on American politics articles. The required alert has been posted to your talk pages.
 * If I count your reverts by strictly following the letter of 3RR, you have in fact broken that rule on Donald Trump. Even without considering this a 3RR violation, it is borderline edit warring. Furthermore, accusing someone of whitewashing, of admin impersonation, and of sockpuppetry, is an egregious breach of AGF. Given that you are not editing disruptively otherwise, I do not see a need to block you (especially since the 3RR violation is nitpicking somewhat).  However, since this topic area is subject to sanctions to prevent widespread conflict, I urge you to remember to assume good faith in your actions with other editors, and to limit your reverts in this topic area to those absolutely necessary (perhaps even consider limiting yourself to only reverts that are 3RR exceptions).  Further edit warring or failure to interact positively with other editors may result in a block or a page/topic ban. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:91.9.122.67 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * This is Tobias Conradi, I've protected the page for a bit too. Let's see where the SPI takes us. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Clinicallytested reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked 3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 673653045 by SPECIFICO (talk) that's not a good reason - you need to put things in context on the talk page - I see bad faith"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 673646199 by LuckyLouie (talk) then you should reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 673637942 by Dbrodbeck (talk) harassment is punishable by law - the prominent view of WP:RS is unalignment thus why it's part of the Crime project (since 2010 by the way)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 673616699 by Kolbasz (talk) the WP:RS revolve around a purpoted crime - did you read at least the first sentence of the page? - quit this ridiculous POV pushing"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




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


 * Comments:

User has edit warred at this topic before. Reverted after warning given. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:CIRCUS. You are looking to change something that survived 5 years on wikipedia yet you are trying to make me appear as the one not respecting policies? In this case, to reach WP:CONSENSUS you are required to discuss properly: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions". I suggested in the edit summary what you are supposed to do: reach consensus on the talk page as per WP:VOTE. As per Electronic harassment, it is purpoted harassment as per its definition, not an illness, thus why it's part of the Crime project as it has always been (since 2010) and has never been part of the Psychology project. You guys have been tagteaming in order to elude the three-revert rule which means you're WP:GAMING, and are continously pushing an unverified point of view, and all these mean you are being disruptive which is such a no-no. Kindly avoid loosing my time, and start working toward building the encyclopedia. Clinicallytested (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war (which I thought you would have learned by now ], and, take your content dispute elsewhere. Thank you.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clinicallytested is at 5RR now and no sign of stopping. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * by User:Kuru. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was pulled away right when I blocked. Obvious reverts, increased the length over the previous edit warring blocks. As this is now a long term recurring theme, I presume the next block will likely be of an undefined length.  Kuru   (talk)  17:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Mabelina reported by User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Mabelina has edit-warred in the past on this article and has been blocked for it before. Talk:David_Cameron contains some specific background. An admin gave Mabelina a 'last chance' on 21 July regarding his edits on this article, and specifically warned that Mabelina that Twitter was an unacceptable source. Although Mabelina hasn't gone over three reverts this is outright edit-warring.

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

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

Comments:

Dear all, I have no wish to engage in Edit War (qv. User talk:Mabelina & User talk:This is Paul prior to this posting, and also at User talk:Anglicanus - I have no wish to drag anyone else into such any debate on Wiki matters, hence my earlier appeal for consensus on my Talk Page. I have now also posted messages on the David Cameron Talk Page and that of Brianann MacAmhlaidh in the hope of receiving an explanation as to the continued reversions of my edits (which I maintain are factual - and can prove accordingly - as opposed to Brianann's continuous unexplained and reactionary reversions. My view is simply that should Wiki wish to remain a reliable resource then it should be able to rely on authoritative sources. M Mabelina (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What I should like to know is how in the future to avert such constant reversions (without explanation) followed by the assertion that I am causing Edit War? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * – Continuation of the edit warring about noble ancestry of famous people that led to your last two blocks. You have managed to smuggle in your alleged coat of arms for David Cameron by putting it into linking to List of coats of arms of the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and the United Kingdom and then linking to it from Cameron's article, a page where another editor had previously added the contested coat of arms . You continue to lack consensus for the assertion that this is his real coat of arms. You were blocked for a month back in April. I think the next block should be indefinite. EdJohnston (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC
 * Fixed up my closure. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff full rv
 * 2) diff full rv
 * 3) diff full rv
 * 4) diff removal of added tags
 * 5) diff full rv

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

continued after the 3RR notice Staszek Lem (talk)

accompanied with personal attacks Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Close but BMK has raised the topic on the talk page. Perhaps it would be better to take the discussion there? --regentspark (comment) 21:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY DISAGREED Please reopen. BMK did not raise the topic in the talk page, I did. He shrugged it off and continued edit warring. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain your reasons. the editor is clearly disruptive and uncooperative for a protracted period. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * the filer is asking for further explanation, presumably wondering why you think it's "close" when it's an obvious 3RR violation, why you're telling them to go to the talk page when they're the one who has initiated discussion there, why you're suggesting BMK has "raised discussion" when it's clear they did not do so, and perhaps why an admin who has only visited this page twice in the past year would jump in on this report to quickly decline it, ignoring 4 older, open reports, without so much as passing warning to BMK for the blatant 3RR vio or the obvious personal attacks? This seems to be a reasonable request that I'm inclined to second. I like BMK too and I'm honestly not one to have a problem with other admins over giving some discretionary leeway (read: special treatment) to respected "power users" (read: vested contributors), but there's some obviously inappropriate behavior here that you have flagrantly chosen to ignore completely, without giving any reasonable explanation to the long-term editor in good standing who filed a perfectly legitimate report. S warm   we ♥ our hive  22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice to BMK has proceeded to make what appears to be either a thinly-veiled personal attack or an intentionally vague attempt at provocation or intimidation (still a vio of NPA). This is almost immediately after being completely pardoned for violating 3RR and making personal attacks. I will block BMK upon any further harassment of this editor or any further edit warring over this article. RP clearly chose to turn a blind eye to this incident but don't push it, BMK.  S warm   we ♥ our hive  23:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Swarm, the reverts are not clear violations (at least one spans more than one edit) and BMK had opened a talk page discussion to which Staszek had not responded. The diff you post is definitely concerning. Let me take a look. --regentspark (comment) 23:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's plain ridiculous. The numerous reverts are clear violations. A revert is a revert is a revert regardless how many my edits it spans. And now BMK is triumphantly frolicking in my user talk page. I have a sad feeling that I have to request a formal review of your actions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are numerous things to consider Stanzek Lem. BMK is on the correct side of BRD. You boldly made an edit. They reverted.. You reverted. They initiated a talk page discussion to which you should have responded before posting your request here. I agree it is much easier to request a block than it is to discuss things but the encyclopedia always benefits more from discussion than it does from block requests. --regentspark (comment) 01:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And you have to consider one thing: you got it all wrong. Check the timing and check what was happening. At first I tried to cooperate and every time I did a different edit. And EVERY FREAKING TIME it was reverted. Your reading of BRD is "Strike Two" for your qualifications of an admin. Where have you seen a guideline to trump a policy? Just admit your wrong and stop digging the pit for yourself. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * - This is a bit of a sticky wicket, isn't it? I won't go into the civility of the two editors, but I saw this and took a look at the article's history and was intrigued.  First, the way I see this, is that this isn't about a single issue, but goes back and forth regarding 4 separate issues: #1 - "see also" stuff; #2 - "tags" at top of article; #3 - "trimming" article; and #4 - "LA Times" reference.

Regarding #1, you have the following reverts:
 * SL #1
 * BMK #1
 * SL #2

Regarding #2, you have the following reverts:
 * BMK #1
 * SL #1
 * BMK #2 - It was at this point that BMK requested a discussion on talk page about the tags.
 * SL #2 - without bringing it to the talk page
 * BMK #3 - This would appear to be a 3RR violation.

Regarding #3, you have the following reverts:


 * SL #1
 * BMK #1 - BMK then tags the article with a major edit tag, and begins to edit the article, including providing sources.

Regarding #4, you have the following reverts:


 * SL #1
 * BMK #1 - It is at this point when SL opens a discussion on the talk page
 * SL #2

Finally, you have this edit, where a cn tag to was added to what appears to be an already referenced paragraph by SL.

While I don't take a position on the disagreement between the two editors, the violation of the 3RR seems to have been corrected by the later addition of references by that editor. Overall, you have one editor making 7 reverts (total), and the other editor making 5 reverts (total). Anyway, it was very convoluted, so I thought it might help to have an uninvolved editor simply summarize the chronology.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How, many, more, times does BMK get brought here about edit warring and incivility? This makes (at least) five times in three months.  has asked him to stop edit warring.  said that "this isn't going to fly in the future".   - do you have any further thoughts on this?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Lugnuts, no comment on BMK's history (which I am aware is checkered). But, I don't see this as a blockable issue. What I saw was a bold edit that was reverted and then not discussed by the reporting editor. That's not a good sign. The first diff posted above includes a revert that BMK did on an edit by the reporting editor that seems to have been done out of pique . Had they tried to discuss it, that would be different. But asking for a block without participating in a discussion initiated by the other editor is not something that should be encouraged. Much of what I see above is also more combative than is strictly necessary. I see there is a discussion - of sorts :) - in progress on the talk page and that, imo, is a better outcome. The option to block for edit warring (or disruptive editing) doesn't go away when a block request is declined. --regentspark (comment) 14:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:HORSE, but here is my final remark: by ingenuous spitting edits you can prove that any edit history is nothing but a revert war. And it is disingenuous to equate a wholesale revert with attempts of article improvement. I will only comment on the above breakout.


 * No. 4 - false interpretation as a "local" revert war:
 * 1-st was normal edit. related to very old piece of code. It is ridiculous to count it as a revert. Suppose I edit article 4 times, each time deleting a WP:PEAKOCK word. Your interpretation will automatically make me a rever warrior.
 * 2-nd single-click revert
 * 3rd was NOT a revert even by your ridiculous judgement.


 * No 3 - false interpretation as a revert war
 * 1st edit was a normal edit in response of the opposite part refusal to allow {cn} tags: Some unreferenced text, which was an opinion, not a statement of verifiable fact, were removed, in perfect accordance with policies
 * 2nd edit single-click revert


 * No 2 - this is outright ridiculous. I added first two tags. Then I agreed with removal of another one, which I agreed was unnecessary, and may looked as overtagging, and moved my comment in the talk page, per opposite party request, but I saw "refimprove" tag is absolutely necessary. I even did not think that an issue of policy about WP:CITE may be a matter of contention. But when the O.P. removed it again, I felt it became a matter of principle for the O.P. I left this dead horse.
 * no 1
 * 1-st: Normal edit
 * 2nd -single-click revert
 * 3nd not a revert even in the stretched imagination: I replaced a random "see also" list of links with an expanded (not removed) content: a link to the category, with a detailed explanation what is found here. Even the O.P. did not object.

As I see it now, I am is but a nuisance for BMK in his noble job of writing wikipedia, since my detailed rants in the talk page are left without comment. So I guess it was just a matter of principle to BMK to enforce his vision of the article, however sloppy it is now. So good bye to you all no more horse flogging, and I am self-imposing an interaction ban with BMK and his buddies, since, as I see nothing but grievance it brings to me. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry,, but I disagree. This particular incident was minor, but it comes as a much longer series of edit wars and a March 2015 block. 48 hours. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ed17, I have no objection to being second guessed (by you) but. if you note that this is a minor incident and that you're blocking BMK because of a pattern, then you should be blocking them for disruptive editing and not edit warring. Not only is this way overkill but it also rewards the other editor for calling for a block rather than joining the discussion. But no worries. Let's all just move on. --regentspark (comment) 20:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stop repeating blatant lies. In response to BMK's remark in edit summary I did start the discussion, explaining my usage of the "copyedit" tag. I did no comment of thecitation tag, because I cuold not imagine that a seasoned editor would object the most basic sikipedia policy, WP:CITE. And then I talked another one, in response to another revert. Look into the freaking talk page who is discussing and who is stonewalling. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Edit warring is one particular disruptive editing behavior and this block was specifically for edit warring, within the context of a larger, ongoing problem with edit warring. Not only is it not overkill, but it's pretty lenient for an editor who has multiple blocks for edit warring and totally on-par with what any regular editor would face. And why do you keep saying Staszek is in the wrong for not joining the discussion? As has been stated multiple times, and can be easily confirmed by glancing at the talk page, Staszek is the one who initiated the discussion and while BMK did participate in it, his participation included personal attacks. And, also, regarding the statement that BMK was on the "right side of BRD", that's utterly ridiculous in excusing an obvious 3RR vio (for the record, I do count 5 non-consecutive reverts), and it also goes against the overarching and universally-accepted principal that there is no "right side" in an edit war and thus being on the "right side" of anything does not excuse edit warring, with only pre-approved reasons being exempted. With nothing but respect, I would suggest that either you did not handle this report from an objective, policy-based perspective, or you simply need to brush up on edit warring policy if you're going to handle requests here. I don't say this because you used your discretion to decline to block, but because you declined to take any action whatsoever, your reasoning was out of line with both the reality of the situation, with policy, and with the common enforcement practices, you refer to this report as a misguided "block request" multiple times when it's a perfectly-valid edit war report that makes no request for a block, and you apparently didn't even investigate the situation because you're making claims that simply aren't true. S warm   we ♥ our hive  23:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cynocyno reported by User:SpacemanSpiff (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "His Original pic updated"
 * 2)  "Recent Pic of Kalam"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 673625363 by Dharmadhyaksha (talk)"
 * 4)  "Uploaded better pic"
 * 5)  "Recent Pic"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 673633430 by Dharmadhyaksha (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Copyrights */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on A. P. J. Abdul Kalam‎. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has been uploading webgrab images to commons and linking here, was told not to do it on his talk page, also been warned not to edit war, and has done two reverts since. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The images have all been deleted from Commons and the edit warring for that purpose has stopped here, so unless new issues come up, I think this can be closed with no action.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * per your request, but don't hesitate to reopen or re-report if necessary! S warm   we ♥ our hive  23:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:XenoRasta reported by User:Keri (Result: 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 673712571 by Keri (talk)Are we here to post information or to protect Subway's bottom line?"
 * 2)  "/* Advertising */"
 * 3)  05:25, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)
 * 4)  22:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Fogle */ notnews"
 * 2)   "/* Fogle */ typo"
 * 3)   "/* Fogle */ re"


 * Comments:

Slow warring by to insert edit against/without consensus. Suspected continuation of edit war using. Behavior clearly indicates that XenoRasta intends to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account and IP . S warm   we ♥ our hive  01:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:210.186.250.45 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 673639362 by Comp.arch (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 673447932 by Comp.arch (talk)"
 * 3)  "Even though Windows RT cannot be upgraded to Windows 10 Mobile, it is still the de facto successor of Windows RT"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Windows RT. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

After third edit, similar edit came from a different IP that I presume is connected. Source and statement failed verification. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:Dream Focus (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * This editor has a very long block history including many for edit warring.  They know better than this, and aren't too likely to stop.   D r e a m Focus  20:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This user was unblocked per a community consensus in August 2013. With the exception of one 1.5 hour block that occurred over a year ago, jps not been blocked since then.
 * A corresponding discussion is taking place on the talk page, which I have reviewed.
 * jps has brought this dispute to the appropriate noticeboard. This is a correct attempt at dispute resolution and not remotely "canvassing".
 * Per WP:LEDE, the lead section of the article should clearly summarize the content found in the body, and while it does not need to be sourced itself, its statements do need to be factual and supported by reliable sources in the article.
 * The corresponding sections of the article appear to be well-sourced and verifiable.
 * The edits being made by jps are appropriately reflected by and sourced in the article.
 * The other claim being made is essentially "not all crop circles are proven to be made by humans". While this is an understandable claim to make and it may be true (I want to believe), a convincing, verifiable case to support that argument has simply not been made. The content of the article itself already establishes the case for non-human explanations for crop circles being unsupported and fringe. Therefore, accepting the argument that there are credible, non-fringe alternative theories, or that it remains a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon, would bring the entire standing premise of the article into question. It would require significant reliable sources and a rework of the body of the article, which is quite clear in opposing the premise of those arguing against the inclusion of "crop circles are man-made" in the lede entirely (although the wording could be modified).
 * jps has violated 3RR. He is strongly advised not to violate it further as there are no applicable exemptions. However, given the context that his edits are clearly supported by reliable sources along with the manual of style, and that the opposing points of view are relying on unsubstantiated claims and fringe theories (despite these theories being popular and capturing the public's imagination), a block here would be nothing short of unjust bureaucracy. Edit war aside, he's clearly acting in line with policy here whereas the other parties are not. . S warm   we ♥ our hive  00:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So he can violate the edit warring rules if you agree with what he is saying? Reliable sources cover various natural explanations for some crop circles, they not all done by humans.  Crop_circle   D r e a m Focus  01:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's not that I agree with what he's saying, it's that I have observed, in my capacity as an impartial administrator intervening in this dispute, that his edits are supported by community consensus as written in the MoS and policy, as I've explained above, as opposed to your attempted removal of his content based solely on unsubstantiated claims and fringe theories. Therefore I've chosen to warn rather than block him. Nowhere do I say he can violate edit warring rules, in fact I stated the complete opposite. However saying the same thing over and over again does not change the fact that you've provided no evidence to dispute the position posed by the article and the reliable sources found therein that "alternative explanations" are mostly unsubstantiated and that the general consensus is that crop circles are man-made. The fact that reliable sources cover alternative theories does not change this fact in any way whatsoever and you're not allowed to twist the facts however you want. All appearances indicate that you were opposed to the content due to a personal opinion that some crop circles might not be man-made rather than reliable sources, and that's perfectly fine, but when you're inserting that opinion into the lead section of the article when the body itself disagrees, that's nothing short of disruptive. S warm   we ♥ our hive  04:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:The kyle 3 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result:blocked)
Page: User being reported:

The kyle 3 is engaged in a pattern of unilateral deletion of sourced text without seeking consensus on an incredibly divisive and tragic subject. He displays contempt for the process and for fellow editors and is pushing a blatant POV campaign. He was blocked on 27 July 2015 for this kind of behavior. He has been notified on his talk page of this notice.


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

Quis separabit? 17:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cry your crocodile tears somewhere else, Mr.ITIC. It's not "pushing a blatant POV campaign" to note the fact of the propagandistic nature and wholly subjective claims of such a group, which exists to blame Palestinians for their own deaths at the hands of the IDF, and exonerate the IDF no matter what it does. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * User:The kyle 3 blocked for a week for disruptive editing, since the previous block was for 48h recently, and they consistently continue to demonstrate battleground behavior. User:Rms125a@hotmail.com is not blocked, but it is unfortunately that they did not engage in the talk page discussion, even if the discussion was started less than constructively.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I advised The kyle 3 to seek consensus on the talk page before unilaterally deleting sourced text. He deleted the text and began a cursory, post-facto rant on the talk page. Quis separabit?  19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave Souza reported by User:SuueDee (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

repeated extraction of important and verifiably correct information about Patrick Matthew "author of On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", however PM's name has at last been allowed on to this page. I have been threatened with blocking which I consider to be outrageous. Dave Souza, you are seriously overstepping your authority and I object to your being given the title of Administrator/Editor.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I am appalled at this treatment when supplying correct and verifiable information that Dave Souza does not agree with. He is a bully and overstepping his authority and knowledge bank.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have serious doubts about the integrity of Dave Souza and now FunkMonk (20/07) who has also extracted this vital information. I will listen to a reasonable argument for why this information about PM's book cannot be on this page at this location, what rule does it contravene. These two Dave Souza and FunkMonk are putting the whole of Wikipedia at risk of blind editing with intent to subvert or distort the edits of others. Wikipedia's reputation is at stake.

OPTIONAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SuueDee - your comments are objectionable. The link is valid and the red ink is also valid as Patrick Matthew's book is of extreme importance to the issue currently being discussed on his page and to which you extract nouns, adjectives and change verbs to alter the significance of what is being said. Stop it!


 * - There are several issues with 's actions. First, they are attempting to add something to the article which doesn't belong, and creates a formatting error. Second, they are the ones who are in violation of the 3RR rule, since the other editors are simply trying to correct SuueDee's error.  Third, the other editors should have explained it on the talk page, since SuueDee is clearly clueless as to why she keeps getting reverted. Fourth, SuueDee did not notificy Dave Souza about this report, as they are required to do. (I'll take care of that in a moment). SuueDee should look to the talk page for an explanation, which I will shortly put there.  I suggest a speedy close to this.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a good idea to read the advice given to you. Neil N  talk to me 20:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DePiep reported by User:Alakzi (Result: 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 673859182 by Alakzi (talk) stop making idle edits."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 673694457 by Alakzi (talk) rv vapour edit again (the editor knowing its idleness)."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 673666894 by Alakzi (talk) ... nor idle edits"

The editor has been here long enough to know about edit warring.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Template:Infobox gridiron football person revert */ new section"


 * Comments:

reverts a minor improvement to a template repeatedly. The editor appears to think that it's OK to revert any edits which hurt his personal sensibilities. Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

mentions multiple reverts (of idle edits). Quite simply, that could only be multiple because Alakzi re-did his multiple idle edit multiple times. (EOT) -DePiep (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (Repharsed for clarity. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC))
 * reply
 * The disposal of a superfluous escape character and underscore does not constitute an "idle edit" - no matter how you spin it. I don't know if it's because you can't stand being corrected, but this behaviour is both discourteous and counterproductive. And a time drain. Alakzi (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * a time drain, yes. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please find ways to waste your time that don't involve me. Alakzi (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems to stem from whether superfluous code in a template should stay or not. However, by the looks of this discussion initiated by Alakzi, DePiep appears more intent to defiantly hold on to their code than to explain why it should stay. The edit is likely a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but DePiep's block log has numerous items that are disruptive, and this behavior can only drive away productive editors.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Could this be reviewed please. The history of Template:Infobox gridiron football person shows that Alakzi's first edit was 13 July 2015 and DePiep's was 15 July 2015. There were no clashes. Then things went wrong: Then the mattter was brought here with the result that one side was blocked. DePiep did not discuss the matter in an ideal manner, but neither did Alakzi. Instead of raising the issue on the template talk (in the section pointed to by DePiep's edit summary), Alakzi posted at DePiep's talk: (18:20, 29 July 2015) with "Why would you revert this?". Posting on an editor's talk is what is done with vandals or disruptive editors—Alakzi did not offer a reason for why their edit was desirable. DePiep's response (18:25, 29 July 2015) of "As I said in the es: your edit was immaterial." was not particularly illuminating, but it was more helpful than Alakzi's comment. Both Alakzi and DePiep perform valuable work and both should be reminded that being right is insufficient in a collaborative encyclopedia, and in particular, edit warring at a template will result in blocks for both sides. The above comment refers to defiance, but I don't see one side being any less defiant than the other. Recently, a dispute over accessibility and colors was discussed at ANI on 24 July 2015 with the result that Alakzi's AWB access was removed and Alakzi was blocked. Both sides need cold water and my suggestion would be that DePiep be unblocked with a message to each that disagreements must be discussed on template talk pages. DePiep's edit at the infobox could be justified by saying that the template should not rely on Module:String's default setting for, but neither Alakzi's nor DePiep's version is obviously "correct"—the only objectively defensible wikitext would be. Johnuniq (talk) 10:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 17:44, 29 July 2015 DePiep added a maintenance category with a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary
 * 17:55, 29 July 2015 Alakzi removed some of DePiep's edit
 * 18:17, 29 July 2015 DePiep restored it
 * 21:32, 29 July 2015 Alakzi repeated
 * 23:49, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated
 * 23:55, 30 July 2015 Alakzi repeated
 * 23:57, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated
 * Thanks for your concern. I agree that there are at least two contributors to every edit war, and it can always be argued that even if someone is "right", following WP:DR could often diffuse the situation before it escalates to AN3. But that did not happen, and here we are. My preference is always to assume that warnings can be teaching moments, and let otherwise productive editors such as DePiep and Alakzi move on to more valuable edits without the need for a timeout. Based on DePiep's block log, I did not think a warning alone would be effective. The other option is WP:BOOMERANG, and to block Alakzi as well.  However, I decided against that based on their initiating a discussion.  I am not aware of a guideline on when to post on user talk vs other talk pages, so that did not weight into my decision. The template talk page can get others involved per DR, but then one has to worry about the other party watching the page, looking at their notification, or having to place a user talk page notice directing them to the template talk page. We can debate that using the template talk page might have been more productive, but I don't think it was avoided for any malicious intent. Ultimately, I chose to address DePiep's longer-term trend of being WP:DISRUPTIVE.  I have no doubt that they have performed valuable work, and will continue to do so after this, but we all need to be accountable for our behavior too.  As always, any blocked editor can follow WP:GAB and personally request an unblock.  Even without a formal unblock request, admins are typically free to reverse my and other admins actions. Hope that explains my decision.—Bagumba (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the diff lists provided above, I'm wondering who first violated 3RR? Does Alakzi get a pass because his first revert was only a partial revert? Note that 3RR says "undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—" (emphasis added). I think it is an open question as to who was most disruptive (least constructive?) here. Both editors seem to take the 'my way or the highway' attitude. YBG (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Technically, neither of them violated 3RR, which looks for " more than three reverts on a single page ..." At any rate, the block was for a pattern of disruptive editing.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no requirement that disagreements are discussed on the template talk page, specifically. As this was no issue with the template, but with the behaviour of the editor, I approached the editor directly. Though pattern matching is not required, and true would've been preferable,  is not a special character and does not need to be escaped. There's also nothing stopping anyone from improving on my edit; unlike DePiep, I'm not going to take it personally. The rest of your message is holier-than-thou nonsense that I need not waste any time on deconstructing. Alakzi (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Burridheut reported by User:Zoupan (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Comments:

A continuation of an archived ANI-thread. Diff 1 and Diff 2 of recent disruptive editing/edit-warring on Spiro Koleka. 's edit comments include (Irrelevant, controversial and totally provocative comment. Propaganda will be removed from this article. Greece can be advertised on CNN (for tourism maybe), not here. Last warning to the vandals polluting this article!). User warned several times. Only contribution is to this article.--Z oupan 21:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating a thread about me 10 minutes after I create one for you (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spiro_Koleka#Edit_warring_and_propaganda_editors.2Fvandals) is a bit confusing for me! Could you not wait a bit? What is the hurry? You are undoing my edits again. Are you not aware of the rules here? You seem to be a seasoned user. Burridheut (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Administrators should exercise caution here regarding Burridheut and see the talk page in full, as the issue was still under discussion and editors (separate to Burridheut) have taken it upon themselves (who are pushing a view) to change or redo the article as they see fit.Resnjari (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Burridheut clearly displays a disruptive pattern and insists on wp:own. Moreover tendentious editting and offensive edit summaries are quite typical [][]. It appears we have the definition of an wp:spa.Alexikoua (talk) 07:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have proven all my claims, with historic sources, pictures, scans of documents and have gone great lengths to explain and remove the propaganda added recently by Zoupan and Alexikoua from this article that I have created since 2012. My only sin is that I am not a wikipedia expert, I am outnumbered and do not know how to complain properly about edit warring coming from these two editors. I asked for the page to be protected, and it was (thanks), but unfortunately incorporating the latest disruptive edit from user Zoupan. Burridheut (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I created a DSN thread at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Spiro_Koleka Burridheut (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Alvandria reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: blocked for personal attack)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Although User:Alvandria has not violated 3RR I believe the editor is edit-warring. They have also engaged in socking, personal attacks and misrepresenting themselves as an admin. User:Alvandria made huge sweeping changes to the List of most expensive films involving numerous aesthetic alterations, the removal of pertinent notes, the removal of content and also changes to content which contradicted the sources. I reverted these edits and gave an extensive explanation on the article talk page. Despite repeated requests the editor has been unwilling to discuss their alterations, instead choosing to just revert to their preferred version. After giving them a 3RR warning the editor carried out a revert logged out just moments later. Judging by the IP's talk page the editor seems to have been disruptive in other areas of Wikipedia too. Alvandria subsequently left this message at my talk page and claimed to be a "moderator" and threatened to "ban" me. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked Alvandria for a serious personal attack. I've also semi-protected the article as there were IPs causing problems too. Sarah (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I noticed the protection after I submitted this report. Thanks for your assistance. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Chocolatecoveredorangestuff2 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:PermaLink/673687670

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/674089628

Comments:

The edits are quite unsourced and rather dodgy, so I was sorely tempted to call "Not here ...". Note also that the same editor has "contributed" the same material as. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 24 for edit warring, 24 for BLP violations. Neil N  talk to me 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Arjun1491 reported by User:Antique Rose (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  (Although an IP address, it's most likely the user in question.)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Arjun1491 is conducting an edit war to include a quote from Ayn Rand, claiming there's a consensus for this inclusion. But there isn't. Several editors have reverted the user's edits. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Comments:

Seems to me like Arjun is just a bit enthusiastic about Ayn Rand, the content they want to add is now removed, I suggest they are good faith enough to not require blocking if they do not replace the content and stay on the chat page looking for support. Govindaharihari (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per agreement by not to edit war.  Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Bleu reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (note they call me vandal in the summary)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, also the talk page of the article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the whole page is about this, but in particular the bottom section

Comments: The users comes off a 48h block and starts inserting a POV template in the contentious article where this template was already inserted many times and rejected by consensus. They assume bad faith and have their own interpretation of Wikipedia policies. They also suggest I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies (apparently implying they are). I think a longer block is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Beacuse of the battleground mentality of the user, and since the article is under WP:ARBEE, I decided not to wait until they strictly speaking overstep 3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He sure likes not to bother with those useless things called rules of Wikipedia. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, mentioning previous blocks is against the rules, but that's not my biggest problem with that person. I simply put an NPOV tag on a section and started a legitimate discussion hoping to resolve the issue. The administrator above rammed into me with unexplained reversions of my edits (the reasons for which he still haven't explained) and threats of blocking. Could someone please explain to him that his title of the administrator doesn't give him the right to push his POV on other users. Or explain to me that administrators can do whatever they want. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I simply put an NPOV tag on a section and started a legitimate discussion hoping to resolve the issue" - Nah. You edit warred, insulted other editors and made it known that you're here for WP:BATTLEGROUND purposes. And the "rules of Wikipedia" include WP:ARBEE which means that this report is more than justified given your behavior.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, my previous behavior has nothing to do with this discussion. I put in information that shows the other party's point of view. I started a discussion on the Talk page as civilized people do on controversial topics. You on the other hand called it weaseling and reverted it without as much as posting a word on the talk page. Instead of finding consensus you, just like the administrator above, ran here to complain about it, your only argument being "given your behavior". Is that how you write an encyclopedia? By group jumping on anyone who disputes the neutrality? The fact that the article is on WP:ARBEE means that editors should try and find common grounds. What you and the topic starter are doing is anything but. You just want your and only your POV to remain in the article. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And here is their "official" fourth revert, made AFTER this report has been filed (i.e. they knew better and did it anyway): .Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

And here's is their fifth revert, a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please block already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And your third. After I asked you three times to finally go to the Talk page and discuss it. Should be block you? Or will you finally stop this? Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "And your third. " - no, it's actually not. You know the article history is right there for anyone to look at, right? So why make false claim which can be easily dis-proven?
 * Again, this user started edit warring IMMEDIATELY after coming off a 60 hours block for edit warring. This is pretty clear cut.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wasting SO much time here instead of discussing it in a peaceful manner on the Talk page. You just want to drown me for disagreeing with you. You didn't even look at what I added to the article which was simply the official position of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the tag indicating I started a talk page section on it. You're so blinded by your rage at someone else's differing opinion that you don't even look what you're reverting. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Sixth revert (of another editor).Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * for aggressive edit-warring and personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:108.6.11.253 reported by User:Neutron Jack (Result: Page semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No response on article talk page. The user is unregistered, so has no personal talk page.

Neutron Jack (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Neutron Jack: it is not correct that a user has no personal talk page. You can and should leave a message on the IP's talk page. I'd normally close as unactionable, but the content has some serious problems and I'll leave it to another admin. I've left the IP a warning. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * semi-protection 1 week to stop the disruption. IP user not blocked as they were never warned their behavior was disruptive until after this report had been filed. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:\\'arrior 786 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is not the first edit war \\'arrior 786 has chosen to perpetrate on the Afghanistan article. After warning for 3rr, a post on the talk page, and a reversion of a false quote from Britannica, \\'arrior 786 continues to edit war some obscure(personal?) vision of the Afghanistan article. He has been reverted by 4 other editors and has not chosen to address the current issue on the talk page. It was only after his 4th revert that \\'arrior 786 has chosen to use the talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: And please refer to standard pages (Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia..) and refer to the edit history before me and yes I've took my concern to the talk page as you mentioned that in the talk page. I am trying to improve wikipedia with suitable standards the only concern is that I'm not experienced like you User:Kansas Bear instead you must help but we can see what you are doing... (\\&#39;arrior 786 (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC))


 * -- slakr \ talk / 19:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ravimahato123 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: all sorts of things)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "ok sir. but the way ur editing the article. it is showing the person negatively. if so called promotion is wrong then so is this(showing someone in negative light). if u r expert, then plz u edit this page."
 * 2)  "All the information is correct and true then why is it being removed. i have edited with the help pf so many books, such as who's who and many more,"
 * 3)  "sockpuppets yet again."


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


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


 * Comments:

Continuation of previous edit war to force excessively promotional and unsourced version of article using new sockpuppets. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 17:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (socks) + -- slakr  \ talk / 20:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Mario252 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* A que no me dejas */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* A que no me dejas */"


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


 * Comments:

It is not the first time that this user has been blocked by the same problems, leave a notice asking him to please stop but does not want to ignore. According to Template:Infobox TV the cast should be organized as they appear in the opening theme, and if you want to see that I am right you can see here. And now bothering this in the article, Lo imperdonable. I hope some administrator can do something, it is not the first time that I have problems with this user and the obviously ignores the messages that are left in his discussion.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 19:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * as a fairly clear case of someone not here to build an encyclopedia. As I noted on the editor's talk page in my block message, almost all of the user's edits for the past year have been this type of disruptive editing on telenovelas. –Darkwind (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

User:PeterTheFourth reported by User:DHeyward (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

"Gamergate controversy" is under 1RR restriction. As can be seen from the users edit history, PtF's contributions are mostly reverts. The violation of 1RR is below and is both a new revert and continuing an edit war started here:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First revert:
 * 2) Second revert  (from this edit war that was continued here [].

On talk page: Discussed here: and Comments:

Hi ! To quote our policy on edit warring, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." The diffs you've linked to are consecutive edits. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PtF, for responding. There are multiple edits between the initial edits and the reverts you accomplished.  That you reverted two separate edits in short order is not a defense.  If that were the case, an editor could revert multiple editors over multiple days without consequence.  That is not the case.  It's also an obvious extension of an edit war.  Please undo.   --DHeyward (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The rationale for my edits is in the talk page, here. If you'd like to participate in the discussion of using 'movement', you're welcome to. Going by both the letter and spirit of the policy, my two consecutive edits did not violate 1RR. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Please undo and stop edit warring while discussion is occurring..  --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . Two of the edits on 8/3 were consecutive, and the other was a minor punctuation change. While I admit that I have not recently been monitoring behavior on ARBGG-related articles, this looks like a normal BRD cycle to me. Certainly 1RR was not violated unless you try to consider the punctuation change a "revert", which is excessively nitpicking. –Darkwind (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Slickmoves reported by User:IIISmokeyIII (Result: Blocked 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) |17:18, 31 July 2015
 * 2) |18:05, 3 August 2015‎
 * 3) |22:12, 3 August 2015‎
 * 4) |22:56, 3 August 2015‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: |"You are removing legitimate content without giving any reasons. Please explain yourself or refrain from doing it again."

Comments:

This user has repeatedly removed a large chunk of the page while giving no reason whatsoever for the edits. While he has made this edit four times, he has not yet broken the 3RR, as i myself would have been breaking it had i undid his edit once more within the 24 hours. His failure however to offer an argument on the talk page or an explanation in his edit summaries, confirms to me that he has no interest in providing a basis for his deletions.

IIISmokeyIII (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . This was a fairly clear case of unexplained content removal. Further,  has not engaged with the Wikipedia community when editors have problems with his/her editing, while  was at least using edit summaries. –Darkwind (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Olowe2011 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has made no attempt to discuss there.

Comments:

4 reverts now, despite warning, & see report above.

David Biddulph (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would be more useful for administrators if you actually placed this as a comment to the already existing discussion. Given the fact being the reporter gives me no higher position above the rest I don't see why you've created a separate post. olowe2011 (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It matters little who gets which report "in first". All those who make reports are considered equal, and the spotlight falls on the reporter as much as the reportee. WP:BOOMERANG always applies.
 * Those who look after tis page may well take the initiative to merge these two reports. I see a valid rational for doing so. Or any editor, ideally one who is not involved, could take it upon themselves to do so. Fiddle   Faddle  13:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You've repeated exactly what I have said. My point was that there is no higher ground for me as a reporter... You noted that you're an observer in the posts above, well it's clear that you're doing more than just observing now. olowe2011 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 13:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Primefac reported by User:Olowe2011 (Result: Nominator 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: Disruptive editing on Articles for creation. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2015 */"


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


 * Comments:


 * The person continues to edit out my name from the list. I appreciate the conditions however I don't see Wikipedia as a place that explicitly excludes editors from taking part in open tools that help better Wikipedia. I've made an effort to tell the original editor to stop removing my posts until we have discussed the issue however they refuse. My edit count isn't directly related to my ability to use that tool - it might be a pointer however, these guys have not been open to discussion with me about it and just keep editing out despite being asked numerous times to discuss first. olowe2011 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You appreciate the conditions but refuse to discuss them on the project's own talk page. You throw policy at me yet refuse to follow it yourself. I wasn't the first person to revert you, just the one that happened to be watching the page at the time. Your own talk page isn't a place to discuss policy matters that concern an entire WikiProject. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have warned on their talk page, for edit warring. They seem to me now to be in breach of WP:3RR, and we may as well use this section to handle that. I have mentioned WP:BOOMERANG to them, but they seem hell bent on arguing over a perceived injustice. I am an observer in this, except for my warning them on their talk page. To me it seems to be a very silly storm in a very tiny teacup. This is absolutely not about those who have reverted this editor.
 * I am troubled that an editor who edit wars and then goes straight to this forum wishes to be a WP:AFC reviewer at all, and suggest this be given serious community consideration.
 * I note the report for 3RR violations by this editor below and suggest we merge the discussions. Fiddle   Faddle  13:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Before editing out my content to Wikipedia I would appreciate it if you discussed it with me rather than continue to do so. I am a capable user who is able to use a tool that helps me. Yes I absolutely respect the project page guidelines but at the same time I do not appreciate being made to feel excluded based on a faulty rationale that "because you have less edits you must be stupid and incapable of using wikipedia tools properly." I am fully aware of how to use the tool and had it for several hours, without any problems. I simply asked you to consult me - talk page or not isn't really relevant. You could have still opened up discussions with me on another page and directed me towards it rather than continuing to delete my edits without any reason other than a non Wikipedia policy. I understand why the guideline is in place however, I also understand the importance of open discussion which I offered you several times. I'd have been perfectly happy to allow you to make a case and allow me to do the same but until that point I don't appreciate having my contributions removed several times. olowe2011 (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a note here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Articles_for_creation%2FParticipants&type=revision&diff=674514273&oldid=674513910. It's clear that I had openly requested dialogue about this issue prior to making the revert. It was then further reverted by the other user despite this request and they failed to open any form of discussion with me under the pretence that "my talk page is an inappropriate place to have a discussion." I'd like to note that my problem isn't with the rule itself because its a good benchmark for assessing user skill however, it shouldn't be absolute. The fact is in my opinion Wikipedia is a free and open place whereby any editor can freely contribute to the best of their ability. I feel that I am being witch hunted for "lack of experience" yet those whom are making the accusation retain no form of discussion with me to ascertain my experience. It seems to me like it's driven by a predetermined prejudice. However, this said my concern is that the editor in question deleted my initial edits despite my very clear and blatant attempts to open discussions. I have no reason to have a problem with anyone involved with this so called edit war but I am firmly against being harassed or berated by other users who resort to deleting my posts simply because they feel I don't meet the experience criteria for a AfC tool. Let it be noted that I have created a few articles here on Wikipedia and partake actively in it's projects. Please consider that I am acting in WP:GF and that by deleting my edits despite the knowledge I wish to open up a discussion about the issue is not acting in good faith. olowe2011 (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A discussion involving your participation in AfC isn't a conversation to be had on your own talk page because no one will see the discussion. By having it on the Participants talk page, multiple editors who know the policies and have been reviewing for a while (some of us for years) can get involved. THIS is why I directed you to the Participants talk page. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that gives you a right to continually edit out my contribution without discussing the issue first. I am perfectly happy to accept responsibility for continuing to revert edits as this was probably unacceptable behaviour and doesn't constitute a welcome outcome however, it's in no way right that you deliberately exclude me based on your interpretation of my experience especially when offered to open dialogue. My problem is that you continued to remove my contributions from the page without discussing the issue with me first when it was clear that is what I wanted to do. The problem is you editing me out from this page also takes away my access from a tool that I was using to do some work and that is frustrating and unkind. I hope you appreciate the fact that I tried to open discussions with you however, you continued to revert my contributions without reaching consensus or allowing me a time to answer for myself. I have taken it here because I felt that the issue won't be simply resolved given the fact you seem absolutely set against having an amicable discussion. Thanks :) olowe2011 (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes about as much sense as complaining to the management when the bouncer won't let you into the club. The bouncer is doing their job. Could they have done it with more tact? Sure. Does it mean they were completely wrong? No. You wanted entry, were denied it, and are now demanding it without asking first. This is not the right venue to continue this discussion so I'm going to wait until this 3RR is resolved. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A discussion on this editor's status as a potential reviewer has ben started at the participants talk page. All parties are invited to offer opinions on that matter there. This will avoid diluting this edit warring discussion any further. Fiddle   Faddle  13:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:grey">ceradon</b> ( talk •  edits ) 13:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Durr-e-shehwar reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 674707327 by AKS.9955 (talk)please can we discuss more before it gets redirected? it is a request, it is a notable character, lets discuss first please"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 674706808 by Primefac (talk) please can we discuss more before it gets redirected? it is a request, it is a notable character, just check the stuff is written about it"
 * 3)  "i have removed all the copyrighted information, so why are u placing it back? i don't understand? regards"
 * 4)  "removing the copyright violation"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 674700374 by AKS.9955 (talk) please let me finish at least, then u can revert it, i haven't finished, i will leave that part out"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 674700020 by AKS.9955 (talk) the description was not finished yet, i will leave that out, it was under the description i read for the character"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User has been reverting changes despite several warnings. Kindly block user and protect Armaan Malik (fictional character) after redirecting it. Thanks  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * hasn't been doing themselves any favours either by not editing in good faith. When I made the BOLD move to redirect, I left a note on the talk page that said "if the redirect is reverted, we'll discuss further". It was reverted, but now it would seem that AKS is the one refusing to discuss the issue. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clear content dispute as far as I can tell, with both users having broken the three-revert rule. Not going to block, but I am going to force discussion. Going back and forth like this is disruptive and gives the wiki a bad name. Please be mindful of this moving forward. Edit-warring won't fix anything &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Holstebro reported by User:Aca Srbin (Result: Blocked one week)
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:


 * S warm  ♠  17:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:210.187.253.67 reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit war over an unreleased product, no response to comments in edit summaries or the talk page. The same edits were made by and. Dmitry (talk•contibs) 14:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:TripWire reported by User:Human3015 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 674388332 by TripWire (talk): Per talk page. (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Health issues */ Per tal page. Expanded the already mentioned info by Human3015 that local liquor has health issues"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 674587030 by Human3015 (talk) not topi banned to edit this topic,have issues? Take it up with an Admin"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 674587306 by Human3015 (talk) Most other liquors also dont kill ppl upon drinking,this one do.Already discussed this on talk page,u agreed.Same info already mentioned by u,expandin"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Stop misleading */ reply"
 * 2)   "/* Stop misleading */ NOT NEWS"
 * 3)   "/* Stop misleading */ topic ban"
 * 4)   "/* top */ assessment"
 * 5)   "/* top */ added useful note, as this article is related to India-Pakistan, (entire south asia). So there can be conflict of interest"
 * 6)   "/* Note for Editors - Misleading the Subject of Indian Desi Daroo */ reply"
 * 7)   "/* Note for Editors - Misleading the Subject of Indian Desi Daroo */ reply"


 * Comments:

Topic banned user from India-Pakistan related article keep on violating topic ban, also involved in edit war.  Human 3015   Send WikiLove   22:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments
 * First, Human3015, there is no need to include my edit which does not fall within the purview of 3RR. This edit quoted by you at serial 1 to show that I am on 3RR vio, is nothing more than dirty tactics, as the edit was made on 21:45, 3 August 2015 more than 48 hrs ago! It just shows your frustration. If that be the case, then you too already are on 3RR as can be seen here
 * I have followed the WP:BRD cycle by initiating the discussion at the talk page twice,.
 * Second, I am topic banned from Indo-Pak Conflict Pages, which Desi Daru is NOT. I have clarified this issue to Human3015 umpteenth times, , and even offered to bring this to an Admin's notice if Desi Daru falls under my Topic ban.
 * Three, as can be seen from the page of Desi Daru, the article ONLY talks about Indian local liquor, with no mention of Pakistan whatsoever. However, Human3015, just added Pakistan Project tag to the page even though it didnot cover anything of Pakistan, then added the name in Urdu and then made this edit in response to my edit, AFTER he failed at showing that Desi Daru came under my topic-ban, and so just in order to play dirty, he added, the above edits, so as to mislead people as if the topic is related to India and Pakistan (conflict), which it is not - everybody can see that by reading the article.
 * Fourth, the info I was trying to add is within the scope of the page, as the same has already been mentioned by yourself!
 * Fifth, you yesterday had agreed to the edit and we had reached a consensus, but I re-added the info as per the talk page and the consensuses reached, you again reverted it? Sir, that's not how gentleman behave.
 * Lastly, To Admins. Human3015 is just frustrated over the page as it was created by him and have displayed WP:OWNER since the very beginning. I fail to understand, why would he not allow to expand the SAME very info which he himself has already posted to the page? Perhaps a personal vendetta?—  Trip Wire  talk 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Read topic ban note by admin FPAS here User talk:TripWire on his talk page. He has been declared as "harmful" to Wikipedia and nationalist POV pusher. Since his topic ban, he has been violated topic ban several times even after multiple warnings. One can read relevant short discussion on admin FPAS's talk page User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. He even called admin FPAS as "Indian agent". (he can't think beyond "India"). Now this user is particularly targeting me because he thinks that I'm the reason behind his topic ban. He has been topic banned for pushing nationalist agenda everywhere, he is primarily banned from writing anything about India because all of his edits related to India were efforts to defame India. As a Wikipedia editor we should be neutral and we should neither defame India nor Pakistan. In this case of Desi daru, he could have added info about Pakistan which was lacking but instead he started his agenda to defame India here also, that was the reason he got topic banned, and daily he is violating his topic ban. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   22:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The above comment is precisely the prove that Human3015 has a personal vendetta against me and that he is in the habit of exaggerating the things out of proportion and even lying. Here's why; my topic ban precisely says that I am banned from topics of "Indian/Pakistani conflicts" like Siachen Conflict, Kargil War etc, which Desi daru is not. Second, he is lying again by putting words in my mouth as I did not call FPAS an "Indian Agent" - can be checked. Third, he needs to get over with the misconception that he is the reason of my topic ban, because I dont give two-hoots to who he is an individual and what he do, for me he has the same if not more amount of respect that I have for all my fellow editors. So, I will request him not to flatter himself, as It is me myself who has to be blamed for my topic-ban and nobody else. As for his accusation that "I cant think beyond India",is again false as the following edits by me shows that I have more important things to do:
 * My Trip Back to the Dark Side (film)
 * Kim Yo-jong
 * Chappie (film)
 * Frequencies (film)
 * Sabeen Mahmud
 * Benjamin Sisters
 * Javed Iqbal Ramday
 * Central Superior Services of Pakistan—  Trip Wire  talk 22:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you two need to take a break? Remember that WP:WPDNNY... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, Sir. I will go by whatever the Admins decide. I made 2 reverts in response to Human3015's reverts, the last one was made AFTER I took the matter for discussion to the talk page for like the 10th time here (latest I asked Human3015 to come talk and resolve the issue), but he did not respond, instead he kept on reverting me.—  Trip Wire  talk 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you need to check contribution of editors before making such statement. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   23:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sir Human3015, Edit count does not necessarily mean that you are sincere to Wikipedia.—  Trip Wire  talk 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It takes two to tango. Take a break, and come back refreshed. It works. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Relevant WP:ANI discussion regarding topic ban violation can be found at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   16:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Important As can be seen that I did not commit 3RR violation and that Human3015 brought in the issue of my topic-ban here to an unrelated board in addition to the false 3RR vio report against me to muddy the waters, I would request Admins to take action against Human3015. My topic-ban issue is being discussed at the link that so kindly has been provided by Human3015, but point to note is that as oppose to Human3015 accusing me of violating my Topic-Ban here as regards to editing Desi daru was in pure bad-faith and a malicious attempt at confusing the issue at hand (3rr vio) and hiding the blunder Human3015 had committed for wrongly reporting me for 3RR vio. He needs to be leashed, please.—  Trip Wire  talk 17:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Underlying motivations and problems aside, there are no real violations here. I understand Human not wanting what he feels is a problematic editor jumping into an article he just created and is still working on, but that in itself is no real reason to revert and TripWire's edits did not appear to warrant unilateral reversion. This editor's behavior is being discussed at ANI and that's the appropriate place to continue this. S warm   ♠  17:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ricky81682 reported by User:Doncram (Result:No action as explained below)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version Version of 10:33, 1 August 2015, with a complete section "Key words and expressions". Each of the four following reverts removes the bulk of the section "Key words and expressions".

Diffs of the user's four reverts within 24 hour period: In addition, before the 24 hour period, the user reverted the same material
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * deleted the same "words and expressions section"

And also this follows on the user removing the "poetry" section, which was being discussed at Talk and also at wp:ANI:
 * deletion of the "poetry" section, which they have since accepted as valid, but only after deleting one or two or three times and being questioned at ANI and Talk page (and eventually the user found an acceptable source themself).

What is egregious about this is that this follows upon similar disagreement about the "poetry" section which was removed repeatedly by a different user. The "poetry" section was subject of discussion at Talk page sections Talk:Mat (Russian profanity) and then also at wp:ANI: wp:ANI. Editor Ricky81682 joined in at some point. And unfortunately, despite consensus at the Talk page and in the ANI proceeding that the repeated removals of the "poetry" section was wrong, Ricky81682 began removing the "words and expressions" section, and was only argumentative at Talk. Including threatening to bring me to ANI in this diff, where they say "Take it out again [meaning "Restore it again"] and I'm reporting you to ANI for being disruptive." The section was in at that point, then Ricky81652 removed it, and I did not actually restore it again; an I.P. editor did, then Ricky81682 removed it in his 4th removal within 24 hours. (In total Ricky81682 removed it 5 times, 4 within the last 24 hour period; Doncram restored it 2 times within the 24 hour period and an I.P. editor restored it once within the 24 hour period.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: one diff of mine discussing. See also edit summaries noting this was Bold deletion followed by Reversion to restore it, and needing Discussion.

Comments:

I'll further comment that Ricky81682 seems to have made some constructive edits, adding some sources, but this is in the overall context of their repeatedly deleting material, counter to objections of other editors specifically (at least myself and an i.p. editor), and counter to the general consensus of many editors that repeated deletions of other material just previously was quite unhelpful. So, I request that this editor be strongly cautioned at least, or subjected to 1RR, or blocked or banned from this article for a period. There needs to be a cooling off at the article and removal of this editor's aggressive participation would be the most important part, at this time. -- do ncr  am  00:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll just say that the fourth reversion here was not a reversion to a prior version but a reversion following an IP editor's antics to disrupt the additions I've made (an editor who's antics include this report]). I'll withdraw from the article now. Anyone else can do whatever they want with it. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see the I.P. editor's edits as "antics". They legitimately restored material that Ricky81682 had deleted without justification, and they legitimately brought up his behavior at the ANI in progress (though I think it is better discussed here at 3RR NB).  Peremptory dismissal of an I.P. by an administrator is classic, demoralizing behavior. -- do  ncr  am  01:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This 3RR report was just mentioned at the ANI board in these edits by Ricky81682 and myself. It was pointed out that Ricky81682 is an Administrator, which I did not know.  This behavior is exceedingly poor then;  they know better and they have an obligation to behave better.  I was suggesting at ANI that they should offer here to withdraw a bit.  But, frankly, given they're an administrator, I don't know that they should be allowed to withdraw with no consequence.  Seriously this is a blatant violation of 3RR by an administrator, and some action such as a temporary block should be put onto their record, IMO.  When administrators do stuff like this and have no consequence, it undermines the whole project. -- do  ncr  am  00:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored all the edits I think. It's not relevant here but [User:166.171.121.18]] is clearly trolling: edits like this and this are not serious parts of the discussion here. It has nothing to do with Doncram or this report but I suspect it's related to my work cleaning Indian cinema articles. There's been an IP editor a day arguing at ANI for about a week against me or on these articles out of spite. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring the material. -- do ncr  am  18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: Closing with no action given, among other things, that Ricky81682 is stepping away from the article. (Whether it is in his or the article's best interest for him to step away forever, or just for a day or two, is for him to decide.) I have considered DonCram's argument that Ricky81682 should be blocked anyway because he is an administrator and find it to be without merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is fair to find that my complaint here is "without merit". I didn't say the action to be taken had to be a block;  I wasn't calling for the administrator to be "blocked anyway" upon there not being merit.  What happened here was a cut-and-dried violation of wp:3RR policy, IMO, however.  There should be an action taken, which could be, instead, a clear judgement by the closer whether or not the editor did violate policy.  As this is currently closed, there is no record of that;  it would be hard for an editor later to refer to this proceeding as having established anything at all.  Call this a radical viewpoint, but I believe that 3RR actions are important, and should carry judgment not just a result.  The result can be no imposition of block or other consequence, or it could be severe, but that depends upon other factors that can mitigate or make a situation more unacceptable.  (In this case a mitigating factor that has been suggested is that an I.P. editor, who may have been involved in running conflict with Ricky81682, was acting improperly...but I must note that was only at the end; the I.P. editor restored the material just once, while Ricky81862 removed it 5 times (4 within 24 hours), and the decision to open an 3RR was not the I.P. editor's and their comments could be disregarded.)  My point is that there should be a judgment, so that the 3RR process serves the important role of establishing facts, in case there is arbitration or other review/process later.  As 3rr has been performed, it seems to only serve the role of hushing or otherwise settling/calming immediate conflicts.  It does not serve the longterm purpose of establishing facts.  And, especially when a person who violates 3RR is an administrator, I think the judgment should be made clear.  If it is not made clear in wording, or some field that could be created and used as part of closing process, then a negative judgment could be entered by imposing a token block, say for 9 seconds or 9 minutes (to choose a time whose odd length would signal the purpose intended).  This could be part of a wider change in how 3RR is run now, that would "have merit" in cases like this one, but expressing a clear judgment about the facts of whether this editor violated 3RR policy can be done without wider change. -- do  ncr  am  18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:GGT reported by User:Courtier1978 (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)
Page:

User being reported:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus&diff=674266884&oldid=657734986>

Previous version reverted to:

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

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_wars_involving_Cyprus> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)

Comments:

The user GGT is engaging in edit warring (3RR rule) and ignores my efforts to come to a mutual agreement as it shows, both in the comments between reverts and in the talk page. Ron1978 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are two reverts, and the third one is not a revert a different edit and an improvement as an attempt at compromise - an attempt to address the user's concerns that the article was biased by supplementing it with RS and removing all unsourced material, not only that added by the user. The rule is that "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." - so even if there were three reverts, there would be no problem. --GGT (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There were three reverts in the same day with the two between minutes, and there were no improvements on what so ever but the exact opposite. The user GGT was reverting the same article in the past as it shows from history. In addition what the user GGT says in his comments on the reverts, were of no truth as wellRon1978 (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)
 * Even if this was correct there would be no violation of the policy... --GGT (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a violation of the policy if your behavior is edit warring plus the fact that you have reverted the same article again in the past. Ron1978 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtier1978 (talk • contribs)
 * S warm  ♠  18:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

User:80.44.64.116 reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previously edit-warred as 89.241.210.99 (as shown by identical geolocations of Fife, Scotland, and similarity of language as well as the identical edits)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This man, Kiernan, is trying to bully myself in a dispute over a template, edit-warring without discussion (except just before this). He's reverted 3 times in a day and 4 times in the last two days and called in his friends, but has been careful himself, it seems, to lawyer his way around of the precise 3 revert rule. I guess the letter trumps the spirit of rules like these. Block me if you want, that's the Wikipedia way, let him use these rules to prevail in this content dispute. He's an admin, edit warring with benefits is his rightfully earned privilege. One rule for users contributing anonymously, another for entrenched admins. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) You don't know that I'm a man. (2) I have reverted 3 times in the last 25 hours not 4. One of which is reverting an obviously uncivil edit summary and one of which is reverting an unexplained revert of an explained edit. (3) I started discussion 24 hours ago, immediately after my first revert in the 25 hour period. (4) I haven't called any friends. The other editors are entirely independent and acting of their own accord. DrKiernan (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) This response was written before the IP's redaction of their own comment. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, you got me on that. I do not know that you are a man. Great point. Well done too on avoiding that fourth revert in 24 hours, I know it must have tested your discipline. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * So what's the message? This is only an edit warring notice board for specific users? It's ok to revert three times a day so long as you are not, in Kiernan's words, "a disruptive IP"? Thanks for the fair mindedness, Neil. 80.44.64.116 (talk) 03:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:187.171.90.93 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Que te perdone Dios‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Que te perdone Dios‎. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Que te perdone Dios. (TW)"
 * 4)   "/* Que te perdone Dios and Zuria Vega */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Already let you several messages, but user ignores them. My reason to revert their edits is because the character of Zuria Vega in Que te perdone Dios has had so many surnames and names, which is best left his more common name which is "Abigail". The ip insists on adding unknown names in the article on the actress, when in IMDb are the correct names of the characters in his various soap operas.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 00:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ebyabe reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has allowed themselves to get into an edit war with another user. I believe they have ceased engagement, but wished to report it. Thank you. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Welfare State   ‖ 05:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Page has been protected by NeilN/ Did you really mean to report yourself? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq


 * What is it with editors involved in this issue referring to themselves in the third person? Two reverts. Rest were reverting the block evader. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:AntonioMartin reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: Warned user(s))

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 674633475 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 674617414 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 674617414 by Philip J Fry (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* El Señor de los Cielos */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* El Señor de los Cielos */"
 * 3)   "/* El Señor de los Cielos */"
 * 4)   "/* El Señor de los Cielos */"


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


 * Comments:

I think that already explain it to the user in my last message but has not responded more, however he returned to add information that I told him that you deleted. Series "Escobar, el patrón del mal" has nothing to do with "El Señor de los Cielos", there was not even a significant series Crossovers as to mention that article, in the of El Señor de los Cielos. The only explanation that gives me is that both series deal with drug traffickers, thing which I think is irrelevant, since there are many series that deal with drug traffickers, then would have to mention them all. And I think that templates and categories exist for that. In his discussion will explain but because from what I see I ignore my message.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 13:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything I could have and should have reported Phillip. He is the one who started reverting and insisting his version should be the accepted one, when == See also == sections are abundant on Wikipedia and no one else seems to care. Should I also mention Andres Parra acts as Escobar in both series. I think Phillip is doing much about nothing in this particular case.Antonio El Pinga Martin (aca) 22:05, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't start pointing fingers here. "He is the one who starting reverting" is not a valid defense for edit warring. You were the one who added disputed content to the article and there would be no edit war if you had adhered to WP:BRD. This user approached you to discuss the issue and you even continued edit warring over it without replying on your own talk page. I literally can't even fathom how you, a former administrator, thought this was an okay thing to do. And can then come here and offer such a flippant response to this report. Unacceptable. The only reason you're escaping a block is the fact that this edit war is over something very minor and nobody violated 3RR. But it's certainly on the table. Consider this to be an only warning for this edit war and I would strongly advise you to adhere to BRD in the future. Thanks. . S warm   ♠  22:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There would be no edit war if he hadn't started editing. And kept on. As for unacceptable, I don't even need to address that. You act like your Wikipedia record is perfect. Like nothing you ever did has annoyed someone. Don't talk about acceptability because all I did was revert to something that is done in MILLIONS of Wikipedia articles. And like Jesus said, "he who is free of sin' we need to apply to that to our work as Wikipedians as well instead of being quick at criticizing others-Something I rarely if ever myself did. I sometimes feel there is an agenda by a number of people here to get me and my dad out. Further you are blindly taking his side, seeing only my edits by only giving me the warning. Give it to him as well; he STARTED it and KEPT it going later.Antonio El Chongas Martin (aca) 00:14, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to justify your edit. Sometimes people disagree with our ideas and they get reverted. It's a fact of editing here. It is not appropriate to revert these reversions. This is why WP:AN3 and WP:EW is a thing. "He started it" is an invalid and childish defense and you've ignored my point about WP:BRD, which tells us what to do when one of our edits is reverted. S warm   ♠  23:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Mmyers1976 (Result: 1m)
Page: ,

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Ring Cinema is a frequent, persistent edit warrior with at least 5 blocks from 24 hour to up to a week for edit warring, as well as 3 warnings that I can see. I added reliably sourced info to the leads of both articles that major film critics like Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin have found similarities between the two Michael Caine films. Ring User's initial revert of this text on the Deathtrap page incorrectly said that the information was uncited, but since then his stated reason for repeated reverting is the original research-based argument that he doesn't see the similarities as very strong, so what prominent critics from Chicago Sun-Times, New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times all saw as important enough to mention in their reviews is "trivial". Basically, he's hanging his hat on "I just don't like it. After reverting this multiple times on the Deathtrap article, Ring Cinema then moved to the Sleuth article and started making the exact same reverting. I have tried to add more citations to meet him halfway, tried discussing with him on the talk page, tried providing citations of guidelines like WP:FILMLEAD to show this info is valid, tried to go to DRN where I was just told I needed to keep talking to him, and I tried altering the text to make the notation of similarities part of the discussion of critics' reactions that WP:FILMLEAD recommends in the lead, instead of it just being a standalone comment, but Ring Cinema's page ownership persists. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no warning about this so I assume it is out of order. Other editors have also reverted this editor's proposal about this. He was advised that changes require consensus, which he lacks. I proposed a compromise that he rejected. He has not proposed a compromise acceptable to other editors on these pages. I believe he might be guilty of edit warring for repeatedly reverting multiple editors on this issue. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a clear warning on your talkpage, and after your long history of edit wars, it shouldn't be a shock to you.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering inside the report creation process here, the internal instructions say "Warn the user if you have not already done so," it's pretty obvious that warning a user concurrently with filing a report (which I did) is considered acceptable. Ring is also being very dishonest here. "Other editors" did not revert me, nore did I revert "multiple" editors, only ONE other editor reverted me, his stated reason in his edit summary being my text was uncited, so I added citation to satisfy him, which it seemingly did because he did not come back. There is only one other user who posted only one comment yesterday, and I provided reasons why the full WP:FILMLEAD guideline, not the first sentence of the generic article lead guidance, was the appropriate guidance and indicated my text was appropriate, and that other editor has not since replied. Two people do not make a consensus, Ring seems to be confusing that with WP:POLL, a factual, reliably sourced sentence that all parties agree is appropriate to have in the article as a whole should be able to stand unless true consensus emerges that is is inappropriate in that particular part of the article per extension of WP:NOCON. I also did propose a compromise, making the statement be one of critic reception rather than just standalone notation of similarities, AND I accepted the suggestion that this information be put in the Reception section, but since WP:FILMLEAD says critical reception should also be included in the article's lead, it should also go there. Ring can't have it both ways, he can't condemn me for supposedly rejecting his compromise offer (which I partially accepted), when at the same saying my compromise proposal was not acceptable to him. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still no warning about this so it is out of order. On the substance, Myers refuses to accept that he and he alone holds his views. He did not propose a compromise, since the solution he mentions was mine. He insists on including material in the lead and that is not acceptable to any other editor.

Diffs:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * No editor has supported Myers and, after being advised that, lacking a consensus, he should develop one before insisting on his changes, he continued to revert.

His reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)


 * I would advise returning the article to the last consensus or one consonant with my compromise proposal. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice one of the diffs of my "reverts" that Ring put up above as a counter-accusation, is where I had added this information to the Reception section in compliance with HIS proposal. Will his distortions of the truth never end? Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Ring Cinema does, indeed, have a history of edit warring at film articles with the quality of what seems to be article ownership and winning at any cost. My content disputes over the last few years with him have had much of the same tone as what he's saying and using for reasoning in this case.  A lot of "we need consensus" and "let's compromise" -- then, when compromise is attempted and consensus isn't exactly overwhelming one way or the other, he changes the "rules" and ends up wanting to have his way, regardless.  Personally, I have to agree with  on the content dispute as well as the edit warring charge. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  21:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ring Cinema's conduct here is concerning. The edit warring, coupled with the combative commentary and the flippant disregard for the previous disruption that has resulted in blocks (up to a month in length), the validity of this report, as well as for edit warring policy (which clearly states that a warning isn't required) leaves me unable to find any mitigating factors at all. I just can't understand how an editor who's been warned and blocked so many times for edit warring can come to this noticeboard with his only defense being, "I wasn't warned so the report is invalid". This is not a bureaucracy and the concerns raised are valid, especially considering the fact that this is a long-term problem. . S warm   ♠  00:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Unknowledge has been edit warring in the Grey Wolves article since 22 June, from removing referenced information to adding a "Bias" tag. I also have to question the competency of user:Unknowledge, broken English, ranting on the Grey Wolves talk page("Leftist organizations hate grey wolves and they blame grey wolves for all things and this page made by them.Grey wolves is an legal association in Turkey.They are not violent"), accusing the editors of the article of being terrorists(" think this page made by leftist terrorist organizations in Turkey such as dhkp-c, pkk and hdp"), not assuming good faith("You are sided. Obey the rules of wikipedia","You are not behaving properly according to wikipedia rules"). After being unable to removing references and referenced information he does not like, Unknowledge then posts a rant on the Grey Wolves talk page, deciding that was all that was needed to place a tag on the article. Such knowledge of Wikipedia tags leads me to believe this is a blocked user. The poor level of English and battleground attitude would possibly indicate EMr_Kng. As of this date, Unknowledge has not responded to my discussion on the Grey Wolves talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Another rant: "It is totally biassed.Although grey wolves is an legal assocation in Turkey it is described as a terrorist organizaton and neo-fascist.Many users struggle to change that but some other users prevent this and behave unproperly according to wikipedia rules.You can look history and talk this page.Grey Wolves (organization).

I do not believe this user, who has also removed referenced information from other articles, is here to help build an encyclopedia. Their edits indicate a battleground attitude towards other editors and an unwillingness to discuss any of their edits. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Upon my assessment, I agree.  S warm   ♠  00:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously warned by multiple users and blocked

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note: After receiving a rude comment fom VanEman "Bad move, QWERTY!" - the other user responded and explained the changes and edits, but VanEman did not discuss anything on talk page. Just deleted.

Comments:

This user was previously warned and blocked for edit warring.

User was warned multiple times by multiple users to stop disruptive editing. User went ahead and repeatedly deleted all the warnings from talk page making even more difficult to discover the behavior.

-This deletion from talk page was not a cleanup job - it was a cover-up, since user DID retain 'praise' on talk page (including a banaster). User had hate comments praising him.

I have not had the time to review this user's edits, but from the few cases I was involved I have seen BLP violations, disruptive hateful edits - multiple reverts - often ignoring any talk page discussion (example in one article user made 3 reverts completely ignoring this talk page discussion.  Caseeart (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have had a few conflicts with this user (VanEman) as well, who is a tendentious and belligerent editor, especially in issues where he seems emotionally involved. I think that this user is here for his personal agenda, and will in the long term not be able to turn into a positively contributing member of this community. Debresser (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . Multiple consecutive edits count as one revert, and the user did not repeat the revert, so it is very difficult to call this scenario "edit warring".  Users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk page if they choose to do so (and even selectively remove only warnings if they wish) per WP:BLANKING, which states, in part:
 * That being said, if you believe this user is editing with an agenda that is not compatible with the aim of building a neutral encyclopedia, then perhaps a post at WP:ANI is warranted. At any rate, this incident is not edit warring. –Darkwind (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That being said, if you believe this user is editing with an agenda that is not compatible with the aim of building a neutral encyclopedia, then perhaps a post at WP:ANI is warranted. At any rate, this incident is not edit warring. –Darkwind (talk) 08:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I just reviewed the 3RR: An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Did not realize that it is one revert.


 * Please allow this to remain a little longer. I will take me a little more time to look at the user's history and the details of this and the other incidents. Caseeart (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved "new case" to its own section per typical ANEW process. –Darkwind (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:SportsEditor518 reported by User:Falcadore (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (first two reverts were a few days earlier than the others but has reverted consistently since):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has reverted any attempts to alter his version of the article - reverting six times in one day and is refusing to acknowledge previous history of the article shown at talk page and at talk page archive. --Falcadore (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * –Darkwind (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:80.44.163.80 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

IP sockpuppet of banned User:Vote (X) for Change

Comments:

Semi-PP may be needed. Note: IP now blocked by User:NeilN

JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For ban evasion. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

User:VanEman reported by User:Caseeart (Result: Blocked one week)
Actually Just in the last 24 hours user again became engaged in edit warring. This came right after user deleted my ANI discussion notification from their talk page and then user went ahead and began edit warring again:

Page:

Before any reverts:

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

4th revert was slightly after 24 hrs.

User was involved in this edit war since July.
 * 1)
 * 2)

User did not mention anything on the article's talk page despite request from other user.

Comments:

The other user that was involved in this edit warring specified in the edit summary certain disruptive editing agendas by VanEman. - VanEman's History also shows that majority (or almost all) of VanEman's edits are for those agendas - and it does not appear that the user is here to help build an encyclopedia. Caseeart (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I wrote last time:

"This user was previously warned and blocked for edit warring.

User was warned multiple times by multiple users to stop disruptive editing. User went ahead and repeatedly deleted all the warnings from talk page making even more difficult to discover the behavior.


 * Just now again VanEman | reverted my edits on a different article - totally ignoring | the discussion on talk page and the BLP1 concerns in my edit summaries. VanEman was also not honest in the edit summaries. Instead of specifying that he/she was reverting and edit warring | my edits the user made it sound like they were simply adding new material by using summaries "minor corrections" "add testimony by the school" "add results of hearings" - when in fact all three of those edits were really reverting my edits and ignoring the talk page " Caseeart (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Caseeart (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - VanEman has also displayed problematic editing at Western Wall, specifically a slow motion edit war usually consisting of reverting thrice in one day (staying within the letter of 3RR) against consensus and without discussion. After my recent attempt to open discussion, the only reply was this rant which had nothing to do with the resolving the issue.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for the well put together report. S warm   ♠  01:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:50.47.2.186 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


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


 * Comments:
 * . S warm   ♠  01:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:110.168.232.98 reported by User:Supdiop (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: 110.168.232.98
 * 1)  "Undid revision 674955303 by Supdiop (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 674954633 by Widr (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 674952802 by 174.91.187.234 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 674950735 by 121.219.61.6 (talk)"


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: 110.168.231.216
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674956158
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674956534
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674956736


 * Diffs of the user's reverts: 110.168.232.201
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blood_Duster&diff=prev&oldid=674961153


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.168.232.98#August_2015
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.168.231.216#August_2015
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:110.168.232.201#August_2015


 * Comments:

Warning given by Widr. Supdiop ( Talk 🔹 Contribs ) 07:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Clearly all three are the same user vandalising the page concerned. 121.219.61.6 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Page semiprotected two days by User:Darkwind. Also, one of the IPs has been blocked for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=674946634 making a legal threat]. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Supergreg22 reported by User:Amaury (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Season 2 (2015) */"
 * 2)  "/* Season 2 (2015) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) diff=674441804&oldid=674441651


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


 * Comments:

Continues to change to production code for Girl Meets Fish to 119, ignoring the discussion on the talk page, especially informative comments by. The only source available currently provides a production code of 219, and while this episode was obviously shot during the first season, until another reliable source comes along, 219 must stay.

User has already been warned to take it to the talk page a number of times, both on their talk page and via reverts. Amaury (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . Everyone makes honest mistakes but given this editor's history of problematic behavior and the fact that the issue has been clearly addressed on the talk page there's really no excuse. S warm   ♠  01:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:David Gerard (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Multiple editors reverted this blog addition to a BLP, explaining in diffs:

Comments:

This is an addition of a low-quality personal blog source to a BLP. So hypothetically I could continue to revert as it's a BLP, but I'd rather bring it to wider attention first. Per their talk page, the user has been blocked for edit-warring several times previously, so they know what they were doing - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand David Gerard's criticism. My source is an excellent article written by two Phds. I don't know why he keeps insisting my source is a "low-quality personal blog". I hope we can resolve this through discussion.Jimjilin (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've brought this up at WP:ANI. Up to you if you'd like to close this thread in favor of discussing there. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Wherever is most useful, looks like your piece there is. My concern was (a) BLP violation (b) a determined one, that hit 3RR (c) others' opinions to double-check my own, rather than just reverting myself, and it's got that now - David Gerard (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

David Gerard, why do you ignore my question? Why do you feel my source is a "low-quality personal blog"?Jimjilin (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . Looks like a larger behavioral issue is being discussed at ANI and this block is not meant to address that. The user should be allowed to contribute to that discussion but the block for 3RR is pretty straightforward. S warm   ♠  02:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nihil novi and User:Libesruinssineced reported by User:Mfb (Result: Libesruinssineced blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

No 3RR violation, but a slow editwar going on over two weeks now, see version history.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion ongoing, but that doesn't stop the reverts in the article. --mfb (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Result: User:Libesruinssineced has been blocked 24 hours by User:Airplaneman. This editor seem not to understand the concept of a 'multiple discovery', one that is made by more than one person independently. He has restored his version nine times since 23 July.  User:Nihil novi is warned that believing you are right is not a justification for edit warring. You need to take the matter to an admin board before it gets this far. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:82.132.227.156 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

Part of edit-warring sock dynamic IPs adding POV/vandalism edits on Cyprus. Please see also the contributions of IPs and. Page protection noticeboard not responding. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * by . Looks like they beat us to it. :P S warm   ♠  01:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a busy day today for socks. It must be the heat. :) Ponyo has also helped out with the Grey Wolves SPI. Thank you for blocking the original sock and protecting the article. Take care. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 02:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Editorchief1988 reported by User:IgnorantArmies (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments: Editorchief1988 (a new user) is attempting to remove content without explanation (I've also posted on their talkpage about the need to use edit summaries). Judging by their contributions a report to WP:ANV would've been equally justified, so a long-term/indef block might be a good idea. The other user involved in the edit war,, is also quite a new user, but I think their violation of 3RR is justified given the edit they were reverting is very close to outright vandalism. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  (talk)  13:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for clear edit warring and 3RR violation. –Darkwind (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:139.195.16.10 reported by User:Oripaypaykim (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Passenger Airlines */"
 * 2)  "/* Passenger Airlines */ No misunderstanding Oripay, Just show me the Authorization Simple !"
 * 3)  "/* Passenger Airlines */ The rules from Wikipedia not Dept of Transportation Rep Indonesia Oripay !"
 * 4)  "/* Passenger Airlines */ Oripay where's ur Authorization ? Don't make any illegal edit"
 * 5)  "/* Passenger Airlines */"
 * 6)  "/* Passenger Airlines */ Hey Oripay if u need source, I will request authorization from Dept Transportation Rep of Indonesia"
 * 7)  "/* Passenger Airlines */"
 * 8)  "/* Passenger Airlines */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Indonesia re added from their airport who among the dept transportation rep of Indonesia is not official passenger.Oripaypaykim (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:68.170.119.169 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor has engaged in a long-term attempt at adding an initialism and shortened form of the club's name to the nickname parameter multiple times since 2015-07-27. Four different editors have reverted. Four warnings on the editor's talk page to supply sources. None for edit warring though. This is long-term edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * He's been adding unsourced content for nearly a month, so I blocked him for a month. He hadn't received an EW warning, sure, but it would appear this guy doesn't listen anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:68.190.244.10 reported by User:Location (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 03:16, 3 June 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:08, 1 August 2015
 * 2) 21:39, 7 August 2015‎
 * 3) 23:11, 7 August 2015
 * 4) 23:21, 7 August 2015
 * 5) 00:30, 8 August 2015
 * 6) 06:06, 8 August 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 00:50, 2 August 2015‎ Koijmonop
 * 2) 01:06, 2 August 2015 Location
 * 3) 23:13, 7 August 2015 Location
 * 4) 00:30, 8 August 2015‎ Cullen328

Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 10:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ideloctober reported by User:DD2K (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Read the sources more clearly, please. If articleso n JFK, MLK, and others include conspiracy theories of their intended assassinations, why can't Rockwell's? Two university books mention that theories exist for his assassination."
 * 2)  "It's not a blog source, it's a blog that used a quote from a biography on Rockwell., as well as another blog quoting sourced accounts from Party members on their theories (again from another book). Adding third source from below since it covers same topi"
 * 3)  "Most politicians' legacy sections include political summaries and political notes."


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


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


 * Comments:

Editor also made reverts while logged out as an IP -- here and here. Section of other disruptive behavior at ANI. Dave Dial (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I won't make any more changes to said article. Ideloctober (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * User has kindly agreed to WP:LETITGO so I see no need for further intervention. S warm   ♠  20:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Warned)
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: Talk:Ashoka

Comments:

Sadly, I have to say that often games the 3RR rules. It would be a good idea to tell him that is not ok to do so. When there are talk page discussions going on, it is preferable for him to wait until consensus is arrived at. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * They seem to have backed down on the talk page now, although they have not self-reverted., is it the backing down that constitutes gaming, ie: pushing things just beyond the limit and then sort-of retracting? - Sitush (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re-pinging due to typo. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Human3015 reverted Sitush's 3rr notice this morning with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Sitush (talk): I think I made 2 reverts, you are on 3rr," which indicates that he is trying to carefully skirt around the 3RR rules. But 3RR is only the last line in the sand. I am not sure one should be reaching it while an active discussion is going on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * not going to issue a block here as you appear to have stopped reverting quite some time ago and I don't see any immediate preventative benefit it would provide. However you clearly violated 3RR and subjected yourself to a significant block given the previous violations and will probably not be given a lot of leeway for future ones. . S warm   ♠  21:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Zhh50 reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user who also edits sometimes behind an IP can't understand a simple fact I'm trying to tell him, in first revert he did revert another user but his next 3 are my edits. I tried to warn him in his talkpage before reporting here but he just blanked the page. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Although not truly warned with uw-3rr (which is preferred), between the clearing of the notification about the thread here, lack of response, and continued edit warring (now on two articles), this is getting a little out of hand. -- slakr \ talk / 05:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Rami.198678 reported by User:LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Corruption allegations */ removal of a clear violation of wikepedia rules and should be revised by an admin"
 * 2)  "/* Corruption allegations */ i removed a part not adhering to the biographies of living persons"
 * 3)  "Removal of poorly sourced materials used in order of defimation of a public figuere, the same lines, edits and attempts used since 2006 by the same user"
 * 4)  "/* Corruption allegations */  removal of paragraph that is a clear violation of wikipedia rules concering the biography of a living person and defomation of a public figuer attempts since 2006"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 675129240 by LimitationsAndRestrictions495656778774 (talk) removal of a paragraph that violates Wikipedia rules"
 * 6)  "removal of a paragraph that is considered by Wikipedia as defamation of a public figure"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
 * 2)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Nabih Berri. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nabih Berri. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* sock-puppet notice */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* BLP notice */ new section"


 * Comments:

Already suspected sock-puppet, posted to BLP notice board in addition to talk page initiative, no response and still reverting.. 495656778774 (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . There's socking but also questionable content addition + socking going on. Please seek dispute resolution.  -- slakr  \ talk / 05:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:173.66.114.253 reported by User:JJMC89 (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 675188687 by Conifer (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 675182788 by JJMC89 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 675160862 by JJMC89 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 675102142 by Conifer (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 674191863 by Conifer (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 674191863 by Conifer (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

May also be. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 22:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 06:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Js82 reported by User:onel5969 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (7/22/2015)
 * 2)  (7/22/2015)
 * 3)  (7/22/2015)
 * 4)  (7/22/2015)
 * 5)  (7/22/2015)
 * 6)  (7/23/2015)
 * 7)  (8/6/2015)
 * 8)  (8/6/2015)
 * 9)  (8/8/2015)
 * 10)  (8/8/2015)
 * 11)  (8/8/2015)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Js82

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

Comments:

Editor has a difficult time with the concept of consensus building. And perhaps WP:OR as well (I've asked an involved editor who has access to the sources to verify the veracity of this new editor's contributions). Want to stabilize the article while consensus is reached, which, as we all know, can take some time. I've included the older reverts to show the pattern of this editor on this article. Also, please be aware that an spi was opened, since some of the reverts were by ips. You can find it here. Thanks.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 23:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Instead of responding in a calm, mature way, even after an admin left an understanding message on their talk page, the editor chose not to self-revert as show of good faith, instead responding with a personal attack on the article's talk page.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)