Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive291

User:Mberez reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

New editor, their only edits have been to create an article from scratch, last September (with LaTeX markup too). This sat quietly unnoticed, until a thread on the physics project page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics. The reaction to this article was "not positive".

I am no expert here, but I'd heard the term before. So I added the obvious reference for it. rewrote it. This changed the conclusions of the article substantially. It is still not a good article, but it begins to make progress.

Mberez returned rapidly from their dormancy since a year ago and reverted the article. They have now 4RReverted it. With some comments on their user talk:.

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

This is simple bright line edit warring. The new article might continue as is, might be merged to Planck length, might be deleted altogether. However it's not staying with Mberez' version. There is no support for that from other editors. "Gobbledegook" was one deserved comment.

Mberez is welcome to explain the virtues of their version on the physics project talk: page (probably best, as that's where it has begun) or, if blocked, through their own user talk:. But they need to start showing some sources and explanation, and cut it with the reverts. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We have also asked why Mberez's version is better, but the editor simply keeps insisting it should stay, and the better cited one to remain deleted. The fact that a paper is being deleted in favour of WP:OR is a clear sign the editor is not here to be productive. M&and;Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. I found this article while fixing disambiguation links, and since it was basically a single fairly impenetrable line, I brought it to the project. There was quickly a clear consensus that the one-line version of the article required substantial improvement. I would recommend merging the revised version into Planck length, and making this title into an edit-protected redirect.  bd2412  T 00:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That needs a separate merge discussion. I'd oppose it (at present) because it's simply too early. None of us are familiar with the Planck angle and the level of attention paid to it in the relevant media. Although a merge to Planck dimensions has merit, it's also quite possible that the angle justifies itself separately because of the implications for astronomy. Protecting the page title would prevent other editors working on that, which would be an unwarranted over reaction. So far a group of editors have collaborated quite successfully on producing a viable article from prior confusion. Problems with one editor shouldn't be left to disrupt that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , user has not reverted in over 24 hours. S warm   ♠  00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nain tushar 991 reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Tushar nain. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Tushar NAIN. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tushar NAIN. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * Comment, user deleted CSD tag from his account. After I placed the tag again, presumably he deleted the tag from IP 103.27.8.43. (belongs to IIT Delhi). I have also reported his username here. Lastly, user also tampered with the AfD placement. Please block user and salt the page-name. Thanks,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sockpuppet. I have also initiated a Sockpuppet investigation here against this user. FYIP. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * for sockpuppetry. S warm   ♠  01:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Hyperclassic reported by User:Materialscientist (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Edit warring on addition of image of impure nickel against past consensus at WP:ELEMENTS on
 * 1)  Template:Infobox nickel and
 * 2)  Nickel. Plus repeated copyvios on
 * 3)  polonium

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

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

Comments:


 * S warm  ♠  01:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:96.229.32.26 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  01:25, August 17, 2015
 * 2)  02:47, August 17, 2015
 * 3)  04:42, August 17, 2015
 * 4)  13:58, August 17, 2015
 * 5)  18:19, August 17, 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP 96.229.32.26 from Barstow, California, has been edit warring to introduce a second "deluxe" CD to the May 2014 compilation release called ''Now That's What I Call Music! 50''. There is no reference to support a second CD, nor a reference discussing the supposed tracklist. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * by . S warm   ♠  01:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Zefr reported by User:Falconjh (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ginkgo_biloba&oldid=675665195]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zefr&oldid=676522573

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGinkgo_biloba&type=revision&diff=675674532&oldid=645499088

Comments: fpacifica is the one that Zefr was warring with and fpacifica attempted to take it to the talk page, Zefr did not respond but continue to revert, even while saying to take it to the talk page.

Falconjh (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rubus_chamaemorus&oldid=676282024

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  Falconjh (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zefr&oldid=676522573

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARubus_chamaemorus&type=revision&diff=676464132&oldid=676421425 Falconjh (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments: User Zefr has multiple edit wars on going.

Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Berry&oldid=676517305

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zefr&oldid=676522573

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABerry&type=revision&diff=676545598&oldid=676320076

Comments:

Falconjh (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * . I get where you're coming from, but I don't see any ongoing behavior that reaches the level of warranting admin intervention at this point. Yes, slow motion edit wars are just as disruptive as rapid ones, but this is a stretch. S warm   ♠  01:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Mickharris reported by User:DN-boards1 (Result: Blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User continually vandalizes the Mick Harris page, has also attacked User:Serols's page. User is currently also in ANI. DN-boards1 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * per WP:NOTHERE. S warm   ♠  01:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:50.47.2.186 reported by User:trackinfo (Result: Blocked one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Starting with this edit on August 6 this IP user has only made the same repeated edit, removing a sourced quote I had originally inserted. Three editors have restored the content removed by this IP six times. It is their only activity. One of the other users has warned them twice, but almost two weeks later, they are still at it. Trackinfo (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * S warm  ♠  01:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Bakebread reported by User:46.251.117.205 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahallebi&diff=676917982&oldid=676888236
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahallebi&diff=676879072&oldid=676878362

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahallebi&diff=676875054&oldid=676874684

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahallebi&diff=676403999&oldid=676061494


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mahallebi&diff=676978208&oldid=676978110
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

It seems the issue is also regarding some nationalistic, ethnic or political emotions, that do not contribute to the spirit of Wikipedia. This is an international dessert, it is present all over the Middle East, North Africa and Southeast Europe so I tried to stop its place of origin being edited. I have been perfectly clear in my comments on the edits but there has been no engagement in the talk page and everything was reverted without reasonable explanation. I also expanded the article a little and that was also repeatedly reverted without explanation. Even the source says the origin is different, but that was also reverted.

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "source misrepresentation, "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house" - does not mean that "police guards him""
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits by Human3015: The source says: "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house" - it does not mean that "police guards him". (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits by Human3015: It's not - - That again refers to that event on a recent evening and does not mean police does it regularly. "On a recent evening, police officers screened visitors at a checkpoint near his house........"
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits by Human3015 (talk): You have already made three reverts, WP:GAMING? (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Clear case of WP:IDLI, blanket revert of sourced content, not assuming good faith. You can read his last edit summary, talking about number of reverts, not about content.  Human 3015   Send WikiLove   19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) It is not a case of 3RR violation as I made three reverts and not four reverts. The first diff given was my first edit on that article in which I removed the case of source misrepresentation. And the rest of three diffs are my reverts. Human3015 has also made 3 reverts on that article- 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Human3015 is hounding me on several other article. Examples: British Pakistanis, 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes, both of which were fully-protected. He made no attempt to resolve the dispute on talk or my talk prior to blanket-reverting me and reporting me here. I have added a "disputed-inline" tag and have started a talk-page thread, where I would expect further discussion. Faizan (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In my defence
 * The reporter is now not replying on the discussion, Anyway, article requested to be protected, Compromise solution proposed. Faizan (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Reported editor has not self-reverted even after request. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   21:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for one week. You may request early unprotection if you resolve the dispute before then. You both breached 3RR however and were both subject to a block. S warm   ♠  01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, I was always ready for WP:BOOMERANG. I think we both need WikiBreak. It is not the only page where we both are involved in some kind of dispute or edit war. This is becoming hurtning. You can see in my request to him on article's talk page that I already assumed that I will also get blocked. I will request you to be a strong admin. If you think that "we both subject to block" then feel free to implement it. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   03:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Pgtl 100 reported by User:Stickee (Result: Warned user)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676618890 by Stickee (talk)"
 * 2)  "/* Reception */ Added criticism of Higgins from weapons experts."
 * 3)  "/* Reception */ Added criticism of Higgins from weapons experts."
 * 4)  "/* Reception */ It appears criticism about Eliot Higgins was deleted from the page. The additions added create a balance critique  of Eliot Higgins' work rather than an advertisement. Both Ted Postol and Richard Lloyd are credible weapons experts."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* RfC: Is MIT Professor and former UN weapons inspector's opinion on Higgins' weapons analysis admissible? */ adjust my comment"


 * Comments:

This discussion is ludicrous. The moderators of the Eliot Higgins page are attempting to force their point of view praising Eliot Higgins while denying any criticism of the man to be published. The moderators are hiding under the idea that they do not want the Higgins' article to show both good and bad things about Eliot Higgins. However their solution is to cross out any criticism of Eliot Higgins and only publish his praises.

Another article on Christopher Busby shows both criticism and praise of Busby's work. The moderators for Eliot Higgins' article seem to think that praise and criticism cannot be placed in the same article despite precedence in the Busby article.

Furthermore the criticism comes from Theodore Postol and Richard Lloyd located in the London Review of Books. The source is valid and the criticism comes from actual weapons experts and is not a random person's opinion. The criticism for Higgins was previously placed in the article and now seems to be removed in order to sanitize Higgins' image.Pgtl 100 (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pgtl about edit warring and dispute resolution per WP:BITE; page protected for 24 hours as well. Let's please try to be welcoming to new users and attempt communication rather than slapping them with warning templates and AN reports. Thanks. S warm   ♠  07:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: diff


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "BOLD edit"
 * 2)  "BOLD edit"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676616104 by Human3015 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676617316 by Human3015 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Discussion */ it is geographical term"
 * 2)   "/* Discussion */  further"
 * 3)   "/* Discussion */ reply"
 * 4)   "/* Discussion */ reply"
 * 5)   "/* Discussion */  reply"
 * 6)   "/* Discussion */  ce"


 * Comments:

Editor is involved in edit war even after RfC on same issue is going on and no final decision is made regarding this. Even after explaining all policy guidelines on talk page, editor is involved in edit war that too without giving any edit summary. Thank you.  Human 3015   Send WikiLove   03:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC) This should be Crystal CLEAR case of at least a 48 hour block for Human who has been trying to game the system. You can look at the previuos Report he launched against Fauzan and tried to game the system but he was caught. SWARM called him out and told him that he too had breached the 3revert rule and was subject to a block.This kind of warring 5 hours after recieving a reprimand should be punished to be frank. Lets see what the diffs are about. This is when I added unsourced material and was reverted my Human. The three revert rule does not apply here as I did not revert Anyone I just made an edit which I considred BOLD. Adding this here in a report is the utmost height of bad faith and gaming the system. I added sources to my edit which were lacking and which had led to its revrt. Even though one would have been enough I added FOUR sources for one single line. And these two are my reverts Anyone going to the RFC discussion will see that FOUR editors AGREE with the addition of material and ONLY human and one other editor(Who has less than 500 edits and almost 75% of his edits are on the page in question) disagree with the addition of this text. What is an aeditor supposed to DO here? BEG Human to grant him access to editing?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Boomerang:
 * 1)  "BOLD edit"
 * 1)  "BOLD edit"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676616104 by Human3015 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676617316 by Human3015 (talk)"
 * for one week. Human, looking at the discussion, you seem to be misrepresenting the situation. The previous RfC did yield a consensus "that in some way the infobox should recognise the region is disputed". You're reverting based on claims that "there is "no consesnus" to add it to infobox" and that he should "let the ongoing RfC on same issue be closed". On its face this seems to be nothing less than a flagrant misrepresentation of the situation, as the current RfC is a follow up to determine how exactly the infobox should say it, not on whether it can be added to begin with. Furthermore, your argument that 's RfC close is somehow invalid because he's not an administrator and/or because he interpreted a "rough consensus". This is simply wrong. As an uninvolved editor in good standing, he was completely and entirely within his rights to close the RfC, and misrepresenting consensus in an edit war is nothing short of disruptive. Yes, WP:BRD is the appropriate means of going about having one's edit reverted, but I honestly can't see any legitimate reasoning being given for the revert aside from a false procedural concern. I'm not sure what you're doing Human, but stop. Let me further clarify, since you apparently aren't particularly deterred by the threat of a block (based on your above comment): yes, your opponents may absolutely be blocked alongside you in some of these situations, but given your prior and current incidents of edit warring it's difficult not to see a problematic behavioral pattern on your part, and the next block you receive will be substantially lengthier, especially given the leniency I've opted for regarding these last two reports. Stop edit warring. Last warning from me before the consequences start getting serious. S warm   ♠  06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At least one can see that RfC is going on "how it should be written", without making final decision how one can directly write it in infobox that too at wrong place, "status" section is for geographical status. I will take care next time, but I always want to be neutral and sensible, thanks for not blocking me on several occasions. But I done edit protect request there before reading your comment, I saw your this comment after I done edit request there. Anyway, I wanted to contribute to Tourism project and I was working on it without touching these Indo-Pak topics for long time, but since 2-3 days some biased(according to me) editing going on British Pakistanis, Hafeez Saeed, 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes‎, Siachen conflict etc. which made me to enter in this arena again but working on these topics is always hurtning and a headache. I will take care next time. Thanks. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   07:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676530697 by ViperSnake151 (talk) to effect further reversals"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676432362 by ViperSnake151 (talk) again comply with primary source"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676408309 by Mdrnpndr (talk) what? I just separated out BG from history & removed speculation"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676407891 by Mdrnpndr (talk) No content was removed except speculation about what was taking over for TTRetro EN"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* La chaîne Disney */"


 * Comments:

Multi-user content dispute on Disney Channel (Canada). Although the content issues with this edit war have been resolved through compromises by me, Spshu's abuse of reversions, including at least four within a 24-hour period, is still a blatant violation of 3RR.

Spshu has had a history of conflicts on articles related to children's television. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It is improper for you to bring up any other conflicts. As you are known to for a "history of conflicts on articles" related to cable TV and not even wanting to discuss the matter.

By the way his so called warning is not warning just ViperSnake151 arguing over sourcing not any type of 3RR warning. And arguing against wp:primary source. Spshu (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 & User:Mdrnpndr reported by User:Spshu (Result: )
This is a base and false complaint, which par for the course. I made the mistake involving ViperSnake151 to have him explain better why the French language article Disney La Chaîne should be a renamed Télétoon Rétro (french language) or at Disney Channel CA since we had a dispute handle on the talk page of the article which he did not even want to have. This was to help end the disruptive editing and wp:OWN exhibited by Mdrnpndr.

I warn them hat their actions were distruptive edit on my talk page and they have responded, so they are aware they were warned.
 * Diffs of edit warring / disruptive editing warning:
 * 13:40, 17 August 2015 "/* La chaîne Disney */"
 * "WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, go read this as both of you need to see that your actions in removing reliable news sources are disruptive. 'An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.'"


 * Note: that I am only reporting it here as it its entangled in the above issue.


 * User being reported:, for edit warring and disruptive editing

1. 20:11, 16 August 2015‎ Mdrnpndr (Undid revision 676407496 by Spshu (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) 2.20:11, 16 August 2015‎ Mdrnpndr (Undid revision 676407496 by Spshu (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) 3.20:14, 16 August 2015‎ Mdrnpndr (Undid revision 676408103 by Spshu (talk) You are removing valuable sources as well as content based on them!) 4/A1. 23:36, 16 August 2015‎ ViperSnake151 (rv; subsequent edits downgraded sources (replacing a media publication with a wire service article that contradicts), clean up coverage of French version.) -There was no contradiction, TTR EN closure was unexplained while wire service indicating TTR FR was being replaced by Disney Channel CA French. 5/A2. 15:56, 17 August 2015‎ ViperSnake151 (Undid revision 676509356 by Spshu (talk) incompletely explained removal of sourced content) 6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disney_Channel_%28Canada%29&direction=next&oldid=676531632 16:14, 17 August 2015‎ ViperSnake151 (partial rv; Your wording is literally the exact same information but less concise. Though I did keep the CP source. And stop owning this article.) gee, a personal attack, how is getting a reliable source in the article attempting to own it?
 * explain edit to which they objected to. This edit was post setting up a redirect from La chaîne Disney as that article at the time was total primary sourced. And it did have an explanatory summary: "citing shut down of Teletoon Retro en & fr". It also created a "Background" section. No content was removed, just sources, primary (Corus PR) or difficult to verify (cartt.ca subscription & per its about page a 1 man show).
 * 20:12, 16 August 2015‎ Spshu (Undid revision 676407891 by Mdrnpndr (talk) No content was removed except speculation about what was taking over for TTRetro EN)
 * 20:12, 16 August 2015‎ Spshu (Undid revision 676407891 by Mdrnpndr (talk) No content was removed except speculation about what was taking over for TTRetro EN)
 * 20:16, 16 August 2015‎ Spshu (Undid revision 676408309 by Mdrnpndr (talk) what? I just separated out BG from history & removed speculation
 * 20:38, 16 August 2015 Spshu (ubl sister ch., nonprimary src. for Fr. lang. ch., 2nd src. programming) - another edit with an unbullet list for sister channels & adding French language channel that was primary sourced only thus not notable separately.
 * 13:22, 17 August 2015‎ Spshu (Undid revision 676432362 by ViperSnake151 - again comply with primary source)
 * 15:59, 17 August 2015‎ ViperSnake151 (-999)‎ . . (rm content sourced to disputed site) - finally recognizing  CARTT.CA's problem, but still keeping wp:primary source issue unaddressed
 * (reported above as 1.) 16:04, 17 August 2015‎ Spshu (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,124 bytes) (+999)‎ . . (Undid revision 676530697 by ViperSnake151 (talk) to effect further reversals) - the intermidate edit make it direct impossible to return by reverting, since my version removes CARTT, this should be no harm no foul
 * 16:05, 17 August 2015‎ Spshu (Undid revision 676530226 by ViperSnake151 (talk) again NO REMOVAL OF CONTENT OCCURED, a Background § was created & reliable src. replaced primary src.)

As edit summary will hold out that my changes to comply with WP:PRIMARY by replacing primary sources with mainstream reliable sources were met with "Reverting unexplained content removal". Making false claims isn't a good reason for reversal nor for edit warring on their side. These were basically disruptive edits by definition. Spshu (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Warring and disruptive editing across related articles
Now to get to the beginning of the matter. The conflict goes back to La chaîne Disney, which based on the fact it was only primarily sourced at the time

2. 19:10, 16 August 2015 Mdrnpndr (secondary source now found; revert redirect due to potential confusion as well as continuing expansion of article) 3. 00:06, 17 August 2015 ViperSnake151 (talk | contribs) - unexplained revert 4. 00:07, 17 August 2015 ViperSnake151 (ViperSnake151 moved page La chaîne Disney to Disney La Chaîne: The logo seems to contradict; perhaps they changed it to make the logo still work, so now its "Disney, the Channel" instead of "The Channel of Disney") - original research as source indicate La chaîne Disney, La chaîne Disney per Corus PR.
 * reverts to: 15:40, 16 August 2015‎ Mdrnpndr (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 676358190 by 99.236.180.6 (talk) We go by the source, which clearly identifies it as being replaced.
 * 1) 15:40, 16 August 2015‎ Mdrnpndr (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,689 bytes) (+63)‎ . . (Undid revision 676358190 by 99.236.180.6 (talk) We go by the source, which clearly identifies it as being replaced.)
 * Since it is by source a continuation of Teletoon Retro French CA (TTR FR), per discussion held at Talk:FYI_(U.S._TV_channel) which included ViperSnake151, who was the vocal proponent of keeping such a change as one article (no change in ownership, genre, etc. "Typically, re-brandings of this nature do not get separate articles unless there is a major ownership change with a complete change in scope that is significant and detailed enough for its own article (i.e. Al Jazeera America), or the new network is technically and legally distinct from the previous one") Disney Channel CA-FR would be covered in TTR FR then renamed as Disney Channel CA-FR (just for discussion).
 * To which Mdrnpndr via a template asked for reason.
 * 19:04, 16 August 2015‎ Spshu (Undid revision 676398300 by Mdrnpndr (talk) currently only sourced by primary source & is currently Télétoon Rétro) - reason given.
 * Try a different tack, a Redirect to Disney Channel (Canada)

Others

 * User being reported: for edit warring and disruptive editing

Mdrnpndr continues this edit & disruptive editing across a few more articles: 1. [ 19:11, 16 August 2015‎] Mdrnpndr (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (10,964 bytes) (+825)‎. . (Undid revision 676399483 by Spshu (talk) Reverting unexplained content removal) - again a edit that was explained (→‎History: rmv. primary src.)
 * Page:
 * Again revert the same source as the rest.

1.20:54, 16 August 2015‎ Mdrnpndr (talk | contribs)‎. . (2,924 bytes) (-18)‎. . (Undid revision 676411473 by Spshu (talk) corporate structure at that point not yet known)
 * Page:
 * Seem to be total retaliatory as 20:11, 16 August 2015 that reorganization was place in the Corus Entertainment article.


 * Repeated misuse of template warning.
 * Page:
 * 1) 16 August 2015 uw-delete2 for a redirect that has or should have the same source information, Télétoon Rétro
 * 2) 19:13, 16 August 2015 Template:uw-delete3 for me telling him that La chaîne Disney currently do not met notability and that the source are primary sources which he make clear in his next post
 * 3) 19:21, 16 August 2015
 * 4) 19:26, 16 August 2015 uw-delete3, calls following WP:primary sources as disruptive editing
 * 5) 20:11, 16 August 2015 uw-delete4 for supposedly blanking Disney Channel (Canada) which did not happen (see above)


 * Note that I filed for [RfPP] on all the articles given ViperSnake151 taking up Mdrnpndr's torch to force it into discussion.

So the report by ViperSnake151 and his and Mdrnpndr other action amounts to Gaming, I don't like it and Disruptive editing by example - WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors."

Sorry that it so long, responding administrator, but that is the only way you will see the full pictures. I request that they cooperated. Spshu (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your retaliatory actions here further prove that you are simply asserting ownership over the articles in question. I had actually only read your concerns about Cartt after the "unexplained content removal" edit, which led to the "rm content sourced to disputed site" edit. Going by the definition on 3RR, I stopped after my third formal "reversion", which was simply to restore some of your replacement sourcing and copyedit, and have remained in compliance with the related policies. Why you are indirectly making me responsible for actions performed by other editors in this dispute is uncalled for. Plus, as I mentioned, you continue to strictly interpret WP:PRIMARY as a strict ban on the use of primary sources, which it is not. Primary sources can be used for straightforward statements, but more advanced interpretations require a secondary source. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * by . S warm   ♠  01:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not making you responsible for edits made by others, but you where informed that your action in stopping a reliable secondary news source taking the place of a primary source is straight out disruptive editing, per the WP:DISRUPTSIGNS example, which you join in on. You are not be called on the carpet for misuse of template warning or the expanding the warring to other pages. I am leaving it up to the responding administrator if it is a "tag team" attempt at 3RR. Which is not as you attempt to misclaim that I am miss interpreting PRIMARY. Since, a secondary source can take the primary source's place then you should/must use the secondary source per PRIMARY. Attempt to place the preferred source type in an article is not an attempt at asserting ownership that is just asserting rights as an editor to follow PRIMARY. Spshu (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Biblicalprofphd (WP:SCRUTINY-evasion of User:Biblestudyprof) reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Sock indef blocked, master blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - User warned
 * 2)  - User had already shown they are aware of the warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

User is not even a full day out of a block for the same edits as last time. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Master account blocked for a week.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:187.56.161.224 reported by User:GoddersUK (Result: blocked, 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676683743 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676683656 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676683610 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676682919 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 676682893 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 676682632 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 676682708 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 676682787 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 676682659 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 676682449 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 676682351 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 676680024 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 676680207 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 676680173 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 676680043 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 676516913 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 676516887 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 18)  "1987=sport"
 * 19)  "/* Champion */"
 * 20)  "/* Champion */"
 * 21)  "1987=Sport union Cup"
 * 22)  "1987=Sport"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 676516948 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676516887 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 2)  "1987=sport"
 * 3)  "/* Champion */"
 * 4)  "/* Champion */"
 * 5)  "1987=Sport union Cup"
 * 6)  "1987=Sport"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 676516948 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"
 * 1)  "1987=Sport"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676516948 by 193.212.51.164 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring warning was given by a different editor, TW doesn't make it easy for me to add this to the report but I will try to do so manually after. GoddersUK (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)(EDIT:Now done)


 * Same IPs seem to be edit warring on List of Brazilian football championsand Clube de Regatas do Flamengo GoddersUK (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both IPs involved in the edit war have been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:179.218.115.47 reported by User:GoddersUK (Result: blocked, 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676683987 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676683941 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676684432 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676682863 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 676682886 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 676682833 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 676682520 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 676682586 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 676682290 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 676682097 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 676682245 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 676679567 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 676677200 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 676677019 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 676676858 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 676676779 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 676676739 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 676676737 by GoddersUK (talk)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 676676687 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 676680104 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676679567 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676677200 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676677019 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676676858 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 676676779 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 676676739 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 676676737 by GoddersUK (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 676676687 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 676680104 by 179.218.115.47 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning was given by another editor. I can't add it in TW but will add it to the report manually after I have posted. GoddersUK (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is that AnomieBOT draw your attention when Substing templates:uw-3rr. See User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster for info?-Gmaildamn (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gmaildamn, I'd edited the page earlier, so it was on my watchlist. When I saw the editing pattern I went to leave a warning, but you'd already done so. Given that they were still reverting I brought it here. Hope that was appropriate! GoddersUK (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Same IPs seem to be edit warring on List of Brazilian football championsand Clube de Regatas do Flamengo GoddersUK (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Both IPs in the edit war have been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Die death1 reported by User:Jytdog (Result: blocked, 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff (as IP)
 * 2) diff as IP
 * 3) diff as "Die Death" (as are the rest)
 * 4) diff
 * 5) diff
 * 6) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_National_Society_of_Leadership_and_Success&diff=676689155&oldid=676687859]

Comments:

New user of the worst kind, who has come here for one reason - and that is to advocate for something or other and will not use the talk pages. Please at least lock the article. I recognize that I have been edit warring right beside them. So frustrating when new editors will not talk.
 * gave them welcome and warned them not to use WP to advocate - explained wikipedia's policies and the importance of talking

Doesn't seem to want to discuss. User angrily demanded that everyone, I guess, but maybe just directed at me, stop posting on "his" page. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Die_death1&diff=676690666&oldid=676689416] Brianhe (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked by for disruptive editing. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:193.212.51.164 reported by User:GoddersUK (Result: blocked, 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Final Results */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676687334 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Finals */"
 * 4)  "/* Champion */"
 * 5)  "/* Champion */"
 * 6)  "/* Champion */"
 * 7)  "/* Champion */"
 * 8)  "/* Champion */"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 676685252 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 676685137 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 676684770 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 676684709 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 676682996 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 676682966 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 676271234 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 676271172 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 676271124 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676684770 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676684709 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676682996 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676682966 by 187.56.161.224 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 676271234 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 676271172 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 676271124 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676271234 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676271172 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676271124 by 179.98.185.161 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Will edit to add warning info to report in a moment. (EDIT: Now done. GoddersUK (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC))

Also warring on other pages, inc: List of Brazilian football champions, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, 1992 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A GoddersUK (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * . Another IP in the Brazilian football edit-war blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:50.152.50.83 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) The producer, distrubuter and director of this film were all American, so this film is therefore American. In no way is it a British production. (50.152.50.83)
 * 2) There are no sources to prove British involvement in production to therefore claim this as a British production. All the available info states that this is an American film.
 * 3) There is no need for a source to prove this is a US production, as there are sources in this page proving this fact already.)
 * 4) No, source is needed to prove this is a British production. The info on this page says the production and distribution companies were American, therefore it is American. Meanwhile, there is no evidence of British involvement in this film.
 * 5) Undid revision 676730761 by MarnetteD (talk)
 * 6) no summary
 * 7) Undid revision 676740136 by Andy Dingley (50.152.50.83)
 * 8) In what way is this film British? Cite!!!! Explain!!! Something!!! The film is of the same nationality as its producers and distributors: American. (50.152.50.83)

New IP editor making an unsourced (and incorrect) change of Brazil from a British film to a US film. Presumably because of where Gilliam was born. Reverted by multiple editors.

Maybe some protection needed, as they've already IP-morphed twice. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Similar soapboxing on Once Upon a Time in America,  Alien (film) , Shaun of the Dead  and Hot Fuzz: Removed "British" from its description since it is not a solely British production.  Are we into topic ban territory yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (semi). -- slakr \ talk / 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Boy Named Stu reported by User:Randykitty (Result: 31h)
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:, , and.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I added text to this level 1 warning explaining that reverting a community decision reached after an AfD is considered disruptive editing and asked the editor to stop reverting. --Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31h. Article reverted to AfD result. Black Kite (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

User:1.186.199.135 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Page protected)

 * 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:

Even though the film is yet to begin production, he tries to create an article for it, against my orders. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 01:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:77.130.193.59 reported by User:Shreerajtheauthor (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There is no fucking transaction, reported of otherwise"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676875063 by Shreerajtheauthor How dare you accuse me of vandalism, you stupid prat?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676874342 by Shreerajtheauthor When does a rumour become a transaction, FFS."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676875063 by Shreerajtheauthor How dare you accuse me of vandalism, you stupid prat?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676874342 by Shreerajtheauthor When does a rumour become a transaction, FFS."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Sadio Mané. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 676876387 by 77.130.193.59 (talk). Do not revert talkpage warnings on Wiki or get into edit wars. There are now 3 users who have warned you."
 * 3)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Sadio Mané. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Undid revision 676877613 by 77.130.193.59 (talk). Please do not blank your talkpage. This is a forum for discussing edits."
 * 5)   "Please see warning given your unconstructive edits"


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


 * Comments:

User has received 2 warnings by me, and a third by bot. Have also placed 3rr template on page. 3 OTHER users have also warned not to insult other editors. User has also blanked talkpage with Warnings given to subject. Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 01:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Exxcalibur808 reported by User:MaxBrowne (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has repeatedly attempted to introduce the subjective assessment "one of the greatest chess players of all time" into the lead section of the article, despite general agreement on the article's talk page that this constitutes puffery. The sources provided are only other people's subjective opinions of the player; they should not be treated as objective facts. User has edit warred aggressively and refused to compromise or acknowledge the concerns of the other editors in the talk page discussion. User has also taken to admin shopping, messaging four separate admins to try to push his own POV instead of following proper process. Also, "I feel strongly about it" is not a valid argument to justify edit warring. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , user is obviously in the wrong with their behavior but they haven't reverted in over 24 hours. Re-report if necessary. S warm   ♠  02:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily FP'd this article until the issue is resolved. Without prejudice to another admin lifting or shortening the protection as they see fit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Shahbazmalik97 (talk) to last revision by SheriffIsInTown. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676970969 by Human3015 (talk)well thank GOD wikipedia does not run on Pakistani laws lol. Anyway your revert is POV and against WP policies."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 676975378 by Human3015 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 676980191 by Human3015 (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Ahmadis and Islam */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Ahmadis and Islam */ further"
 * 3)   "/* Ahmadis and Islam */ cm"
 * 4)   "/* Ahmadis and Islam */  refs"


 * Comments:

Clear violation of 3rr. His first revert of another editor was abuse of rollback, last 2 reverts were without edit summary. Not given any valid rationale for his reverts on talk page as of now.  Human 3015   Send WikiLove   10:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The reverts in question don't fall under the 3 Revert Rule as they are clear vandalism. The content issue under question is whether "Ahmadies" can be called muslims or not. This issue was resolved (After lengthy debate) more than 4 years ago. There are MORE THAN A DOZEN discussions on wikipedia which resulted in 'CLEAR CONSENSUS' that ahmadies are muslims. Three such discussions are present in the Pakistan TP archives. However there is daily vandalism against Ahmadi articles where someone either inserts derogatory slurs into the article or removes the words "muslim" to replace them with "non muslim". Therefore reverting such vandalism is routine to me and many other editors who keep watch on these pages(A quick look at the pages, Ahmadiyyah, Qadiani, Islam, Pakistan, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and their related Talk Pages will confirm that they are routinely vandalised). Usually I don't bother to report such vandals as they either get bored or just get tired. However when an editor starts a TP discussion about the edits I take time to explain to him the consensus and guide him towards the relevant discussion which are in archives. If you look at the Pakistan TP you will see that I guided Human but he just keeps on restoring the vandalised version of the article. Therefore the 3Revert rule does not apply here.
 * BOOMERANG:

P.S Human has been stalking/hounding me for some time. The last time he tried to report me(I dont think that discussion has even been archived yet lol) an admin admonished him saying

Human, looking at the discussion, you seem to be misrepresenting the situation. The previous RfC did yield a consensus "that in some way the infobox should recognise the region is disputed". You're reverting based on claims that "there is "no consesnus" to add it to infobox" and that he should "let the ongoing RfC on same issue be closed". On its face this seems to be nothing less than a flagrant misrepresentation of the situation, as the current RfC is a follow up to determine how exactly the infobox should say it, not on whether it can be added to begin with. Furthermore, your argument that AlbinoFerret's RfC close is somehow invalid because he's not an administrator and/or because he interpreted a "rough consensus". This is simply wrong. As an uninvolved editor in good standing, he was completely and entirely within his rights to close the RfC, and misrepresenting consensus in an edit war is nothing short of disruptive. Yes, WP:BRD is the appropriate means of going about having one's edit reverted, but I honestly can't see any legitimate reasoning being given for the revert aside from a false procedural concern. I'm not sure what you're doing Human, but stop. Let me further clarify, since you apparently aren't particularly deterred by the threat of a block (based on your above comment): yes, your opponents may absolutely be blocked alongside you in some of these situations, but given your prior and current incidents of edit warring it's difficult not to see a problematic behavioral pattern on your part, and the next block you receive will be substantially lengthier, especially given the leniency I've opted for regarding these last two reports. Stop edit warring. Last warning from me before the consequences start getting serious. Swarm ♠ 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Page protected 24 hours. Please don't bring external conflicts into Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Result:

Georgewilliamherbert can you lengthen the time of protection to 72 hours? You can see that not many edits have been made recently except vandalism. If any major edit is required quickly we can always request it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment:

User:Spshu reported by User:Mdrnpndr (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 676839369 by 41.142.99.147 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 676804716 by Mdrnpndr (talk) yes it does there are two sources in the article"
 * 3)  "return to source"
 * 4)  "restore structure sourced in Corus article"
 * 1)  "restore structure sourced in Corus article"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Re: cartt.ca */ Comment"


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


 * Comments:

This user has been edit warring against not only my own edits (only two here) but also those of multiple IPs. This user was also recently reported for edit warring against another user across multiple related articles. Mdrnpndr (talk) 09:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Mdrnpndr was the one [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:ViperSnake151_.26_User:Mdrnpndr_reported_by_User:Spshu_.28Result:_.29 reported for edit warring and disruptive editing] across multiple related article. I attempt first a RfPP to stop edit warring so discussion can occur. As spelled out in the above counter charges, Mdrnpndr missed used templates slapping several on my talk page instead of engaging in discussion to harassment me. While I tried talking him down what was a template were questioning inferring that I should not make any judgements. His edit match (as detailed in the previous ANI/ER) as textbook example of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: "An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors." Which is one of the thing I was doing taking a media source and replacing a primary (PR) source. He removed his notification of that report here as Wikipedia:Harassment.


 * Two pages were eventually page protected and when I attempt a merge discussion thus needing an administrator to edit to post the notices to the lock page, he followed me there to oppose posting the merger discussion notice. It was I who started talk page discussion to resolve the argument not Mdrnpndr. And your post is basically an order. As you previous said in reversing summaries corporate structure at that point not yet known then the next reversal edit summary: "The source you mentioned does not even remotely support such an organizational structure. Furthermore, your proposed template structuring is highly misleading." It isn't misleading it is what the source states up to a point and is not far from what you are reverting back to.


 * His so called "Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning", I assume his is supposed warning. It is his person assurance about a disputed source, cartt.ca, not any warning.


 * Also, his "Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is 3 minutes before his 09:42, 20 August 2015‎ Notifying me about this edit warring noticeboard discussion. I have made no edits to the template (or any other article for that matter) in those three minutes.
 * Notices to Mdrnpndr:
 * Diffs of notice of disruptive editing:
 * 19:39, 16 August 2015
 * 13:40, 17 August 2015
 * Diffs of notice of harassment/intimation/over use of templates
 * 20:18, 16 August 2015
 * 04:06, 17 August 2015 ViperSnake151 even warns him about using templates with a regular Spshu (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:87.92.157.171 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Bidding phase */"
 * 2)  "/* Bidding phase */"
 * 3)  "/* Bidding phase */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Eurovision Song Contest 2016. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Eurovision Song Contest 2016. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Vandalism on Eurovision Song Contest 2016. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

The IP keeps on removing the dagger template, that was placed there by due to WP:ACCESS.  Wes Mouse  &#10002;  15:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ferret reported by User:151.252.246.63 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The numbers presented in cited article are unverifibiable and come from unreliable source. Unfortunately, editor(s) in question disregard this. 151.252.246.63 (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum:

Considering Gameindustry.biz as "reliable source" this is email i received directly from them:

Dan Pearson 10:10 AM (3 hours ago) to me, contact

Hi - as you can see in the image in the article, the data comes from Superdata. You'll need to speak to them to establish any further details on how they sourced it, although a basic explanation is included beneath the chart.

Best, Dan

Dan Pearson European Editor, GamesIndustry.biz Part of the Gamer Network www.gamer-network.net

Mobile: +44 (0)7967 569 692 Office: 3rd Floor, 1 Grand Parade, Brighton, BN2 9QB, UK.

On 17 August 2015 at 23:40, wrote:

Hi.

Since numbers from this article http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-07-18-the-old-republic-earned-usd165-million-last-year-report are being cited as verifiable facts, could you please explain to me which measures have you taken to verify numbers in that article.

Note that your answer will be used as arguement in a dispute.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.252.246.63 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , Ferret has not reverted in several days. S warm   ♠  02:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

He reverted back it again --User:151.252.246.63  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.39.147.40 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:95.114.47.113/User:95.113.222.93 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported: /

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:52, 17 August 2015, by Special:Contributions/95.114.29.174

The editor uses different IPs different days, and is edit-warring to change "fascist" to right-wing extremist as well as other changes.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:39, 19 August 2015 by Special:Contributions/95.113.222.93
 * 2) 08:19, 20 August 2015 by Special:Contributions/95.114.47.113
 * 3) 08:53, 20 August 2015 by Special:Contributions/95.114.47.113
 * 4) 09:22, 20 August 2015 by Special:Contributions/95.114.47.113
 * 5) 09:31, 20 August 2015 by Special:Contributions/95.114.47.113

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 09:28, 20 August 2015

There have been discussions of whether it is right to call Dugin "fascist" on the article talk page. The IP editor knows about talk pages (he/she has made posts on the article talk page on other aspects of Dugin].

One of his her changes is to insert Dugin also has a good relationsship to the Turkish national-communist Workers Party in front of existing citations, and then place a citation for the new information at the end of the list of citation. I have tried explaining nicely on his talk page that when he/she adds new information to articles, he should do so after the existing citations, not before. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * -- slakr \ talk / 20:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Shokatz reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After repeated pleading to stop edit warring he did not stop. Also he ignores the arguments on the talk page and just repeats the same thing all over again. He has broken the 3RR. He is introducing subjective text to the article without any sources and is removing valid sources just because they say something what he is not saying.


 * -- slakr \ talk / 20:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "As per WP:BLP, you are removing King's own statement about his ethnicity from the lede, which is simply not on. You are the one edit-warring out well-sourced information."
 * 2)  "/* Questions regarding race */ Note that he has understood this since childhood."
 * 3)  ""Faced questions" is not a neutral way of stating the issue."
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */ He is biracial, as per his statement."
 * 5)  "/* Personal life */ This is entirely WP:UNDUE and inflammatory in its false inference."
 * 6)  "/* Family history */ And this is why we don't write biographies based on 24 hours' worth of partisan-fueled news-cycle stories that don't turn out to be accurate or fair. Stripping down."
 * 7)  "This disputed claim by a partisan outlet should not dominate the lede of the article about King."
 * 8)  "Nor should we include this inflammatory (and apparently false) comparison."
 * 9)  "/* Family history */ Improve"
 * 10)  "/* Family history */ He is biracial, as per his own statements, and there is no proof or significant evidence to the contrary."
 * 11)  "Add Washington Post reference"
 * 12)  "rm inappropriate non-reliable source and material sourced to it."
 * 1)  "/* Family history */ He is biracial, as per his own statements, and there is no proof or significant evidence to the contrary."
 * 2)  "Add Washington Post reference"
 * 3)  "rm inappropriate non-reliable source and material sourced to it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Shaun King (activist). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on []. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Utterly terrible biography */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Utterly terrible biography */ comment"
 * 3)   "/* Utterly terrible biography */ indent"


 * Comments:

Editor is not discussing effectively, rather, is choosing to gut the article of anything mentioning the current controversy over the article subject, editing disruptively, and edit warring over same. I understand that it is a sensitive subject, but there is quite a bit of coverage on this from very reliable sources, and a number of them to boot. To completely leave out the controversy from the lede is, in my opinion, dishonest. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The article in question is a recently-created biography of a living person which serves as a WP:COATRACK for recent highly-partisan attacks on that living person which have been directly refuted in reliable sources. My edits have been an attempt to make the article comply with the Biographies of Living Persons policy in removing inappropriate sources (non-RS personal blogs, The Daily Caller, The Daily Mail, etc.) and to bring some semblance of balance to the highly-negative and inflammatory tone which the article took, as it originally gave all credence to the negative attacks. Frankly, the article should be simply deleted until such time as we can write an actual balanced article based on long-term reliable sources which have viewed the event from a distance and with sufficient time to investigate all angles. This article is a textbook example of the wrong reason to write a Wikipedia biography. Until it is deleted, we have a moral, ethical and policy-based responsibility to treat the article subject fairly, and the reporting editor has been clearly opposed to doing so, having removed the article subject's own response to the claims from the article lede via revert.

This is not merely a "sensitive subject," this is a "biography" which entirely revolves around unsupported, scurrilous, jump-to-conclusions and, by all appearances, false claims about the article subject's personal ancestry. These claims were spread rapidly via the 24-hour news cycle, but have been directly and substantively refuted by the article subject, who has both published his refutation personally and has been reported on by an unimpeachable reliable source, The Washington Post. We can, should and must do better when we write biographies of living people, and running off to the 3RRNB when challenged to treat article subjects fairly and not give undue credence to scurrilous allegations evinces a lack of respect for the subject of the article and our role as encyclopedists. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof is correct that this edit by Winkelvi is not appropriate for a BLP because such articles should not be filled with claims-of-the-day (the ref given has today's date). The BLP approach is to wait until matters have been analyzed by reliable sources, not merely parroted. The issue is highly sensitive and the article can say nothing of substance because nothing is known other than that the subject has been attacked by dubious sources which has been reported as today's gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What Winklevi claims as an acceptable lede for the biography of a living person is as follows: In August 2015, King faced public scrutiny regarding his claimed ethnicity due to the release of public records allegedly showing both his parents to be white. What we have are uncorroborated claims by third parties about a person's ancestry which have since been directly refuted by that person. The article lede now states that one of the most important things about this person is that some Breitbart writer questioned his ethnicity. This is undue weight on "claims-of-the-day" (as Johnuniq adroitly notes) in the extreme, and makes obvious the fact that the article was written and is trying to be used as a WP:COATRACK to push those "claims-of-the-day" made against the article subject less than 24 hours ago. Is this how Wikipedians write biographies of people today - based on little more than breathless repetition of uncorroborated scandalmongering which has fallen apart under scrutiny? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we here to attack Wikipedians, Winkelvi, and Winkelvi's edits and difference in opinion on what should be in the article or are we here to discuss your edit warring, NBSB? Funny how now you're all willing to discuss now when at the time you received two warnings for your disruptive, pointy editing and edit warring, you couldn't be bothered.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We're here to write an encyclopedia which treats its article subjects with fairness and sensitivity, as fundamental policy demands. As you should well know, when you bring something to a noticeboard, you invite scrutiny on your own edits and your own compliance with policy (or lack thereof). I am perfectly willing to discuss things on the article talk page, as I have done - so long as the article first complies with policy in treating its subject fairly and without undue scandalmongering. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I note that NorthBySouthBaranof continues to edit the article in the midst of the dispute without discussion and appears to be still pushing his own POV in regard to the article subject.
 * The edit you link to shows me inserting an impeccably-sourced directly-quoted statement by the article subject directly refuting the claims made against him. In what way is this "pushing (my) own POV" in regard to the article subject? Is it your position that the article subject's own well-sourced statement about the claims made about his own life should not be included in his own biography, or is somehow "POV"? On what policy grounds do you make this absurd demand that we should not quote a public statement made by a person addressing claims made by third parties about his own personal life? Are we in Narnia? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof's edits are in pursuit of accordance with WP:BLP, and so are exempt from the edit warring policy. I ask both parties at this point to return to the talk page or noticeboards and refrain from major edits to the article, which is on the verge of full protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've always been a stickler for following BLP guidelines - am currently dealing with an editor at another article over adhering to BLP policy. NBSB's "pursuit", however, was extremely aggressive - especially in light of little to no discussion, just disruptive editing.  Such aggression with no discussion and the subsequent edit warring became the focus.  Such focus = disruption to make a point.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with Someguy1221's assessment here. NorthBySouthBaranof appears to be working towards adherence with BLP; I'm not seeing any WP:POINT violations here. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NorthBySouthBaranof made an interesting point that, when you file a complaint against someone, you invite greater scrutiny of yourself. Winkelvi, who has a rather colorful block history, seems to be regularly firing off notices against other editors that, as a general rule, result in no action taken but require a lot of time and energy for the accused to defend against. I would suggest someone might counsel him on this point, but it seems he's received extensive cautions and good-natured warnings already, interspersed with his many blocks. I'm not entirely sure what the most effective corrective action to deal with this type of disruption is. BlueSalix (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Red Echidna reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Note that the user was definitely aware of the 3RR rule even as they continued to edit war, as they removed the warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note that even though it's a red-linked username, this user has been here since 2010.


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Red Echidna reported by User:WilliamThweatt (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "This was the original text dating from the original article, which is neutral in tone, as is the goal of this article. "Dictator" was not a title. It could be changed to "Premier" if preferred, but "Leader" is impartial and undisputed. Thank you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 677110957 by WilliamThweatt (talk) Leadership style is distinctly defined in the introductory paragraph."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 677105366 by Volunteer Marek (talk) Your revision text is charged. The original text is neutral. Please refrain from further disruptive editing. Thank you."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 677086607 by Volunteer Marek (talk) This type of language is not encyclopedic. The rest of the article further explains his leadership style."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 676342798 by Staberinde (talk)"


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


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


 * 1)
 * Comments:

User continues to revert multiple editors even after 3RR warning, the above attempt by another user to open discussion on talk page was ignored and my invitation to discussion on talk page also went unanswered. William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the same user/edit war as my report above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Already blocked per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Beyers31 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Indef)
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: [Talk:Brazil_(1985_film)#Country_of_production diff]

Comments:

User continuously changes material being discussed on talk pages, removing tags and adding IMDb as a source. Which is against WP:RS/IMDb. Tried talking about it on the talk page with no luck too. here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Beyers31: I have constantly been trying to add my sources, but you just undo my changes before I am able to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyers31 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Beyers31, please take the discussion to the talk page. It's not as simple as finding one source as I've stated earlier on the talk page. Removing sources because they are "old" or "obscure" (which isn't the case if you read the discussion) is not the way to handle editing. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the rather obvious return of the same IP-morphing editor as three days ago, Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive291 Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. Per Andy Dingley, this newly-created account is part of a sock campaign to argue about the nationality of the production of Brazil (1985 film). The film is (at least for the moment) believed to be a joint British-American production. Beyers31 must have created his account to continue the war after the article was recently semiprotected. He's also edited other film articles such as Quantum of Solace to minimize their British connection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:216.177.129.238 reported by User:Sakimonk (Result: protected + rangeblocked)
Page:

User being reported: User talk:216.177.129.238

Previous version reverted to: original version

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: Several users left the same comment on the reason for edit pointing out that this article was totally WP:OR and lacked any reliable sources and moreover contradicted heavily everything on Salafi movement and Athari articles. Also the talk page seems to have been lost in this haze of edits.

Comments:


 * (its /24), as it's clear that that range had extensive issues with edit warring and harassment in the past and been blocked for it, and (semi) for a few days. -- slakr  \ talk / 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Two users reported by User:CorporateM (Result: No violation)

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

It came to my attention that there are some slow-rolling edit-wars on this page, over this edit being the most recent and previously it was over using Glassdoor as a source.

The edit-warring appears to be primarily between an SPA that keeps adding poorly-sourced negative material, and an IP 206.180.44.25 that keeps removing it. The IP is registered to the company network and is most likely a current employee, while knowing some context here, the SPA is likely a disgruntled former employee. I have a confirmed, disclosed COI, and each of the other accounts have a very probable COI.

Not sure if anyone has passed 3RR, but it could use more eyeballs. I see threw in a revert as well. Although I wouldn't have restored primary sources, blogs, etc. he/she is probably the only actual disinterested editor. Their edit summary seems to be encouraging discussion, but one never took place. CorporateM (Talk) 20:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Well I definitely initiated a discussion at User_talk:206.180.44.25 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_191 but it didn't exactly go down well. I would assume good faith for now though I suppose the page and/or the user might be worth monitoring. — Taq Pol talk contrib 23:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Slow rolling" is quite the understatement. The last edit by Flaco1262 was three months ago and their previous edit was two months before that. I'm slightly more concerned with 206.180.44.25 who seems to have a bias toward reverting, albeit at a pace that wouldn't trouble an ent. With all due respect to CorporateM, I'd say this falls more in the line of ordinary give-and-take rather than edit warring. The Glassdoor stuff, etc. is more in the bailiwick of WP:RSN than this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Whatever's going on is too slow to count as edit warring. My guess is that User:CorporateM could be filing this here because he is hoping to improve the article but thinks there could be uninformed resistance to his changes. It's good to see that User:TaqPol is working on it and seems to be a long-term editor with no COI. My personal editorial opinion is that the article is boring, but it could be improved. It seems this is actually a large company and gets quite a bit of press coverage, so there should be scope for improving it. Material submitted online to glassdoor.com seems unlikely to qualify as a reliable source. There are two different IPs that may belong to Reynolds and Reynolds but their edits appear to reflect common sense. I'm going to notify the two IPs (206.180.38.20 and 206.180.44.25) as well as User:Flaco1262 that they've been mentioned here before attempting to close this report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I saw the IPs associated with Reynolds and I figured I should report it "somewhere" (maybe COIN would have been better). I don't want anyone thinking this is "the company" editing inappropriately. But their edits look reasonable and I suspect they are just a random employee editing out of their own personal interest (which use to be allowed). I wouldn't sanction anyone personally, but there are a lot of reverts in the edit history between only two editors. Maybe posting it here was a bit excessive. CorporateM (Talk) 04:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Gabby Merger reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked 24h )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * dif content about Yehowah" added by GM 19 August 2015
 * dif restored 22 August after removal by Jeffro
 * dif and dif and dif restored and elaborated by GM now with SHOUTing, after removal by Jeffro
 * dif restored after removal by me Aug 22
 * dif restored after removal by me Aug 22

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section opened by Jeffro diff

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

User:LesVegas reported by User:Doc James (Result: no block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  attended to add content based on a journal with an impact factor of zero
 * 2)  added five tags
 * 3)  added the five tags again
 * 4)  and added the five tags once more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Of course, I would like to point out there are only two reverts there, to Doc James's three. Doc James also failed to address anything on talk beyond one journal, yet the tags addressed many issues. Also, as I understand it, tags do not require consensus to be added as long as a talk page discussion is created (which I did), yet we do need consensus to remove them. Or a talk page section failed to be created, creating a drive-by tagging situation. Or talk page discussion must have stalled. None of those three happened. LesVegas (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Incredible claims require incredibly good evidence. This is an incredible claim "acupuncture ... a safe and effective treatment for supraventricular tachycardia" and what LasVegas provided was a Chinese language source with an impact factor of zero. One needs a very good source to say this sort of stuff.


 * Getting it wrong can kill people. SVT is a very serious condition in many people. That LasVegas was trying to convince a 70 year old with a heart rate of 190 that they should go to an acupuncturist rather than the ER for adenosine / cardioversion does not make me happy. Adding this sort of stuff to Wikipedia degrades us as a reputable source.


 * Yes your tagging was pointy. But more concerning is your addition was just plain dangerous. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but you also reverted a claim of adjunctive care (acupuncture plus Western medicine being superior to Western Medicine alone) which is not necessarily an exceptional claim, or a danger to readers. I tagged the article on many issues, only one of which was the source in dispute and had told other editors last week that I was going to do it. I just had to gather all the diffs to add to the talk page first. LesVegas (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I stated both on the talk page and on your user page, that source is not good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) It appears the first diff of an edit by LesVegas is not a revert but an edit. The second diff is an addition and doesnt match the previous version. It appears LesVegas reverted 2 times but Doc James 3 times. Doc James reverts. This appears to be edit warring by the proposer but not a 3RR violation. AlbinoFerret 18:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Question has the policy been changed so that adding new content is considered a revert? It appears two of these diffs represents new content, which to my understanding does not count as a revert, while two of the diffs represent the re-addition of content previously deleted, which counts as a revert. It seems there may not be a violation of 3rr here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To add, Doc James has opened a section on AN/I here on the same edits. AlbinoFerret 18:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." The tag-bombing was clearly retaliatory for reverting that edit (which was profoundly FRINGE) and edit-warring to keep the tags in, is block-able.  AlbinoFerret and BoboMeowCat are reliable supporters of alt-med pushers and AlbinoFerret in particular is making a name for himself opposing mainstream medical editing and supporting FRINGE-pushers on various boards in WP - I cannot remember the last time he made a comment upholding mainstream science on a drama board, and he is getting increasingly clever with wiki-lawyering in support of that agenda.  Whatever.  All that said,  fwiw i suggest that to keep things simple, that you withdraw this EWN and focus the discussion at ANI. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I would hope your stance against alt-med wouldn't cause you to overlook that Les Vegas made 2 reverts, while Doc James made 3, yet Doc James reported Les Vegas for edit warring. This report seems problematic because admins, although technically just another editor, undeniably carry clout and respect within the community, and it should not be abused. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jytdog, but No. Editors who are tag bombing do not go to the trouble Las Vegas did to explain the tags. Further I doubt it helps anything to make disparaging remarks about the editors here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 21:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)O)
 * Your advocacy for alt med is also clear, Littleolive oil.  LesVegas' behavior is way out of line.  He has become way too strident.  I am hoping he will wake up and see this; if not the community is very likely going to give him a break from editing. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that Doc James is more involved in edit warring and a WP:Boomerang should hit him for filing a bogus report and reverting 3 times on a controversial article under DS. Doc is an admin, and should know better. LesVegas's behaviour isnt the problem you are making it out to be, he placed tags and started a section to discuss the problem. AlbinoFerret  21:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * LesVegas is editing disruptively for a FRINGE perspective at an article with DS about that FRINGE perspective. Adding content with zero chance of sticking and tag-bombing in retaliation is disruptive.  Your effort to distract from that is really.... unfortunate.  Yes, Doc James reverted the crap content and reverted the tag-bombing. The most likely outcomes of this EWN thread are, in this order: a) no action due to the ANI thread and the calm at the article now; b) lock the article and warn both of them; c) block LesVegas; and way, way distant d) block both of them.   Your stance here is ridiculous.  Jytdog (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A content disagreement and a percieved problem are not excuses to edit war, or to file a bogus report here. AlbinoFerret  22:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Be careful of whom you accuse and of what Jytdog. Charging others with advocacy because they do not agree with you is rather low. And charging someone with advocacy of an entire and very general field is kind of silly. Further, I have been accused of all manner of things off and on Wikipedia. Most of it is silly, too.This can be handled by Doc and Les Vegas. I'm sure they have the maturity to deal with this themselves(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC))
 * I don't write anything I cannot back up with diffs. And if you care about LesVegas as an editor, you would be trying to talk him away from the cliff edge, not encouraging him.   Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs cannot determine motivation. Advocacy implies motivation. Assumption as to another editor's motivation is uncivil and personal. I am encouraging LesVegas and Doc do handle this in a peaceful way. Do you have a problem with that? In this case I have the sense that if there is a cliff for either editor they are not the ones creating it. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC))

I doubt any admin is going to block for edit warring here; what the definition of 3R is, I have no idea anymore. The matter is being discussed at ANI, and that's a better place for it. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Comply with title card"
 * 2)  "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Original name for the article please do not move again state reason in talk page."
 * 3)  "/* Awards and nominations */Fixed typo"
 * 4)  "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Title card is in spanish"
 * 5)  "fixed typo"
 * 6)  "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela): Title card is in spanish."
 * 7)  "Fixed typos"
 * 1)  "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela) over redirect: Title card is in spanish"
 * 2)  "fixed typo"
 * 3)  "Nyanchoka moved page Wild at Heart (telenovela) to Corazón indomable (telenovela): Title card is in spanish."
 * 4)  "Fixed typos"
 * 1)  "Fixed typos"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Desperate Housewives Africa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Flavio Medina */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Flavio Medina */"
 * 4)   "/* Flavio Medina */"
 * 5)   "/* Wild at Heart */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Philip J Fry moved page Talk:Corazón indomable (telenovela) to Talk:Wild at Heart (telenovela) over redirect: This poster is in English."
 * 2)   "Philip J Fry moved page Talk:Corazón indomable (telenovela) to Talk:Wild at Heart (telenovela) over redirect: Please stop"
 * 3)   "Philip J Fry moved page Talk:Corazón indomable (telenovela) to Talk:Wild at Heart (telenovela) over redirect: It was not agreed for the current title."
 * 4)   "/* Current title */ new section"


 * Comments:

Although the user does not want to reach any concessive insists generate wars editions in other articles as The Stray Cat and The Color of Passion.  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional: See and .--  Philip J Fry  • ( talk ) 14:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * – 72 hours. Edit warring on the article text and move-warring on the article name. The user does not seem to listen to anyone else but is quick to revert. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=move&user=Nyanchoka&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 Here is their log of article moves] since 1 July. This pattern of making changes without consensus may suggest the need for a longer block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User:149.62.200.197 reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&oldid=676994347

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677096847&oldid=677070459
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677114556&oldid=677106133
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677117215&oldid=677116831
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&type=revision&diff=677118002&oldid=677117329

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A149.62.200.197&type=revision&diff=677235640&oldid=677235498

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't editing the article. I was asked for advice at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . This edit war gone a bit stale but it appears the only reason it has done so is because the other editors exercised restraint from continuing it. S warm   ♠  07:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Swans2012 reported by User:104.254.90.251 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677201193
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677202380
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677202831
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&diff=677264503&oldid=677205585

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swans2012

Comments:

Swans2012 states he/she is a "fan" of subject of the page and keeps reverting accurate but moderately embarassing information about the subject. See attempts to stop the revert war here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Swans2012
 * S warm  ♠  07:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This user continues to engage in this behavior despite warnings and initial temporary block. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CJ_Werleman&action=history

User talk:74.42.44.222 reported by User:Destiny Leo (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:07, 23 May 2015
 * 2) 21:37, 21 August 2015
 * 3) 20:52, 22 August 2015 "NO, IT SAYS THE ALBUM IS PROG ROCK. STOP REMOVING SOURCES."
 * 4) 20:52, 22 August 2015
 * 5) 20:55, 22 August 2015
 * 6) 21:00, 22 August 2015
 * 7) 21:01, 22 August 2015‎
 * 8) 21:01, 22 August 2015‎
 * 9) 22:40, 22 August 2015‎
 * 10) 22:41, 22 August 2015‎

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

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

Comments: First edit was 23 May, but three months later he/she edit again, and has been reverted by Andrzejbanas. However the next day, the IP edit once again and saying "NO, IT SAYS THE ALBUM IS PROG ROCK. STOP REMOVING SOURCES." and following edited another seven in a row.


 * Result: No violation. Consecutive edits by the same person count as at most a single revert for purposes of 3RR. Though I don't know who is right, this IP editor is adding sources that look credible. Nobody notified of this report, which is required per the notice at top of the board. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "After repeated requests on the talk page, you have failed to provide any policy disallowing this reliably-sourced content, or explain why BLP featured articles contain DOBs for celebrity children as standard content."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 677527410 by Livelikemusic (talk) per talk page, you are completely misinterpreting BLP policy. see Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt, both featured articles"
 * 3)  "/* Relationships and family */ very standard content even included in featured BLP articles, see talk page"
 * 4)  "/* Personal life */ Info widely disseminated by mainstream media and publicly announced by parents via social media and interviews. Adheres to all BLP and related guidelines/policies. Expanded existing cites."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* BLP */  Response"
 * 2)   "/* BLP */  Response"
 * 3)   "/* BLP */  Response"
 * 4)   "/* BLP */  Response"
 * 5)   "/* BLP */  Response"
 * 6)   "/* RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP */ new section"


 * Comments:

User was reverted twice and while another discussion on talk page started, they refused to answer the questions and obstacles brought up to them, instead deciding to lightly bait and borderline personally attack against myself, whose good faith was ignored.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read the talk page discussion at Brian Austin Green to put this matter in full perspective. After numerous attempts to get the editor to address any of the relevant issues directly posed to them with regard to BLP policy on the matter, he/she refuses to do so. Instead, she has only responded with insults and lectures. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You were repeatedly asked to comment on edits and not an editor, which is outlined in the policy on discussions with editors. You were discussing an editor (me), instead of content, which is frowned upon.  And for the record, I am a "he" not a "she".  I refused to answer, as I felt the conversation was not civil in your tone or actions, and therefore, ultimately I removed myself from the situation and even after repeated requests and hints to refrain, you've continued on this editing, both in your edits and edit summaries as evident here.  Furthermore, it does not excuse you ignoring the three-revert rule for whatever reason.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you're making this allegation, perhaps you could provide links to comments from me that you consider inappropriate, or that you believe focus on you rather than the BLP issue. I'm sure it will help the administrator who will handle this matter. I'm confident that the talk page discussion will make clear who was directly addressing the relevant issues, and who was avoiding them and responding with reprimands and lectures. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should also be noted that Livelikemusic reverted the same content at least three times within about four hours.1st,2nd,3rd. And all three were based on his misunderstanding or disregard of BLP policy. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment My reverts were made, in regards, to the talk page decision, and from my gathering that is acceptable to Wikipedia, especially given that the edits reverted were then not brought back up on the talk page, instead they were, once again, reverted. And may it also be added that the user's continued edit history shows their intent to clearly continue to go back into their edits, and continually pin-point myself out in whatever it is they post, which saws a clear vendetta against myself as an editor.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 00:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "from my gathering that is acceptable to Wikipedia" even means, but perhaps the administrator will. Regardless, it appears you are claiming that your three reverts are exempt from the rules since you were "right". 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that Tenebrae, the other editor in the talk page discussion, is now urging Livelikemusic to reconsider his insistence against the inclusion of names and birth dates of celebrities' children. Tenebrae's excellent advice was, "I do wish, speaking as a professional journalist and editor who uses Wikipedia as a source of reference footnotes, and who has written biographies professionally, that I could persuade you to see how other encyclopedias and reference works handle family. I think seeing how ethical, professional sources do it can only help provide perspective." Excellent advice. Fortunately, we have clear examples here on Wikipedia, via BLP featured articles and BLP policy, how family content is handled. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That has zero to do with this filing, and wikihounding by following either my edits or Tenebrae's is severely against Wikipedia policy.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 01:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The inclusion of full names and birthdates of the minor children can wait until the RfC reaches consensus about that. It is certainly not something to be edit warred about. Though the WP:BLP policy is not ironclad about this, the inclusion by the IP of even the *middle* names of the minor children seems like it's pushing the envelope. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Ed. But perhaps you can explain why numerous BLP featured articles, such as Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt include full names and birh dates? The information is widely reported by major mainstream media and even announced publicly by the parents on social media and elsewhere. So saying it's "pushing the envelope" does not conform with BLP policy if the information is well sourced. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 01:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Nineth Kazekage reported by User:White whirlwind (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (was done while not signed in)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (Note: User then deleted this warning from their talk page almost immediately after I placed it.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Seems to be a very recalcitrant new user.  White Whirlwind  咨   21:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Philg88 ♦talk 05:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Guy355 reported by User:Musashiaharon (Result: )
Page: Ethnic groups in Europe

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=676464920&oldid=676025906 23:00, 16 August 2015].

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=676648318&oldid=676606509 03:23, 18 August 2015‎]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=676692731&oldid=676692569 09:41, 18 August 2015]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=677115866&oldid=677114224 00:15, 21 August 2015]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=677361068&oldid=677361013 13:02, 22 August 2015]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=677585872&oldid=677467469 01:26, 24 August 2015‎]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Europe&diff=677586903&oldid=677586616 01:39, 24 August 2015‎]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guy355&diff=677641558&oldid=677118395]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

--- Musashiaharon (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Shayne2000 reported by User:JMHamo (Result: Warned)

 * 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 Lionel Messi. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring with other experienced users JMHamo (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. The user did not continue to revert after getting the 3RR warning. They may be blocked if they try to restore the disputed section again, without getting consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Anasaitis reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 677202995 by Lr0^^k (talk) Restoring the infobox to what was agreed upon. There was no consensus to change the infobox."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 677156019 by Khestwol (talk) The country infobox is the consensus infobox."


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


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


 * Comments:

Despite being notified of the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions, this user continues to revert without discussion, ignoring the WP:1RR on these articles and the ongoing talk page discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not reverting without discussion. I have placed multiple comments into the talk page discussing the reasons for my edits. Furthermore, I was lied to and told my account was already blocked. Anasaitis (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The user known as Banak told me I was already blocked for gaming  the system. Since Banak was one of the users who disagreed with me in the discussion, I have reason to suspect I was deliberately deceived for the purpose of removing me from said discussion, I normally avoid accusations, but this isn't the first time I have been lied to in regards to this discussion. I was told a consensus had already been reached when the discussion was ongoing, though I am not sure it was the same user. Regardless, I feel it appropriate to mention that here. Anasaitis (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC) For the record:
 * S warm  ♠  08:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I supported the template as Anasaitis did, but was condemning edit warring. I was not one of the users who disagreed with {Anasaitis} in the discussion
 * 2) I did not say he was blocked, and Anasaitis appears to have misunderstood at least 2 of my comments. This leaves me to question of whether Anasaitis is misunderstanding anything else, though it may just be my confusing way of phrasing things.
 * 3) He's not the only editor on the page who was edit warring (there were obviously those on the other side, at least four of them), but I believe they are the only one who broke the 1RR.
 * 4) The issue being argued about was in a RfC. If we could close it with any result, we can ensure there's no more edit warring over the issue. Banak (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Soon after he is unblocked, the user resumed editing the article in clear violation against the RfC again. (Please note and .) Apparently the block on him needs to be extended. Khestwol (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Strongman2014 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That is factually incorrect because the source IS the ACTUAL FILM. Those credits come FROM Marvel. That SHOULD be the thing Wiki is about - TRUTH"
 * 2)  "Here is a link to the actual short film. in the end in the credit roll you will see Music by Paul Oakenfold and Howard Drossin. https://vimeo.com/45964463 I'd think the actual film itself is a pretty reliable source."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 677230798 by Adamstom.97 (talk)"
 * 4)  "RE: Marvel One Shots - Thor's Hammer and the consultant. Sorry if I'm responding in the wrong place, I'm not very adept at Wiki. If you need a source go to my IMDB page Howard Drossin. Do I need to dig up my contract? Do you work for Paul? Of yes then jus"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 677033080 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Marvel One-Shots */"
 * 2)   "/* August 2015 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) User talk:Favre1fan93
 * 2) User talk:TriiipleThreat


 * Comments:

User also may have a WP:COI with the matter, given the comments on mine and TriiipleThreat's talk pages (linked above). Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongman2014 (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Hi there. I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and don't know all of the protocols. But I came across a few shorts I scored with Paul Oakenfold for Marvel in 2011 and once I saw I was not credited, have tried to fix it. I am trying to provide definitive proof that I am a co composer by attaching a link to one of the One Shots where at the end credits you can clearly see Music by Paul Oakenfold and Howard Drossin. I just happened to find the One Shots on vimeo. They are many other such sites as well as on the Marvel Blu Rays. There is no conflict of interest, Sorry but I'm just a guy trying to make sure I get credited for my work properly. I would think that this would be welcomed on Wikipedia. If anyone reading this is interested in seeing the aforementioned credits, here is the link to one of the films (The Consultant - credits at the end): https://vimeo.com/45964463 If there is a more acceptable version for Wikipedia please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongman2014 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "I came across a few shorts I scored with Paul Oakenfold for Marvel in 2011 and once I saw I was not credited, have tried to fix it." is the definition of a conflict of interest on this site. And it didn't help matters that you got involved in an edit war too, after I told you about the COI policy and how to avoid this situation. And please also don't copy/paste the exact same answer you provided here to my talk page. I'm involved in this report, so I see what you wrote and will respond here to it. If you have an additional comment regarding the exact conversation we had on my talk, you can continue that there. But we want to keep all communication in one place. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed this report and just wanted to add my two cents. I am not involved in the matter in any way. Strongman2014 obviously edit-warred; there's no debating that fact. However, I believe his stubborness stems from an extremely faulty premise he's using to rationalize his inappropriate editing behavior. In his most recent revert, his edit summary was, "That is factually incorrect because the source IS the ACTUAL FILM. Those credits come FROM Marvel. That SHOULD be the thing Wiki is about - TRUTH." Clearly, he has it backwards and doesn't understand that Wikipedia is about verifiability, NOT truth. Strongman, you should familiarize yourself with the hugely important policy, WP:VERIFY, which says, "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. This principle was previously expressed on this policy page as "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." See the essay, WP:Verifiability, not truth." Having said all that, it is quite obvious that Howard Drossin (whom you claim to be) did indeed score the short in question. You even provided a Vimeo link to the full four-minute film, here and in an edit summary. I watched the video and the credits at the end (at 3:30) certainly do show "Music by PAUL OAKENFOLD AND HOWARD DROSSIN". However, the question then becomes: Is a Vimeo video allowed to be used as a reliable source? According to the guideline on identifying reliable sources, WP:RS, "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources" (bolding added). So, is a Vimeo video considered "a reputable party"? I'll let more experienced editors answer that question. In terms of conflict of interest, I see that Strongman is a major contributor to Howard Drossin, whom he claims to be. Although editing with a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged, there are six instances, in which an editor with a COI is permitted to make some edits. You must ask yourself if your edits fall into one of those six categories. The bottom line, however, is that even if what you're saying is true, you still must always adhere to Wikipedia's polices and guidelines. You cannot edit war, especially as aggressively as you did it in this situation. Instead, you should start a discussion on the talk page of the article in question, or ask experienced editors for help in resolving the matter. Also, it would be nice if an experienced editor simply offered to help Strongman properly get his desired content into the article. In closing, I think that if Strongman/Howard will agree to follow my advice and not to edit war any more, he should be let go with a warning. But any violations after that should result in an immediate block. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * IP, to answer your question, no the Vimeo source cannot be used. Any video used as a source must stem from a reliable source (ie Marvel's official channel) and this is not the case. See WP:VIDEOLINK. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. So can you help Strongman/Drossin source the fact that he also did the music? I see the source for the guy who is credited with the music (Oakenfold) does not include Drossin's name. I realize the Vimeo video can't be used to source Drossin, but obviously both Oakenfold and Drossin did the music. It shouldn't be forgotten that although Strongman/Drossin stubbornly edit-warred, he isn't trying to inject opinion into the article, or slant it in any way. He just wants to be properly credited. Putting aside his clear editing violations, it's not difficult to emphathize with his frustration. Hopefully, a reliable source can be found. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm confused about something. How can all the listings in the Works section on Howard Drossin be allowed if there are no reliable sources for any of them? There are dozens, yet not one source. And the list of course includes the one we're discussing here, Marvel One-Shots/The Consultant. I realize that most IMDb pages cannot be used as a source because users can add content to it, but the entire list apparently comes directly from Drossin's IMDb page, which is linked in the External Links section. But what's most confounding is the fact that there are zero inline sources; only the two external links to his IMDb page and his own website. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongman2014 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Wow, I clearly don't know how to Wikipedia correctly, but after reading the above including policies I understand a lot better. I thought Wikipedia was something different than what it appears to be, and for that I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I just came across some missing info that I tried to make correct. Since I can see I'm in way over my head Wiki-wise, I'm going to leave it alone.

User:Versus001 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user is engaged in a large scale edit war on the 2015 Thalys attack article with Sandra opposed to terrorism. By my count, he's made fourteen reverts (!) on that article within the last 24 hours. Sandra is also guilty of edit warring, however. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Both warriors were blocked for 24 hours before this report was made. Neil N  talk to me 00:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Dixan shivkumar reported by User:AKS.9955 (Result: already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Dixan shivkumar. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Removing speedy deletion tags on Dixan shivkumar. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* August 2015 */ Warning"
 * 4)   "Warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Dixan shivkumar. (TW)"
 * 5)   "Issued edit warring notice"
 * 6)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
 * 7)   "Issued edit warring notice"


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


 * Comments:

User involved in edit warring, SPI and self-promotion. Kindly block user immediately. Thanks  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  10:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * &mdash; the page has been deleted, and the user blocked by another admin. -- slakr \ talk / 04:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 677665569 by Bonewah (talk)reverting per Bonewah's reasoning prior to self revert"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by NorthBySouthBaranof: Please keep personal attacks to yourself - he is not quoted in the lede, therefore, it is appropriate to improve the wording to an encyclopedic nature. (TW)"
 * 3)  "changing to wording that has an encyclopedic tone, rather than reading like something a 6th grader would write"
 * 4)  "trade lies for false"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Shaun King (activist). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* 3RR violation on Shaun King (activist) */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* 3RR violation on Shaun King (activist) */"


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


 * Comments:

Revert war to remove reliable sources and reliably-sourced statements by the article subject. Trading "lies for false" is a constructive revert of this edit, which came after his earlier revert of the same statement - the user in question appears to not like the fact that the article subject called the allegations "lies" and feels determined to use any means possible to keep that word out of the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Edits, not reverts. Only two reverts in 24 hours at that article.  Further, the allegations made by the editor filing this report that I didn't like something the article subject said is preposterous and based on nothing factual.  It's drawing a non-AGF conclusion pulled out of thin air.  I changed "lies" to "false" because "lies" sounded juvenile, in my opinion, for something in an encyclopedia article.  At the time, the word 'lies' was not included as a direct quote from the article subject - it looked out of place and unencyclopedic in tone.  My only reason for changing it was to improve the article -- nothing more, nothing less.  It is my belief that the editor filing this is doing so in retaliation for me filing a 3RR on him recently.  He has been gunning for me since I started editing the Shaun King article and is now following my edits (as evidenced by this comment he made out of the blue earlier today).  His attempt to "resolve" and/or discuss this claim of 3RR breach was a threat at my talk page (here) along with loads of uncivil behavior and comments at the article talk page for days, now.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  20:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From WP:3RR: . Your edits satisfy this. You don't have to hit the undo button to make it a revert. BethNaught (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , I honestly wasn't aware I was violating 3RR when I made my second revert there in less than 24-hours (as of today). And, if you look at the revert, it really *isn't* a true revert.  I reverted what another editor reverted of their own edits.  Their edit was sound and appropriate, the reasoning noted in their edit summary.  When they reverted themselves because of 3RR concerns, I reverted that revert because the edit itself was correct and benefited the article.  I was trying to do the right thing - there was no intention to edit war happening at all.  -- <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;">✉ ✓  20:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you think it sounds "juvenile" or not, it's a revert of his direct quote, and the word "false" does not have the same meaning as "lie" - his use of the word "lie" is a direct accusation that the false claim is knowing and intentional. Words have meaning, as any "juvenile" would know.
 * I'm filing this 3RR because you seem unable to come to grips with the requirements of BLP, as two admins earlier found, and now you seem to be retaliating by reverting my addition of indisputable reliable sources. What you call a "threat" was a request to self-revert and avoid this issue. You declined, so we're here. In fact, your fourth revert was (ironically) a revert of another editor who self-reverted (as I have also done) after running over the bright line in the heat of the moment. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in retaliating against you. I'm not that kind of person.   Further, the word 'lies' was not in quotes at the time I changed it, I had no idea it was a direct quote from the article subject at the time I changed it.  As it is now, it has quotation marks around it - appropriately so.  If I had known at the time it was a direct quote, I wouldn't have changed it at all.  Your accusations are baseless.  -- <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;">✉ ✓  20:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof has also been aggressively editing and appears to have violated 3RR yesterday on the article in question. ; ,,. Instead of bringing this to WP:AN3, I left a note on his talk page:. I think it might be helpful to harmony on the Shaun King bio if both Winkelvi and NorthBySouthBaranof would agree to limit themselves to 1 revert per day on that page and discuss more on talk page. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem agreeing to that. I have essentially stopped editing there because of NBSB's edit warring there, aggressive editing, and what feels like ownership of the article.  -- <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;">✉ ✓  21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree regarding ownership concerns and there are also NPOV concerns. Honestly, although I've clashed with Winkelvi in the past, his editing on Shaun King comes across as less disruptive and less aggressive than the editing of the filer of this report. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * -- slakr \ talk / 05:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Zeremony and User:Shootsrubberbands reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: both blocked)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Not sure. Appears to have been going on a long time.

Diffs of the user's reverts: To-state solution edit history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Shootsrubberbands
 * Zeremony

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

Comments:

I opened a discussion on the talk page to address the ridiculous edits of Shootsrubberbands, but he prefers to ignore it.--Zeremony (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not an excuse to edit war, so I suggest you stop. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 03:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm removing pure vandalism, as I explained on the talk page. Shootsrubberbands should stop.--Zeremony (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A content dispute, perhaps. Not wp:vandalism Jim1138 (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's pure vandalism, including POV original research ("Barak's map illustrating war tactics of surround, divide, occupy, and discontiguity"), content allegedly supported by unreliable sources (kingjamesbibleonline, electricitymachine), personal opinions ("we can learn a lot about what NOT to do when we study the 2000 Camp David Summit Barak's map"), and off-topic articles listed in the "See also" section (with wrong titles such as "Palestinian concentration camps"). And the best proof is that he refused to explain his edits on the talk page. He didn't write a single response.--Zeremony (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Shoots' edits may be accurately described as editorializing, aka POV pushing, but they are certainly not vandalism, which Wikipedia defines as "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." Both editors are blocked for 24 hours, and future activity will result in longer blocks. The solution to content disputes is discussion, and where that fails, gaining the attention of a wider portion of the community - not endless revert warring. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * by . I've also sent Ds/alert notices to both. -- slakr  \ talk / 05:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Revert war in America Discography page
I seem to have gotten into a revert war with an unregisterd user.

I am a longtime record collector and not-very-frequent Wikipedia contributor, and I noticed an error in the Discography page for the 70s rock group America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_discography

I provided a cite to the discogs.com website, which is generally considered the definitive online database for such things. http://www.discogs.com/America-A-Horse-With-No-Name/release/1474176

This user has now reverted my change three times. I've invited him to the Talk page but he hasn't joined my discussion thread there. His previous two reverts gave no cite. His most recent revert gives a cite to the wrong record (viz., a German pressing).

Peezy1001 (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will comment there with some additional perspective though. S warm   ♠  06:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My understanding was that any dispute, not just violations of the 3 Revert Rule, should be brought here. Peezy1001 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Still, this is a malformed report. Please follow the instructions at the top of this page. --<b style= "color:red">T</b><b style= "color:#FF4200">L</b><b style= "color:#FF7400">2</b><b style= "color:#FFA700">2</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 16:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Lootbrewed reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Investigation, criminal charges, plea agreement */ Restore to version prior to resolution of existing TP discussion that has no consensus; Winkelvi unilaterally made the changes after lobbying SNUGGUMS and Crobeel for their support on their TPs."
 * 2)  "/* Jared Foundation */ Minor grammar/punctuation. Also, previous edit summary s/b Cwobeel (typo)"
 * 3)  "/* Early life */ simplify, remove redundancies; obviously his college graduation followed his h.s. grad, and if he graduated from NCHS and IU then he obviously attended them too."
 * 4)  "cite fix"
 * 5)  "rmv space"
 * 6)  "fix cites"
 * 7)  "fix cites"
 * 8)  "Winkelvi unilaterally changed heading while participating in current talk page discussion where he's yet to receive any support for his postition about "Criminal investigation".  If "plea agreement" used, then charges is redundant."
 * 9)  "/* Criminal investigation and plea agreement */ We include things that did happen, not those that didn't. Editor added this content in attempt to strengthen his position in TP discussion regarding section title. Subway's speculation is irrelevant."
 * 10)  "Restore section that has existed for two years; inexplicably blanked yesterday as "trivia". "In popular culture" is a standard, acceptable section used in many celebrity articles."
 * 11)  "/* Early life */ Reword/condense. Indiana is indicated in first sentence so unnecessary to repeat it. If he graduated then it goes without saying that he attended."
 * 1)  "Winkelvi unilaterally changed heading while participating in current talk page discussion where he's yet to receive any support for his postition about "Criminal investigation".  If "plea agreement" used, then charges is redundant."
 * 2)  "/* Criminal investigation and plea agreement */ We include things that did happen, not those that didn't. Editor added this content in attempt to strengthen his position in TP discussion regarding section title. Subway's speculation is irrelevant."
 * 3)  "Restore section that has existed for two years; inexplicably blanked yesterday as "trivia". "In popular culture" is a standard, acceptable section used in many celebrity articles."
 * 4)  "/* Early life */ Reword/condense. Indiana is indicated in first sentence so unnecessary to repeat it. If he graduated then it goes without saying that he attended."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
 * 2)   "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
 * 3)   "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
 * 4)   "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
 * 5)   "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
 * 6)   "/* Investigation and charges */ resp"
 * 7)   "/* Investigation and charges */ indent"
 * 8)   "/* Investigation and charges */ please show me how I am contradicting policy"
 * 9)   "/* Investigation and charges */ ce and clarify"
 * 10)   "/* Investigation and charges */ comment"
 * 11)   "/* Investigation and charges */ in popular culture"


 * Comments:

Refuses to discuss, follow policy, follow consensus. When he does comment, his comments are laden with hostility and insults and lots of WP:IDHT. WP:OWN is also beginning to be apparent based on edit summaries and reversion of any one who attempts to edit. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 23:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll ask whomever reviews this complaint to simply read this current talk page discussion in its entirety at Jared Fogle. You will see that Winkelvi (WV) received no support for his position, so he then went to the talk pages of two of his friends, SNUGGUMS and Cwobeel pleading for their help and insulting me in the processs.123 He chose only those two allies to write. Both of them then went to the talk page discussion, posting short replies of support for Winkelvi's position without addressing any of the issues presented by the original poster or me. Since then, Winkelvi has been proclaiming consensus for his position, such as this comment on Cwobeel's talk page. Since then, I just learned about the behavioral guideline WP:CANVASS, which I believe Winkelvi clearly violated. To summarize... another editor (Jospeh A. Spadaro) made a change in the Jared Fogle article and then appropriately started a talk page discussion about it. I agreed with his position. Winkelvi disagreed with both of us. After receiving no support for his position, Winkelvi violated WP:CANVASS by asking two of his friends to help him in the debate. They did, Winkelvi proclaimed victory, and he and his allies proceeded to make their desired changes in the article. I have restored the original edits until the talk page discussion is resolved. On a final note, it's interesting that Winkelvi described my comments as "laden with hostility and insults". Please read the TP discussion and decide for yourself who was being rude and condescending to whom. As well, please read this and this. Thank you. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a clarification. In the one talk page discussion I linked to above, where Winkelvi called an editor "A complete prick", he is apparently not referring to me, but rather another editor. I included it, however, to point out one of many examples of his hypocrisy with regard to my alleged "hostility and insults". Lootbrewed (talk) 00:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Please note that Cwobeel has just reverted the section heading at Jared Fogle that is at the heart of this dilemma, even though he is fully aware that no consensus was reached on the matter, and that this noticeboard issue is currently under review. Lootbrewed (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Winkelvi and I are not "friends" and we find ourselves sometimes at odds with each other. There is nothing wrong in asking fellow editors to take a look. Much of a do about nothing. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  03:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I told you on the Fogle talk page, you are correct that there is nothing wrong asking for a second pair of eyes, but only if it's done in a way that does not violate any policies or guidelines. Fortunately, I later discovered WP:CANVASS and learned that Winkelvi indeed violated that behaviorial guideline in multiple ways. There are proper ways to seek input for a talk page debate, and Winkelvi's way certainly was not one of them. In terms of your relationship with Winkelvi on Wikipedia, I think your current and past discussions on your talk pages make it clear that you qualify as "wikifriends", if there's such a term. I should also mention, that Winkelvi's method of filing complaints and issuing warnings to users who disagree with his position and behavior, is counter-productive and wastes a lot of people's time. Lootbrewed (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I find it very interesting that as of yet, you have not addressed your edit warring and ownership behavior. All you have talked about is what do you think everyone else is doing wrong. -- <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;">✉ ✓ 06:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure whomever reviews this will look at my edits, as well as yours. They will also be able to read the Fogle talk page discussion in full. They can assess not only your behavior and continued avoidance of the objections raised by other editors, but more importantly the fact that you reverted (and changed) a lot of content directly related to the discussion (including the primary issue of the section heading) in the middle of the discussion, when there clearly was no consensus. Yet, you unilaterally proclaimed there was. Therefore, I reverted your edits as they were when the discussion began. And now, when a much more experienced editor, Beach drifter, comes along and offers very calm and reasonable input, you refuse to answer his very relevant questions, leaving him to tell you that your intransigence is "ridiculous".1 Your refusal to admit that, by default, a child pornography investigation is indeed a criminal investigation, or that the only thing the FBI investigates are crimes, is perplexing. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that it really matters, but (you brought it up)... I have more than twice as many edits as Beach Drifter. Cwobeel has more than three times as many.   has more than six times as many.  But Beach Drifter is the more experienced editor, eh?  The three of us disagree with you.  That is what has made you edit war, throw around insults, have ownership issues, and treat Wikipedia like a battleground.  Isn't that what you are saying?  It would seem so, because you have yet to address your part in violating policy, only what those who disagree with you have done and how those with more experience don't know what they are doing.  This must be the Twilight Zone or some sort of parallel universe where everything is backwards. -- <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;">✉ ✓  07:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you please stay calm and civil. I pointed out Beach drifter's experience purely in terms of years, not number of edits, to show that you are not only ignoring the objections of a "newbie", as you've called me multiple times, but are also ignoring an editor who has been editing much longer than you. He's been editing since 2008, and you since 2012. And although I don't know where to look for number of edits, I would guess by a quick browse of his edits that Beach drifter has contributed several thousand edits. And, more importantly, I would venture to guess that most editors would much rather have a cooperative editor who makes 4,000 quality edits, than a difficult one who makes twice as many problematic ones. Lootbrewed (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He has a little over 7000, I have a little over 16000. Cwobeel has over 20000, Snuggums over 40000.  You're under 300.  Okay, now that is clear, when are you going to address your edit warring, ownership issues, and battleground mentality, rather than focusing on what others do? -- <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;">✉ ✓  07:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point regarding the number of edits one contributes. In any case... with a job, activities, spouse, children and now a grandchild, I unfortunately don't have anywhere near the time to make 16,000 edits in a three year period, as you have. Apparently, you have much more time to spend here than I do. In terms of this complaint you've filed, I'm very comfortable with letting the powers that be review the matter and take whatever steps they feel are necessary. Lootbrewed (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I would appreciate an administrator taking this report seriously and not ignoring it. Lootbrewed continues to edit war and utilize a battleground mentality.  This is one of the latest examples of him reverting just for the sake of reverting and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.  I'm not the only editor who has seen his editing "style" (read: edit warring and battling others) for what it is.  Even after this report was filed and diffs provided, he continued to edit war at the same article and realy hasn't stopped doing so.  -- <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;">✉ ✓  20:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This article seems applicable: The pot calling the kettle black. I think Winkelvi's history of edits and blocks speak for themselves. Lootbrewed (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, it's actually very amusing that Winkelvi included that diff about my removing the ref name because I am the one of who created the ref name. Haha. So I was reverting my own addition. In any case, my initial removal of my own content simply said that the ref name was unnecessary since the source was only used once. But Winkevli chose to make a battle out of yet another very minor edit by saying the ref name must stay "in case someone wants to use the reference later". So, when Winkelvi makes a comment like, "This is one of the latest examples of him reverting just for the sake of reverting and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point", I think he should reconsider who that behavior applies to. One word comes to mind. Lootbrewed (talk) 02:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I normally don't get involved in these, however, it's hard to ignore at this point given the sheer volume of 3RR and ANI reports Winkelvi has been filing, almost all invariably being closed with no action taken. I recommend this, too, be closed with no action taken. As per WP:BOOMERANG please note that Winkelvi has recently been counseled by both admins and editors that he is not the object of a far-reaching conspiracy on Wikipedia which, at its core, seems to be his thesis with his various visits to these noticeboards. As it stands, his apparent belief in the existence of a cabal of editors out to "get" him is becoming severely disruptive and is doing nothing to encyclopedia-build. I have no bright ideas how to resolve this problem as the five previous blocks he's received in the last few months apparently have done nothing. However, it's unreasonable to expect other editors be subjected to this if they unwittingly stumble across an article on which Winkelvi is active. BlueSalix (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Borsoka reported by User:Cebr1979 (Result: Both editors warned)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677723469&oldid=677584109
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677733107&oldid=677724395
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677736163&oldid=677734884
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677752380&oldid=677738757
 * 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677752859&oldid=677752380

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorsoka&type=revision&diff=677739353&oldid=677542194

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677739819&oldid=677738602

Comments:

Borsoka refuses to acknowledge that Jadwiga of Poland was a female king, even though sources have been shown to him in a talk page conversation. Even after a 3RR warning at his talk page, Borsoka still went back for another revert.Cebr1979 (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , please read my edits more carefully before reporting me, especially the two last ones. Please also take into account that the reliable sources that provided on the article Talk page use apostrophes when mentioning her as "king". Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no justifying an edit war and breaking the 3RR rule. You are not above policies.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Limited edit warring by both users. The reporting user is well aware of the rules, so their own reverting is hardly commendable. TigerShark (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... 4 reverts by one editor is not "limited," User:TigerShark. However, since you said that, User:Borsoka has continued edit warring:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677799208&oldid=677789345
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jadwiga_of_Poland&type=revision&diff=677799312&oldid=677799208
 * Hopefully something can be done this time.Cebr1979 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For instance, reliable sources should be added to prove that the present statement is correct. Why do you think that adding a tag is edit warring? Please try to concentrate on the talk page of the article. Borsoka (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean stop letting admins know what you're doing? Uhm, no. There's even been a second warning on your talk page.Cebr1979 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, making idle warnings is easier than searching reliable sources to substantiate OR. I initiated an RfC on the relevant Talk page . Borsoka (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Always with the justifying of you breaking the 3RR... Cebr1979 (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

User:174.67.122.2 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 677854040 by ViperSnake151 (talk) still relevant."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 677740379 by ViperSnake151 (talk) Discussion is relevant to Office 2013 Performance.  Reverted."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 677595105 by Indrek (Added a news source.  Microsoft has acknowledged this is an issue.)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with '== Wikipedia is not Microsoft support == That information on Office 2013 issues is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. New software has bugs, we're not here to infor...'"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Microsoft Office 2013. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Multiple editors objecting to inclusion of this information, which violates WP:NOTNEWS. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure who exactly counts among the "multiple editors", but for the record, I do not object to the inclusion of that information.
 * It's also worth noting that the anon's first revert (of my original revert) also added a better source to the content and thus was a genuine attempt to improve in response to criticism, rather than just a plain revert. I think immediately slapping them with a 3RR warning and AN3 report may have been a bit harsh. Indrek (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Jmichelson27 reported by User:Amaury (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Episodes */Fixed typos, added content, fixed formatting ;)"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */Forgot typo :)"
 * 3)  "fixed double-episode typo! :)"
 * 4)  "/* References */"
 * 5)  "/* References */"
 * 6)  "/* Episodes */"
 * 1)  "/* References */"
 * 2)  "/* Episodes */"


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


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


 * Comments:

Jmichelson27 continues to edit war on Henry Danger and just now on Bella and the Bulldogs, and looking their contributions, this isn't the first time they've had problems, as it happened back in late June on List of Victorious episodes. They've been blocked before, too.

The most obvious is that they continue to assert the first episodes of Henry Danger and Bella and the Bulldogs are two episodes, though they're also making other problematic edits by making articles less compliant. For example, going against WP:MOSBOLD.

Both I and have told Jmichelson27 that one set of credits equals one episode and they fail to listen. Please see the talk page of Geraldo for more info.

Jmichelson27 has also left aggresive messages on my talk page. Amaury (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The user is only at two reverts on the Henry Danger article. However, the user has hit four reverts on Bella and the Bulldogs. I have invited Jmichelson27 to undo his last revert and discuss the matter on the talk page: that would show me his willing to edit in good faith going forward and not edit war. I'm waiting for a response. —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just noticed on Bella and the Bulldogs that the article has become fully protected by Cyphoidbomb, within a minute or two of your comment, C.Fred ... and Jmichelson27 has not reverted his last revert before the change to full protection. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just queried about that on 's talk page since the user can no longer self-revert there. He think it's best we wait for now. Amaury (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

User:62.30.110.241 reported by User:Huldra (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18:05, 25 August 2015 1 revert
 * 2) 12:48, 26 August 2015 2nd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned, and asked to self-revert

Comments: Article is under 1RR, see Talk:Beita, Nablus. When warned: IP makes no comment on his talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)