Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive225

User:Anarchistdy reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked)

Page

Avatar (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Anarchistdy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575700498 by Flyer22 (talk) see talk page"
2. 07:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575693834 by GSK (talk) Either both or neither get referenced: See MOS"
3. 07:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Both need to be listed"
4. 06:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "False"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Avatar (2009 film). (TW)"
2. 07:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Avatar (2009 film). (TW)"
3. 07:20, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Avatar (2009 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Tried to resolve on the user's talk page, but the user refused to comment. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 09:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

GSK beat me to this report by only a few seconds or one or two minutes. I was typing up a report on this matter as well. I was going to include this diff of the fifth revert by Anarchistdy. Yes, Anarchistd reverted five times, not four. There is that fifth one, plus the four before that.[1][2][3][4] And as for trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, I was going to include this diff by Anarchistdy, with the following statement: Anarchistdy was asked to take the matter to the article talk page by two editors; Anarchistdy only decided to do so after reverting for a fifth time. Flyer22 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that I warned Anarchistdy that he might be reported to this noticeboard and very likely temporarily blocked (something else I was going to include in my report here). Flyer22 (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I offered a truce only to be more or less threatened with a block. Since offering a truce is the best positive course of action at this point, and since it was shot down quickly, I have to wonder if collaboration with this user is even possible anymore. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't threaten a block, I was just awaring you that what you're doing is considered harassment. If you look at some of the stuff you wrote on my talk page, then it's clear who the confrontational person is here. You failed to link the comment I accepted the truce and awared you that I do not want to continued to be harassed and confronted by you every time I make an edit. Even after that discussion where we agreed on a truce, you still decided to included that part on this page. Anarchistdy (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I made the comment here before you replied. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 22:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Rajaomair reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)

Page

CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rajaomair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
2. 16:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
3. 15:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
4. 15:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
5. 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575734672 by Nigel Ish (talk)i used different username(Weimeng) on airliners. didnt know its this hard to upload a single file."
6. 14:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575731562 by BilCat (talk)I provided this image to airliners.net. dont engage in edit.war please."
7. 13:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575717270 by BilCat (talk)"
8. 11:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. (TW)"

Comments:

Persistently trying to replace an image with a new one. -- SMS ^Talk 14:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The most recent 4 reverts were done after filing of this report. --SMS ^Talk 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:98.196.58.91/User:Lifeteenadmirer reported by User:Briancua (Result: Protected)

Page: Life Teen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.196.58.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Lifeteenadmirer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The anon keeps on inserting unsourced, POV information about the founder of an organization into the organization's article. The information is true, as far as I know, however it violates WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, at a minimum. Additionally, there is already an article about the founder, so this information is best suited for that article anyway. Two editors have been reverting his edits and trying to get him to stop.

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Comments:
Shortly after I reported this issue, User:Lifeteenadmirer created an account, and then made the same edits to the article. I believe them to be one and the same.

--Briancua (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:74.101.71.177 reported by User:TAG speakers (Result: Protected)

Page: Hapa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.101.71.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]
6. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and [21]

Comments: User appears to have a continually changing IP address, which they state here: "My IP address changes because my ISP dynamically distributes IPs." [22]

• Page protected. This issue has been reported here, at ANI, and at RFPP. I've semi-protected the article for one week, but I'll comment about my ambivalence at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TriiipleThreat reported by User:Locke Cole (Result: Protected)

Page: The Avengers: Age of Ultron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575707590&oldid=575702120
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575781078&oldid=575780832
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575725198&oldid=575723271
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron&diff=575815835&oldid=575815490

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The_Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron#Renner

Comments: There seems to be a serious issue of WP:OWN going on at this page, with a handful of editors apparently deciding for everyone else what should and shouldn't be included in this article. The entire history is replete with reverts, some valid admittedly, but a good portion not so much. Arguments over the validity of sources continues on the talk page, but something needs to be done to make these editors aware that simply reverting editors that happen to add sourced information is not okay. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you're kidding right? Besides the fact that the you are combining two entirely different situations, they all are based on careful examination and discussion of the content. Sorry if others disagreed with you, not just myself. This is collaborative editing. And as I warned you, you were at 3rr not I.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

1. Undid revision by TriiipleThreat
2. Undid revision by RustedAutoParts
3. Undid revision by TriiipleThreat

Diff of edit warring [24]

Diff of attempt of dispute resolution on article talk page [25]

From WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.. And I also warned you, as I linked above. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

All of my edits were based on good faith and concensus from discussion. The only one attempting to WP:OWN the article was you, insisting to have it your way when atleast three editors disagreed with you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not provide exceptions for consensus or good faith. Consensus, by its very nature, shouldn't require edit warring to maintain. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't, but you were the edit warrior. The bottomline is you should have attempted discussion after the first revert, not re-reverted another editor per WP:BRD, which I warned you about in my edit summary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Can I suggest you leave this one for admin to have a look at rather than continuing the debate here. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 05:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Very well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment It's worth pointing out that 3RR doesn't apply to claims about living people. Fair enough, it's not like we are saying he's doing gay porn, but if there is any doubt about the authenticity of the claim the information should be omitted until there is a concrete statement, preferably by Marvel. All those sources look very gossipy/blog like to me and we shouldn't be including WP:Speculation. There's no harm done if his name is added at a later date. Betty Logan (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for five days. If anyone - Betty or otherwise - wants to explain the supposed BLP issue to me, I'm listening.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Declined)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Ransom (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. his first revert
2. his second revert
3. his third revert
4. his fourth revert

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

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

Comments:
TheOldJacobite has violated the 3RR rule on the movie article Ransom (1996 film) and has reverted my edit four times in that article. I previously reported him for edit warring on that article, but no violation rule was taken. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. TOJ has not violated WP:3RR as he has reverted only twice in the last 24 hours. Please read the policy. I don't see any discussion of the plot/character dispute on the article talk page. Why don't you start one?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)He has not violated 3RR. Please stop edit warring and go to the talk page to try to work out this silly dispute. --Onorem (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I just found out from someone that this guy has been committing a series of edit warring in other articles, including Raging Bull (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and The Departed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). You might want to look at in the second of the revision history of The Departed to check that out. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't edited either of those articles in over a month. Please take this silly dispute elsewhere. --Onorem (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at the dates of the revision history of Raging Bull. That's actually over a week and look at the timing of his edit warring on that article. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Interfase and User:188.255.44.254 reported by User:Yerevanci (Result: Article protected for 10 days)

Page: Gyumri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Interfase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.255.44.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• would be easier to just take a look at the article history

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]
6. [31]
7. [32]
8. [33]
9. [34]
10. [35]
11. [36]
12. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Interfase and 188.255.44.254

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] The IP opened a discussion, Interfase responded, [39] but as we can see the edit warring continued.

Comments:
Interfase and the IP reverted each other for numerous times (around 20 times), which is simply ridiculous and unacceptable. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The article was protected earlier, and thus neither party has been able to continue reverting since being warned. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Both have gone way too far. I think this kind of behavior is unacceptable. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:44, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Chuy33 reported by User:Onorem (Result: Blocked)

Page

Richard Grieco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Chuy33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575871376 by Onorem (talk)"
2. 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575919500 by Onorem (talk)"
3. 23:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575919592 by Onorem (talk)"
4. 23:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575919829 by Legion fi (talk)"
5. 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575920447 by Onorem (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Richard Grieco. (TW)"
2. 23:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Richard Grieco. (TW)"
3. 23:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat and for breaching WP:3RR. Actually, there are other problems as well, but that'll do for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.219.76 reported by User:GregJackP (Result:Blocked)

Page: Genocide of indigenous peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.219.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42], [43]
3. [44] thru [45] (9 total edits)
4. [46]
5. [47], [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50], [51], see also edit summaries, requesting that the IP take the changes to the talk page.

Comments:

Please note that three different users have tried to address this with the IP, myself, Kathryn NicDhàna, and Darkness Shines. Warnings (five total) were placed on IPs talk page without any result. IP is making similar edits to diminish or eliminate references to genocide in other articles as well, see [52], [53], [54], and [55], just to list a few. Based on the pattern of editing, may be a sock, but I'm not sufficiently sure enought to go to WP:SPI yet. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You reverted me three times on that page and therefore violated the rule your self: [56][57][58]. Three of my were edits were reverts. [59] [60] [61]. Why did you make references to my addition of references for the estimates of numbers who died under Shaka and refer to it as diminish or eliminate references to genocide. Also you said that I was trying to diminish or eliminate references to genocide when I corrected that the Miskito Indians were allied to the Contras. 88.104.219.76 (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Obvious violation, noting that GregJackP did not excede 3 reverts. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:STATicVerseatide reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: No violation as to STATic; Lugnuts warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: STATicVerseatide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts for edit warring

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] However, this user just blanked my comments.

Comments: The crux of this issue is that how can the runtimes of an album be known when a) the album hasn't been released and b) there's nothing official from the band either. Looks like iTunes is a Wiki-esque site with user-generated information, so fails WP:RS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. STATic is at three reverts and has therefore not yet breached WP:3RR. Lugnuts, you have breached WP:3RR, although not in your battle with STATic, unless you want to claim that your reverts of the IP were exempt, but that would be a stretch based on my understanding of the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that this page has attracted a lot of vandalism, which I've been reverting. The IP edit was another one of those (or at least in my eyes, maybe I'm wrong about that latest one). Bbb23 - please can you explain how an album can have information like this before it's actually released? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

His revert of the IP should not be exempted as he was reverting the same sourced content. I think Lugnuts should be blocked for violating 3RR, he obviously knew about the rule since he made this report here (in bad faith nonetheless). Of course I did not, and had no intention of continuing to war. Lugnuts seemingly was just warring with me for fun, since I disagreed with him at a WP:TfD discussion, that happened minutes before. I only reverted to restore the reliably sourced content, that he gave no probable reason for reverting. iTunes is not user generated in the slightest, iTunes only gets information from Apple itself or the record label(s). Also for the record I did not blank it, he readded all the discussions I had just archived, and messed up the links to said archive, so obviously I reverted it. STATic message me! 19:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify - I'm not reporting a 3RR, I'm reporting edit warring, which is different. I removed the IP edit(s) in good faith under the rationales I've already given (the album isn't released and nothing has come from the band about runtimes). I then have those edits reverted by STATicVerseatide for the same rationale. I don't know how that iTunes "source" can be viewed as reliable, as per points a) and b) that I've already mentioned. Even after raising this on the talkpage of STATicVerseatide, my edits were blanked - hardly helpful. I've only just realised that this editor is indeed the one behind the TfD which I commented on, but this has no relevance to this issue. I hope this clarifies my point to the reverting of the IP edits. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I'm willing to accept that your reverts of the IP were in good faith, although that's not an exemption, but once you saw where things were heading, you continued to revert STATic based on the disagreement as to the reliability of the source, which is not an exemption for edit warring and cannot be interpreted as good faith. Worse, you filed this report, even though your conduct was clearly problematic. I don't want to impose a punitive block, but I need to see some insight into your conduct that persuades me that you understand the policy and you won't be disruptive again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not requesting a block for anyone, but an understanding on how information that isn't available can be used as a reliable source. I do understand the policy, but I believe Static's edits were a bit WP:POINTY after the TfD (IE straight to an article in my edit history, revert, revert, revert). Again, check the edit history of the article in question regarding vandalism. I'm happy to withdraw this issue as it's not going to go anywhere. Not only did I revert Static's edits, I tried to engage the user in conversation, which was quickly blanked on their talk page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're trying my patience. Offering to withdraw the report? What kind of nonsense is that? I've already determined that it was a baseless report. I need you to acknowledge that you violated WP:3RR, that you now understand the policy (you were blocked recently for edit warring), and that you promise to pay much closer attention to your edits in the future so this behavior does not repeat itself. You also must agree not to edit the article at all for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that's what I thought I said (or implied). OK, so it's crystal clear - I appear to have gone against 3RR, but I now do understand the policy and promise to pay closer attention to my edits and not to edit the article. Is that OK? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounded pretty condescending to me, I do not know about you Bbb23. I do not think just because he "promises" should let him off the hook from violating 3rr. You are not supposed to disruptive wikipedia to make a point. STATic message me! 20:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The information is available, the album was released for pre-order by Republic Records onto iTunes where is explicitly says the track times [66], unless you are implying the record label is not a reliable source for its releases. And nope wrong again, I have edited the article many times in the last week and have it watchlisted, so looks like you are grasping at straws when the evidence is against you. The issue is not resolved as you are now the one this report is against, being the only one that violated 3RR. As I already said, you restored all the discussions I just archived, and messed up the archive link, so obviously I reverted you on my talk page. @Bbb23: I really think Lugnuts needs to be blocked for this, not only did he edit war and violate 3RR clearly knowing the policy, he also did it in a pointy fashion and removed sourced content from the article. His revert of the IP may have been in good faith, but it was still an edit that should not have been reverted, as they did provide a reliable source. STATic message me! 20:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, where does it state that the record label have supplied the info to iTunes? You also state that "I have edited the article many times in the last week" but this is clearly a lie, as your only edits in the edit history are the three reverts from today. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I used to work with an independent record label, that is how iTunes works, you cannot just go on iTunes right now and post a pre-order for Artpop, or MMLP2 only the record label can obviously do that. And my mistake I mixed up this album with the new Korn album, but I have still had the page watchlisted for over a week, so no I do not have time to go through your contributions to revert your edits. I reverted you in the first place, because you reverted sourced content, whether it is an IP or not you have to respect all editors contributions if they improve the article. Judging by your amount of reverts on the page in the last month you might have WP:OWN issues with the article. STATic message me! 20:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on Lugnuts's final response to me above, I am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vahram Mekhitarian reported by User:Yerevanci (Result: Vahram Mekhitarian and Хаченци blocked)

Page: Armenian Eternity sign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vahram Mekhitarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:
This user constantly reverts disputed material and fails to discuss the raised issues. Also, he was blocked on Sep. 27 for 24 hours and on Sep. 29 for 3 days. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I was just setting up Twinkle to report this as well. Editor simply doesn't listen. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know what to do and how to proceed with these wars. This page is under discussion at the Institute of Standards and the Government of Armenia. But we can not discuss any version of the page, because it changes all the time and looks contradictory. If possible, lock the page in my last edition for two weeks, until the end debate in Armenia. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked Vahram Mekhitarian for two weeks and User:Хаченци for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Logic seeker reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Indef)

Page

Occupy movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Logic seeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
2. 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
3. 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"
4. 01:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Nonviolence */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. User talk:Logic seeker#October 2013

Comments:

Specifically note my mention of WP:3RR on the user's page and the subsequent revert by the user. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – Indef for vandalism by User:IronGargoyle. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:DrBonesaw reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: No vio, protected 4 days)

Page: Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DrBonesaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [74]
2. [75]
3. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [78]
• [79]

Multiple sections where the issue is still under discussion and no consensus for this one editor's proposal has been accepted:

• Talk:Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine#Inclusion_of_Salzberg_Article.3F
• Talk:Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine#Time_to_make_progress_or_stop_this

Comments:

This is a classic SPA who only edits this topic, and mostly over a semantic issue. He does not impress or convince us. Instead of responding properly to the reversal of his edits and the advice about 3RR, the editor placed a 3RR tag on my own talk page. I have given up and now come here. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I am a new editor, but I have been engaged in talks with other editors on the talk page regarding this article for quite some time. The edit in question which was continuously reverted by user Brangifer, was not addressed by them on the talk page despite my request to discuss it there. This editor was the only person that seemed to have issue with my edit. If you look at the talk page, this editor clearly has a personal vendetta against me for having a different opinion than them and they have become seemingly belligerent in the discussions. Before user Brangifer came into this talk today, the other editors and I were making good progress on the article. That effort has since been derailed by this users antics.DrBonesaw (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You still had no consensus from any editors to make that edit. It was under discussion, there was still disagreement, and no resolution had been achieved. Period. You should have respected BRD after the first revert of your edit, the advice you received, and the warning on your talk page. Yet you kept it up. That's why we are here. Even if your edit was 100% correct, we don't edit war content into articles over the objections of other editors. We discuss until a consensus has been reached. We aren't there yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time I have warned you on your talk page about edit warring. You have had the template with good instructions. You should have read it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I realized my mistake the first time I engaged in reverting another users edits. You began this "edit war"…how are you not seeing this. I made an edit based on a conversation that took place in the talk page before you arrived. If you had an issue with it you should have created a section on the talk page to discuss it. Instead you reverted repeatedly. Recently, this article has been thoroughly edited against consensus. If you had actually read the talks you would realize this. Ever since our first engagement on the Fringe topics talk page regarding this article you have been nothing but rude to me. Other editors even spoke on the fact that your comments towards me could be taken as personal attacks. It appears you need to review WP policy as well before you continually police other users.DrBonesaw (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to have learned from that first mistake.

You are not telling the truth ("I made an edit based on a conversation that took place in the talk page before you arrived."). The edit you made was still under discussion. Even if you started discussing that change a year ago, it was still under discussion and strongly disputed by several editors.

BRD is not written BR BR BR D. It's only BRD. You made a Bold edit, I Reverted it. Instead of returning to the ongoing Discussion, you restored your bold edit a second time. That's edit warring. I made one more attempt to restore the status quo, with a clear edit summary, but you restored your bold edit a third time. That's where it remains now, and only because I'm not interesting in participating in your edit war. When your edit is not accepted (because it is strongly disputed and still under discussion), you are not supposed to press forward. That's edit warring. That's how it works here. I suggest you self-revert so we can get back to discussing. Otherwise you can be blocked on your attitude alone. A full 4 reverts is not necessary. Your attitude and failure to understand how edit warring works speaks ill of your future here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The edit that I made today, that you kept reverting was not strongly disputed by anyone…except you. The edit that I made today hardly made change to any of the content in the article. Infact, It was merely a cleaning up of the language used. You may want to review the talk page regarding the specific edit I made today. You are the only person that even commented on it. That will be obvious to anyone who wished to look into that. You seem to be the one who is bending the truth here. Why are you ignoring my comment about your previous personal attacks towards me that were pointed out by other editors? It is obvious you have a personal issue with me and you are letting this affect your contributions to the article in question.DrBonesaw (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Have I missed something? I'm only seeing three reverts by DrBonesaw, which is not yet a violation. GregJackP Boomer! 03:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't missed anything. Edit warring can exist before 4 reverts is reached, and is a blockable offense. When the trend is clear, we come here if an editor refuses to heed warnings and advice. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

True, but the only two I see involved are you and him. Which sort of indicates that if he's edit-warring, so are you. Plus, looking at the talkpage discussion, it appears that this is a content dispute. You both need to stop edit-warring and try something else, like request for comment, DRN, or something. GregJackP Boomer! 04:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that something else needs to be done than edit warring. Although he's been unsuccessfully trying to convince others than myself, regardless of who reverts (by the nature of things, only one can do it), it constituted the R in BRD. DrBonesaw refused to heed the advice about 3RR and BRD and made a BRB, rather than just returning to the talk page. So don't try to make this all about me alone. If I hadn't done it, someone else would have. There was no consensus for his change. That's the rub here. Content disputes make up 95% of what ends up here, and edit warring is not the way forward, which is why I brought the matter here rather than continue. I stopped and he didn't. I figured he'd get the point, what with all the warnings and advice I was giving him, but that didn't work. This noticeboard comes into play when edit warriors won't listen.

He has fought for this edit from his VERY FIRST edit on Sept. 13! (Compare that diff with the currently disputed edit. It removes the content he has sought to remove from the start.) This is nothing new. He has never gotten consensus for it. It has been contested all along. When he got Bold, I reverted him. Very simple and standard procedure. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I've said all that needs to be said. An admin will need to settle this. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The SPA in this case is outside consensus, and I would have reverted if I hadn't been asleep. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 05:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, how can I be outside consensus when no one had disputed the edit when it was proposed. You did not add any contribution to the edit proposal that I made on the talk page? DrBonesaw (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. DrBonesaw is warned not to edit war in the future though or blocks may be issued. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have protected the article four 4 days to give the editors a chance to continue working out the content issues on the Talk page. Zad68 15:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Dan Murphy reported by User:Aymatth2 (Result: No vio)

Page: Gregory Kohs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[80] Previous version reverted to: [81] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff][82]
2. [diff][83]
3. [diff][84]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory Kohs (4th nomination) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] [86]

Comments:
Subject objects to an attempt to add sourced material to an article being considered for deletion Aymatth2 (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I suggest you two stop reverting though, or blocks may be issued in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• So I can restore the version that got reverted? It seems relevant to the AfD discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd rather you discuss the issue more instead of continuing to revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Max rspct reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainiak Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Max rspct (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Comments:
While not WP:3RR this editor has repeatly continued to re-insert highly confrontational and uncivil comments into an AfD discussion that was closed nearly a year ago, including after being warned not to do so, indicating a clear intent to edit war their comment back into the closed discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.219.76 reported by User:GregJackP (Result: No action taken)

Page: Genocides in history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.219.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95] to [96] (3 edits)
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99], [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

Although not yet four reverts, this IP editor just came off of a 24-hour block for edit warring on genocide articles. Editor refuses to take changes to talk page for discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP is discussing on his talk page, and doing a damn good job of it, his last revert was well justified. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined Since he's only made two reverts today and has stopped to discuss, I'm going to decline to take action here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:92.145.77.139 reported by User:Yworo (Result: 24 hours for both)

Page: Espresso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.145.77.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:
IP editor is engaging in disruptive editing. Check edit comments, falsely claimed to be discussing on talk page ("see talk" on reverts 1,3), but never posted there. Not following WP:BRD, did not attempt to discuss after being reverted the first time, which they should have done.

Yworo (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Technotopia reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Sega Genesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Technotopia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [110]
2. [111]
3. [112]
4. [113]
5. [114]
6. [115], complete with personal attack in edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not entirely applicable, as dispute involves content on article's talk page. Editor continues to restore deleted comment that is merely an accusation of bias coated with a nationalistic insult. A second editor believes this may be someone evading a block, as well.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Euryalus just shortly before the filing of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

User: 72.66.30.115 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24h, semi)

Page: Nina Rosenwald (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎72.66.30.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [will describe reverts]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117] removes material just added by another user (summary shares the personal opinion that it is "a lie")
2. [118] indicated as a revert in the summary, restores blatantly promotional self-published material
3. [119] removes material added two days ago by another user
4. [120] indicated as a revert in the summary, restores blatantly promotional self-published material

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I warned the user when he hit 4RR a few days ago, and said that I would let it go this time. The user waved it off with personal attacks and, as you can see, continued to edit war.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various sections on Talk:Nina Rosenwald, where the IP is pushing a POV against three or four other more experienced users, and has also shared such gems as "Israel cannot 'occupy' Israel. That part of the world was given to the Chosen People by You Know Who a long time ago and forever. I believe it's in the Book." and "the settlements in Judea and Samaria are not illegal—Israel says so, and Israel is in control. (International organizations are fine, up to the point where they begin to interfere with a nation's sovereignty.)" as justification for his edits.

Comments:
The user was already warned about edit warring after the first or second 4RR, and has now hit it again in his attempt to write a promotional puff piece. I don't know whether he's a paid PR agent, an ideological POV warrior, and/or simply a troll, but either war, he shows no indication of stopping his edit-warring behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is a brightline violation of 3RR, with each of the four diffs showing a specific revert separated by edits from other users. The user has been combative and pushing a POV. Binksternet (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 24 hours, article semiprotected. The editor has broken 3RR and seems to be pushing a POV. Though he participates on talk, he is not waiting to get consensus there. He has been reverting the article against four different editors. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ben0kto reported by User:STATicVerseatide (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Acid Rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ben0kto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576378987 by STATicVerseatide (talk)Thank you. I will continue to work on the Acid Rap (mixtape) article w/o copying until complete."
2. 02:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576378557 by STATicVerseatide (talk) Original work on both articles will continue"
3. 02:30, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576378140 by STATicVerseatide (talk) (Acid rap is a genre originally. More sources yet to be added)"
4. 02:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576376424 by EuroCarGT (talk) (still adding RS)"
5. 02:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576375581 by Ross Hill (talk) (not vandalism)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Acid Rap. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continues to edit war in attempt to create a new article on a different topic at Acid Rap, while copy-pasting the former content to Acid Rap (mixtape), even after I explained that copy-paste moves are not allowed. STATic message me! 02:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply editing a genre's article in attempt to provide informative information. Working on original editing of the redirect/replacement of the article for the mixtape named after the genre in accordance with copy-paste policies. Acid Rap (mixtape) may be deleted temporarily if the article is too similar the original. Ben0kto (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The three-revert rule is something which I was not aware of and will not repeat. Ben0kto (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot change the topic of an article without consulting the talk page of said article, and cannot move articles by copy-pasting the article's content, as I have explained to you almost five times now. STATic message me! 03:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted a sixth time, after stating here, and on my talk page that they understood 3RR. STATic message me! 04:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Firkin Flying Fox (Result: Stale)

Page: Students for Justice in Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [121]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (page subject to 1RR)

1. [122]
2. [123]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. Sepsis is well aware of this, having been repeatedly warned about it, and blocked twice for previous violations:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Students_for_Justice_in_Palestine&diff=576210766&oldid=551987158
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sepsis_II&diff=523501541&oldid=523439274
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sepsis_II&diff=523516608&oldid=523505411 - this one is a finding by an administrator of a previous 1RR violation

Ya, this is a sockpuppet of AndresHerutJaim, or perhaps NoCal, I've already gone ahead and made the SPI - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100. These two sockpuppeters have been hounding me for a long time now, I asked Sandstein for advice in dealing with them, he said reverting these extremely obvious sockpuppets of banned users falls under WP:3RRNO - [[126]]. Anyone who reads the history of the article will see multiple sockpuppets recently editing it, Jennifer Worth , Firkin Flying Fox, GoGoTob2, Scarletfire2112/Soosim.... I will wait to revert these socks edits on the many pages they have attacked until they are confirmed/blocked. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think AndresHerutJaim would bother filing an edit warring report. Firkin Flying Fox is probably the same obvious sockpuppet that filed this report. Isarig/NoCal is the kind of person who is capable of exploiting rules to target perceived opponents, while simultaneously breaking the rules themselves. They have done it many times over the years. So this looks much more like NoCal than AHJ to me, for what it's worth. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing link to previous report, Sean. It appears Sepsis II was blocked twice already and aware of RR rules, thus escalating block appears appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agada will join any discussion going on, always in support of the pro-Israel extremists, even those who are banned sockmasters, six time indef blocked editors, etc. He should be ignored, perhaps his ban from joining in such discussions should be put back into force again. Sepsis II (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Agada, I can see that might look appropriate if the objective is to unethically exploit a charity to wage a pointless and disruptive ethno-nationalist information war and to facilitate and reward sockpuppetry. To me, that approach looks more like throwing fuel on the fire rather than trying to put it out. Protecting the article seems like a better approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, this sounds like WP:9STEPS. Editors should be reminded about WP:NPA. Sepsis II broke the rules and no doubt she/he was aware of it. Rules are rules and should be applied equally. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis II can simply self-revert, but curiously no one has asked him, so this is obviously not about the rules, it's about gaming to target a perceived enemy in a conflict that has nothing to do with this charity. It should be about minimizing the disruptive impact of manipulative and dishonest people on the project. It's profoundly dumb and counterproductive to reward those people for their lack of ethics and the enormous amount of disruption and conflict they cause. This has nothing whatsoever to do with POV. It's about using judgement, not allowing procedures to be contaminated and exploited by people fighting an information war and trying to stem the negative effects of sockpuppetry. I haven't even looked at what these guys are fighting about, I'm not interested. I've never even read the article. What is obvious is that almost every recent edit is by a sockpuppet, sockpuppets on both sides of the conflict. Sepsis II also has an outstanding issue regarding former accounts that is, no doubt, feeding the flames, that I described here at 19:38, 18 September 2013. Either way, block evading socks are not allowed to be here and they are not allowed to do anything at all. This is not a difficult concept to understand and yet, astonishingly, time and time again, people facilitate and encourage block evasion despite the enormous cost to the project. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

No, Sean. This is about rules and proper procedures. An editor can not revert edits he/she thinks were made by sock. If sock suspicion arises, WP:SPI is the proper venue and an investigation should be initiated. After the suspicion is confirmed, then, the known sock edits are to be reverted. Let's examine Sepisis II actions:

* Adds the identical content three times

* Does not take part in discussion of talk page

* Does not even consider to self revert

This noticeboard is about edit-warring I did not look into content dispute in hand. I am concerned about proper procedures to avoid yonder disruption. And after two blocks for identical reason '1RR violation' I don't see what is the alternative here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Stale Mark Arsten (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnny Squeaky reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 36 hours)

Page: Soylent Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnny Squeaky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131]
5. [132]
6. [133]

Second version reverted to: [134]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]
4. [138]
5. [139] and calling my good-faith revert "vandalism". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]

Comments:
Johnny hasn't violated 3RR, but his edits are becoming increasingly disruptive. The first set of edits related to a section which he regarded as trivia and wanted to label as such. The article was protected to facilitate discussion, which ended up being quite comprehensive. Some of us felt he had a point and that the section violated WP:DUE, and there was a suggestion to delete the section and simply add a link to the "See also" section. This proposal received consensus at Talk:Soylent Green#Straw poll on how to proceed including support from Johnny. However, once it was enacted he reneged on the agreement and started removing the link from "See also" (the second set of edits). If he genuninely objected to this proposal he should have spoken up, rather than supporting it so the discussion was closed under the impression that all parties were satisfied. Betty Logan (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I don't have time to evaluate this now. As Betty said above, I locked the article at the end of September. That was based on a previous report here. For the benefit of other admins, I wanted to add (before I go to my real work) that I warned Johnny at the time. That warning, which Johnny removed (he pretty much removes everything from his talk page), is here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I would add that after Johnny pointed out in an unlikely-to-be-seen location that he felt the external link wasn't pertinent to the article even after discussion had run its course and a consensus had been reached, I pointed out that consensus had been reached on the options, that he could have added his idea as one of the options, and that he was welcome to open a new discussion if he wished to do so. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Overuse of the "minor edit" marking doesn't help. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours - edit warring against a multitude of users. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:92.145.77.139 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Temporary semi-protection/IPs blocked)

Page

Espresso (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

92.145.77.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sock

92.145.197.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576471024 by Yworo (talk) wow, this is fun. looking for another block then?" Through sock IP 92.145.197.216
2. 16:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "(1) discussed ad nauseum on Talk (I was one of those engaged in the discussion over a year ago); (2) reasoning explained countless times; (3) consult any dictionary"
3. 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "if you want to have a discussion, i'm all ears. otherwise, cease."
4. 19:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576187287 by Yworo (talk) see Talk, you're in the minority. And please stop posting me personal messages. thanks."
5. 19:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "NOT a misspelling - appears in numerous dictionaries - see discussion page for enormous amount of sources (like the Oxford English Dictionary)"
6. 19:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC) "see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• IP got blocked recently due to edit-warring on the same article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please note: This is not a 3RR violation technically. Rather this is a continuation of the edit-war this IP was blocked for a few days ago. Right after their block expired, the IP started the same edit-war they got blocked for in the first place. The IP refuses to engage on talk and instead reverts insinuating in their edit summaries that other editors don't understand linguistics etc.. Another admin has already warned the IP for starting the edit-war again: [144] I think that the IP should be blocked to prevent further disruption. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am also concerned about the cavalier attitude of the IP. Here is their reply to a level-4 message on their talk: rough day at the office? don't worry, we've all been there. have a camomile tea (not an eXpresso!) and watch some of your favorite soaps. Please note how they capitalised "X" in "Expresso", the main object of their edit-warring. That kind of sarcastic, battleground mentality doesn't bode well for the future, imo. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• As the IP is dynamic, I have semi-protected the article temporarily. Bishonen has blocked the IPs. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was also just going to report here. Both IPs blocked for 72 hours. Not sure what good it'll do, but the range is unfortunately too big to block. (The IPs are supposed to be static, per whatismyipaddress.com, but it don't look much like it, does it?) Bishonen | talk 16:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC).

• By the end of this, the IP was just trolling and socking. Thank you very much DrKiernan, Bishonen. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:175.143.208.159 reported by User:Asukite (Result: 48 hours )

Page

K-pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

175.143.208.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) to 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 00:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Frequent attempts to add an unsourced section to this page, all consistently rejected by editors and reviewers. User has been warned. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 02:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pdfpdf reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Warned)

Page: Six-star rank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pdfpdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:05, 7 October 2013 1st revert (reverts [145])
2. 10:49, 8 October 2013 2nd revert
3. 13:44, 8 October 2013 3rd revert with an unwarranted and insupportable accusation of vandalism.
4. 10:30, 10 October 2013 1st revert
5. 10:36, 10 October 2013 2nd revert
6. 10:52, 10 October 2013‎ 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

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

Comments:

This is nonsense. I have made repeated requests to this admin to collaborate - he refuses. I have made repeated requests to this admin to discuss the issues - he refuses. I have made repeated requests to this admin to communicate - he refuses. I have made repeated requests to this admin for his opinions - he has not replied. I have made repeated requests to this admin to explain certain matters - he has not replied.
Occasionally he replies, "I have replied", but when I ask where he has replied, he does not respond.
This appears to be an example of an admin throwing his weight around and misusing his position. He is equally guilty of anything he's accusing me of.
Further, I continue to draw to his attention 3 years of discussion and consensus, which he continues to dismiss as irrelevant.
How can you communicate with someone who pays no attention to any POV than his own? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

By-the-way:

• Warn the user if you have not already done so. - He hasn't.
• You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? - No, he hasn't. He refuses to discuss the matter.
• "So put a link to the discussion here. - No discussion, so there can not be / is not any link.
• If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too - Yes, that's all he's done, but I don't want him blocked. I've made numerous attempts to get him to collaborate - clearly, he has skills and experience I don't have (And I have skills and experience he doesn't have). Collaboration would be a far superior outcome for Wikipedia.Pdfpdf (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The claims in the response are obviously untrue, as demonstrated by the links in the report. DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

This matter has already been discussed at WP:RSN#Six-star rank, where it seems that User:Pdfpdf has not found support for his views. His continued reverts at Six-star rank appear to be edit warring. He may be able to avoid sanctions if he will respond here and agree to wait for consensus before editing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed the page history, discussion history at the various pages, and the editor's block log, my suggestion is a block of at least 48 hours absent a material commitment to avoid edit warring (and ideally, to accept a form of dispute resolution such as DRN.) —Darkwind (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just received some aggressive comments at my talk page after I dared to express my admiration of User:DrKiernan's conduct during the resolution of this issue. Apart from anything else, they demonstrate that User:Pdfpdf still doesn't understand either why his edit warring was wrong or how to behave in resolving a dispute. Shem (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. Since the dispute has been running since September it qualifies as a case of long-term edit warring. Pdfpdf is warned that any further revert on the topic of the six-star rank may lead to an immediate block if he doesn't get consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ausgoth reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result:24 hrs )

Page

Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ausgoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "inadequate reverts"
2. 09:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "who does not like grammar and commas - fix it, do not remove useful information"
3. 09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "restored useful information after vandalism"
4. 15:54, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "unreasonable revert Undid revision 576452613 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style). (TW)"
2. 15:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Samsung Galaxy Note 3. (TW)"

Comments:

Constantly re-introduces a version which unnecessarily adds uncited model numbers, changes certain sentences to grammatically incorrect versions, adds a spammy looking ref, and edit wars his version back in by asserting that the reversions are vandalism and that we shouldn't care about the grammar if its "useful information" ViperSnake151  Talk  15:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours KrakatoaKatie 16:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ben0kto reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Acid Rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Acid Rap (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ben0kto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [147]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [148]
2. [149]
3. [150]
4. [151]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

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

Comments: Ok... this is going to be a long story I hope to make short. Ultimately this is the same instance that was reported by another user here. The editor in question, Ben0kto, has been warned about edit warring over Acid Rap. He was blocked for a short period of time due to edit warring. After his block was up, he continued to edit war and he continued to try to move the album to another article so he could create an article on the music genre of acid rap. He has been warned several times and he claims that he has not been completely warned about everything that is happening, but the problem is that I don't know how much more explicit we can get over everything. I've also reported this to ANI, but I'm reporting this here as well. I have to say that at this point I don't see inexperience as an excuse since he's well aware that his edits are controversial and people have tried to explain things to him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Seems pretty clear cut. DrKiernan (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

User:ReadTheGuidelines / User:24.121.103.74 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result:31 hours)

Page: Talk:Dick Dale (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• ReadTheGuidelines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / previously editing as:
• 24.121.103.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [154]
2. [155]
3. [156]
4. [157]
5. [158]
6. [159]
7. [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: See AN/I report at [162]

Comments:
Note the AN/I report linked above, and this comment on the editor's talk page: " You can block me if you want to, because I will continue to delete my comments.". Beyond My Ken (talk)

Blocked 31 hours by GB fan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Page

Hyderabad State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Devanampriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) to 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "restored sourced information that was deleted without explanation. npov required for articles"
   2. 01:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Restored neutral language to paragraph. Important for readers to understand context of allegations."
2. 01:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "RV - Neil N unexplained section blanking is vandalism. My edits are NPOV. Restoring version prior to AJillani's unexplained section blanking. Please discuss issues on Talk page."
3. 01:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "restored original title prior to sectional blanker's pov edit. This will head off inevitable "annexation" vs "liberation" edit war. more than 80% of native population wanted merger w/India."
4. 04:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "in line with talk discussion, reworded original text from "countless" to "unknown number". This is reword edit responding to other opinions."
5. 06:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Abecedare, please speak the truth. My edit was not a revert so no 3RR violation. I clearly reworded and proposed new text. Propose changes, don't dictate. Here is new proposed text. Pls respond with modification and explain issues on talk pg"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Notice: Misidentifying edits as vandalism on Hyderabad State. using TW"
2. 01:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hyderabad State. using TW"
3. 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
4. 05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"
2. 02:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"
3. 02:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */ note"
4. 04:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"
5. 04:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */ cmt"
6. 05:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Hyderabad State */"

Comments:

Edit warring to add POV text. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User, NeilN refused to discuss content in detail and merely reverted my sourced edits. What he calls a 3RR violation was actually my proposed reword of my own text in response to another user's concern on the talk page. His one line responses to my repeated requests for detailed discussion are seen here on talk. This request is an attempt to distract from an edit war that he (NeilN) himself started. Devanampriya (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I and another editor told you exactly what the problems were. Instead of using the talk page, you continue to add the same problematic text to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you have to suggest changes. You can't just lay down a subjective standard of what's wrong without explaining the changes you would like to see. Have you even done any research on the topic? Do you even know anything about it? How can you critique my edits without properly understanding the content?

Also, what you said is completely false. I have clearly "reworded" my edited (which you wrongly call 3RR vio) responding to another users concerns. Second, it was I who created the talk section while you insisted on edit warring, and I have continued using talk as people can plainly see. Abecedare gave some explantion, you just gave a glib one liner speaking in vague terms and issuing threats. Responsible and scholarly editing means proposing a counter-version inclusive of new content. You knee jerked deleted new content from reliable sources. This is blanking.

Admin involvement is requested so as to encourage all involved editors to contribute content or at least propose an inclusive revision rather than holding text hostage. Devanampriya (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can see the identical text in the diffs I provided. The same text I first raised with you on your talk page (which you then copied to the article talk page). The same text I gave suggestions on how to change, multiple times. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope--speak the truth. You yourself just said this on the talk page: "You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement."

So you yourself admitted I modified my own text instead of knee jerk reverting--which you've been doing from the beginning. I have made good faith modification to my own researched contributions, but neither you nor Abecedare have provided anything. Do you even have any understanding of the Article topic? The BRD policy stipulates you have to make your own modification so as to WP: COLLABORATE not WP: DICTATE. If you are interested in improving the article, modify rather than make false 3RR violation complaints you yourself have contradicted. Devanampriya (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Update: After the 3RR had been formally breached by Devanampriya I had left a comment on the article talk page noting the breach and mentioning that I didn't intend to report it unless the edit-warring it continued. Given that Devanampriya has ignored that message and repeated requests to propose text on the article talk page to gain consensus; continued to edit-war; and used the article for his non-neutrally worded edits, I think a block and a 1RR restriction is required to prevent article-space disruption. Abecedare (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There was no formal breach, you are mischaracterizing it. NeilN has plainly admitted that I made a modification to the text--which is not a revert. In contrast, both you and NeilN have been knee jerk reverting without making modifications to the text. Merely proposing vague "overhauling" is not collaborating--it is dictating. And insisting on talk page versions first contravenes wikipedia's own policy for BRD.

What have you contributed to the text? Article talk has clearly shown only I have been researching and making suggestions. You are attempting to hold the collaboration process hostage to your own vague whims. If you have anything to contribute, refine the text or add your own content--you have done neither and are trying to hide by a trumped up 3RR report and desired block so you keep out content you dislike. Devanampriya (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." - You added "The Muslim militia and Hyderabad state police brutally put down the armed revolts by Communists and the peasantry and committed horrendous atrocities on the Hindu population, and even eliminated patriotic Hyderabadi Muslims such as Shoebullah Khan who advocated merger with India." four times. Changing something else does not get you out of 3RR. And your continued haste to insert problematic material without waiting for discussion shows you are still edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you are purposefully miscounting, you yourself admitted here:"You changed one instance of blatant POV-pushing to slightly less POV-pushing. Not a great improvement." . I modified the specific text you guys had issues with, the word Abecedare specifically called out "countless". This is refinement, not reverting, keeping me within 3 rv, since I specifically addressed one of your concerns. Instead of being evasive, why don't you answer the question? What have you added?. Even now you failed to respond to my good faith entreaties and good faith modification on talk.

Also you clearly missed that I removed "brutally" in "brutally put down"--so no it wasn't four times, since the text in question was modified by me. You specifically requested that I change this--and I did--but now you try to lie and count that against 3RR. If you spent more time reading and understanding my posts instead of thinking of ways to defend your false 3RR complaint, you would have seen that I specifically brought it to your attention--but neither of you responded or acknowledged this on talk (because you want to hold the text hostage and prevent it from being posted in the first place). This is bad faith. Even now, you don't collaborate, merely drone on about "3RR" and "problematic material". You call the material "problematic" but don't explain why? I directly posted a quotation rather than add my own words in response to your specific request on talk. Have you given details on why this is problematic quotation? BRD puts the onus on you to contribute your own refined edits that react to mine (not to edit war) and to provide content where necessary--have you done this? Devanampriya (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

See, I specifically tell you here that I removed "countless" and "brutally" in line with your collective talk pg requests. Why haven't you guys contributed anything in response to my requests? This is a two way street. You have to contribute and collaborate not dictateDevanampriya (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Smauritius reported by User:Rose$keel (Result: Protected)

Page: Shraddha Kapoor
User being reported: Smauritius (talk · contribs)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169]

I have only added legit links to prove my edit.But the other user [Smauritius] seems to be a fanatic and doesn't want to agree with me. She is even making unfounded accusations that I have many user accounts to disprove my claim. I request a third party opinion to verify me edits and make them permanent or give full protection for the page to stop any more edit warring. - Rose$keel (talk) 04:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Smauritius has not been warned for edit warning. Another admin has fully protected the article in question for a week, so I don't see where any sanctions are necessary for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To amend my statement above, an edit summary in the edit war in question is not a sufficient warning of 3RR violation. —C.Fred (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Smauritius did get a proper warning back on 26 September. Still, the article protection does mean there's no point in blocking now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The link I submitted confirming Shraddha kapoor's birthdate is the contentious issue here. Smauritius is not from India and hence doesn't know about the CINTAA. I request someone who is from India and has knowledge about the film and telly industry located in India to arbitrate and vet my link. I think it is unfair to castigate and write down my link as unreliable when none of you are from my country, India. Some things which are taken for granted here may be new to others abroad. The article has only been protected till 18th OCtober. After that, again the issue will resurface. This must be stopped. Please verify my link and permanently lock the personal details box so that no further changes are made to it. Further I want to bring to your notice here that the user [Smauritius] is a fan of shradhha and no edit she makes on the page is unbiased. Please glance through the whole article and notice the discrepancies in language. The whole article reeks of immature editing and bad grammar and wrong lexicon usage. All this has been a result of [Smauritius]'s contributions. I request the admins to verify my link and lock the personal details box permanently. Also please ask a proper editor to clean up the article or if I am allowed even I can do the job. Once it is done satisfactorily, it can be permanently protected so that no mroe edit wars happen when fanatics like [Smauritius] take issue with the details linked. -Rose$keel (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm providing the following links to substantiate the reliability of the link(http://www.cintaa.net/membership/cintaa_profile/4524) I provided on the page os Shraddha Kapoor. Smauritius doesn't want the age of the actress to be revealed and hence is doing her best to make it seem as though my link is unreliable whereas it is the most legit link any actor can have. Please go through her talk page where other users have also corroborated my information but Smauritus has fought verbally with all of them.

Please take note of the following:

CINTAA(http://www.cintaa.net/home) is an association of cine and telly artists in bollywood and membership in it is compulsory for every actor.Read how this actor was reprimanded because he did not have a CINTAA membership-->(http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ragesh-b-asthanaa-cintaas-hit-list). Also read how CINTAA has the power to pass legislations regarding the Cine industry-->(http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-01-16/tv/36373471_1_new-rule-cintaa-joint-secretary). Anil Kapoor the actor inaugrated CINTAA's website -->(http://in.movies.yahoo.com/video/anil-launches-website-cintaa-053000873.html).

All that I've said above can be verified by a knowledgeable third party editor from India. Rose$keel (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Article locked by Geniac. Minima© (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AOnline reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Locked)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: AOnline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff 1 [170]
Diff 2 [171]
Diff 3 [172]
Diff 4 [173]
Diff 5 [174]

Diff of warning [175] (another user had warning before I even noticed the reverts)

This article is under 1 revert rule restriction, so just two reverts would have been enough. Sopher99 (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

•You should first report yourself dear Sopher99.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

Diff 1 [176]

Diff 2 [177]

Diff 3 [178]

Diff 4 [179]

Diff 5 [180]

Diff 6 [181]

Diff 7 [182]

Diff 8 [183]

I did the changings for save the map from your classical attemts of vandalism. AOnline (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Those diffs show me adding material, not reverting. I don't see how it constitutes as vandalism either. Sopher99 (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Adding material? Then could you please explain me where is the name of the villages(which you added to the map) on the source? You have been warned numbers of times, it's not your first attempt. Looking over here is enough to understend your real purpose. AOnline (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The source specifically is a bbc map of the conflict. The names of the villages are in the second source I give, which show where they are relative to the map of territory control. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats not the point anyway, the point is you made 5 reverts on a 1 revert rule page. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop acting like you don't know the rules. You can't just simply show a map and make changings referring to that. You have to show a certain source for every single village/town. User:Lothar_von_Richthofen's statement was very clear and i think you are aware of that. As i said, my act was normal reflection for protection of the map. Nevertheless, i will respect the decision of decision-maker. AOnline (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I gave a map showing the area's control, then provided a source for the exact location and name of the town. So I did follow the standard process. But as I said that's not the point. Sopher99 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I locked the template for three days. Just to be clear, both users in this report breached WP:1RR. If they had been the only two, I would have blocked them both. However, there were others who also breached 1RR, and I didn't wish to impose more than two blocks. Those other editors, as well as AOnline, will be formally warned, even though warnings aren't required to impose sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As the last (warned) party of this apparently, I share similar opinion as AOnline above. I tried with a minimal number of edits to revert the map from deleted and un-referenced vandalism, instead of changing content. My preceding comments were always discussed prior to editing in the Talk page. I have made the administration aware since yesterday. Anyhow, I will respect the decision of administrator including me.Ariskar (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:PrestonHornsby reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: Semi-protected; warned)

Page: John M. Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PrestonHornsby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
IPs involved: 38.97.127.10, 98.82.34.81, 98.71.253.34, 166.147.120.169, 24.127.245.111, 166.147.120.155 and 98.82.0.6

Previous version reverted to: [184]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [185]
2. [186]
3. [187]
4. [188]
5. [189]
6. [190]

and many more...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [191]
2. [192]
3. [193]
4. [194] (IP)
5. [195] (IP)
6. [196] (IP)

Comments:
About seven IPs (very likely all the same person) are involved in this edit war that has been going on for over a month. I've warned PrestonHornsby but he doesn't seem to talk much, nor the IPs. See recent warning to 166.147.120.155.

How to deal with PresentHornsby I don't know, as I actually feel his contribution was constructive. I do however recommend semi-protection of the article to prevent further disruption from IP hoppers. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected

• Warned. I have semi-protected the article for a week. I've warned Preston that if he continues to add material that is even in part a WP:BLP violation, he will be blocked. @MusikAnimal: I know you're acting in good faith, but please be very careful about restoring any material the IPs have removed (that Preston originally added). In looking at some of them, they are violations of WP:BLP and cannot remain in the article as crafted. For example, in one of them, the material itself was not supported by the source. The article discussed Phillips and a video, but it didn't say what Preston wrote. Anytime we add negative material to a BLP, we have to be extra careful that it complies with all aspects of BLP policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Guess I didn't read the source carefully enough... being quite familiar with BLP policy I find that a bit embarrassing. Apologies, and thanks for your help! — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ed beerman reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Libido (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ed beerman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576756387 by Jamesx12345 (talk)testosterone ,dopamine, oxytocin and prolactin leveles are responsible for sex drive as wikipedia also suggests"
2. 18:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576755783 by Jamesx12345 (talk) hormonal changes during abstinence lead to increased libido."
3. 18:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576745151 by Jamesx12345 (talk) the content removed had valid reference"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned in edit summary about RS and 3RR. The same user added the content before creating an account, which makes 4 reverts. James^x12345 18:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Advised)

Page

Adam and Eve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jimjilin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 18:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC) "It is an element of Judaism."
3. 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC) "The arrticle on Original Sin which you refer to states: Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some Jewish teachers in Talmudic times who believed that death was a punishment brought upon humanity."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

None, but edit summaries were used.

Comments:

Long history of warnings and blocks for edit warring. If I'd come across this editor doing this on an article where I hadn't been one of the ones reverting, I'd have blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 08:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not "warring" I am only pointing out that the article referred to points out that original sin is a controversial concept within both Judaism and Christianity. Jimjilin (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If Jimjilin is basing his reverts on the current content of the Original sin article, he seems to be misstating its conclusions regarding Judaism and the concept of inherited sin. In my opinion Jimjilin has been edit warring here, but he may be able to avoid sanctions if he will agree to get consensus before changing the article again. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No block. Jimjilin is advised that if this pattern of edits continues he is likely to be blocked. He should be working to get a consensus from other editors on his proposed assertion about 'inherited sin' in Judaism. If he continues trying to force his view into articles he will be sanctioned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Rstafursky reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Blocked 36h)

Page: Natural landscape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rstafursky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]

Comments:
Editor has persistently reverted additions to the article. The only vaguely legitimate reason given is that the material is " focused on unreferenced material". however all material is fully referenced to reputable journal articles and texts. The editor refuses to ente rinto discussion on why precisely they think that the material is unreferenced. The only other reason given for the persistent reversions is that the user believes that my intentions are not suitable. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you are edit warring, even though neither of you technically violated 3RR. Mark Marathon (t c), you should know better especially since you have a block history for similar behavior. Because of your history and the constant reversions at Natural landscape, I have blocked you for 36 hours. Rstafursky (t c), since I do not see any previous history of edit warring, I'm willing to waive a similar block if you commit to avoiding future edit warring and bringing issues to discussion or dispute resolution sooner in the future. —Darkwind (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Darkwind and Mark, yes I will act in good faith. I have already started fact checking on Natural history. Mark has altered at least 11 items/links by deleting/adding. We will take these one by one so there is documented material. Because Natural landscape is an extremely important term used in several disciplines we shall proceed with care while at the same time moving as quickly as possible. 71.233.41.122 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:71.71.5.101‎ reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Liberty University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.71.5.101‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edit warring is obvious if you look at the editor's history. He or she has been warned and asked to participate in discussion in the article's Talk page to no avail. ElKevbo (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Herzlicheboy reported by User:My-2-bits (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Nuremberg Laws (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Herzlicheboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [204]
2. [205]
3. [206]
4. [207] added by —Darkwind (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

User:Herzlicheboy is being disruptive at the article Nuremberg_Laws (among other problems with other edits, but I am here for this article specifically). He's accusing me of not checking the sources (I did check them), he's rejecting perfectly clearly sources (which are accessible to all) and trying to delete a paragraph in the article. Besides that, he's accusing me of using a bot to revert his edits (which I didn't), to have spent some seconds to do that (which I didn't, it took two hours until his edit was reverted by me), and suggesting me to stick editing Pokemon articles (which I don't). My-2-bits (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Firstly, the user "2 bits" made no attempt to resolve this issue on the talk page. The only attempt made to resolve this issue on the talk page was mine. See this please: Talk:Nuremberg_Laws#Persistent_POV_wanting_to_add_that_Blacks_were_included_in_the_Nuremberg_Laws, and the user "2 bits" has not made the slightest attempt on the talk page to justify why he thinks the sources support the statement he wants to keep in the article. My position is that the sources don't support the statement, ergo they are false sources, or not apposite sources for the assertion made. Furthermore, I did not revert the article any unreasonable number of times. Herzlicheboy (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

If I hadn't edited this article several times in the past I would block Herzlicheboy for personal attacks. This is not a matter of who is right about the sources, but Herzlicheboy's unacceptable approach to the problem. It is not OK to call another editor a "Huggle bot type", accusing him/her of "no thought or research at all", or claiming to prove another editor didn't look at a book because he (Herzlicheboy) couldn't see it on Google books. (These are all at Talk:Nuremberg Laws#Persistent POV wanting to add that Blacks were included in the Nuremberg Laws.) Zero^talk 02:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Herzlicheboy (t c) is Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR and for the incivility (bordering on personal attacks) shown on the article's talk page and on User talk:My-2-bits. Further, when considering this editor's prior history of unhelpful edits, as pointed out on his talk page, I am concerned that he may not be here primarily to improve the encyclopedia. My-2-bits (t c), your behavior could also easily be interpreted as edit warring, but given that you have certainly handled this issue with more civility than Herzlicheboy and have no prior history of edit warring, I don't see a need for a block regarding this incident. —Darkwind (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I realized if I say he broke 3RR, I ought to provide the 4th diff, which I have listed above. —Darkwind (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Reissgo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reissgo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fractional_reserve_banking&oldid=576532354

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]

Comments:
Editor Riessgo has a history of edit-warring his personal theories into articles concerning Fractional reserve banking and Full reserve banking. He is joined from time to time by various single purpose accounts. Despite a recent warning, he continues to EW this article. Although he waited to do the most recent revert until the 24 hour period had expired, the pattern and intention of edit warring is clear and the longstanding disruption of this article needs to be stopped. SPECIFICO talk 13:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• I see three edits on October 11 and one edit on October 13, so this is not a brightline violation of 3RR. The case must be made that Reissgo is disruptive, that long-term edit warring is involved. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This may not be a 3RR violation, but it's definitely edit warring - the case is made by the page history. Considering that, plus the user has a prior block history for edit warring on an article in the same topic, it's an edit-warring DUCK to me. —Darkwind (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lanlan lanwan reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)

Page: State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lanlan lanwan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• This edit at 2013-10-13T08:14:41 is a revert of the edit at 2013-10-08T08:13:34.
• This edit at 2013-10-13T13:00:58 is a revert of the edit at 2013-10-13T10:03:23.

The article is within scope of WP:ARBPIA and covered by 1RR. The 2 reverts above are a 1RR violation. I warned the editor at User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and gave them an opportunity to self-revert. Their edit was reverted by another user.

• They decided to revert again at 2013-10-13T14:37:22, self-reverted shortly afterwards and opened a talk page discussion although, like all of the edits, it's based on reasoning inconsistent with WP:CIRCULAR.
• They then made another revert at 2013-10-13T16:19:31.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See User_talk:Lanlan_lanwan#1RR_violation and Talk:State_of_Palestine#.22Sovereign_State.22_of_Palestine

Comments:
The account appears to only be used intermittently and the editor doesn't seem to be familiar with policy. Nevertheless, could an admin please either give them a stern warning to stop edit warring and use the talk page or a short break from the article. They are going to start fires in the topic area if they carry on like this. I don't think they are ready to edit in the WP:ARBPIA personally but I'm happy to be proved wrong. They should probably also receive an official ARBPIA notification too. I'm opposed to those being issued by non-admins so I haven't done that. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User received sufficient warnings from other editors; an "official" warning wasn't needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Urməvi reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Both warned)

Page: Saib Tabrizi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Urməvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [215]
2. [216]
3. [217]
4. [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, i did not do that, but i have already tried to do it in the history page, and told him that he couldn't do such edits without sources in his own talk page.[220] He has been blocked before because of this.

Comments:

Warned Both editors have been issued formal warnings of enforcement under the Armenia-Azerbaijan case, and notified that further edit warring will lead to sanctions being imposed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:IrishStephen reported by User:Srich32977 (Result: Protected)

Page

United States v. Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

IrishStephen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577007320 by Hot Stop (talk) An administrator's decision trumps your opinion."
2. 16:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Correcting the article again. Several editors seem to be living in a fantasy land."
3. 15:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Hot Stop (talk): I would ask that you read WP:COMMONNAME . (TW)"
4. 15:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 576940777 by Hot Stop (talk) The discussion at Talk:Chelsea_Manning/October_2013_move_request sets the new standard which should be upheld across Wikipedia."
5. 16:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC) "Edited the opening sentence of the article to mirror the consensus reached over renaming the Chelsea Manning article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United States v. Manning. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"
2. 16:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Changing mentions of Bradley Manning to Chelsea Manning */ Comment"

Comments:

The 3RR warning above was the second one added. I did so not realizing that user Hot Stop had posted one moments before. User IrishStephen did the last change after the warnings had been posted. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I made my edits to mirror the decision undertaking by administrators to rename the Bradley Manning article to Chelsea Manning here. I believe this decision requires us to reflect this change on other pages relating to Manning. I stand by my edits and await any further decision by administrators. Regards IrishStephen (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Luispedros reported by User:mohsen1248 (Result: Protected)

Page: Iranian Volleyball Super League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luispedros (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

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

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

Comments:

I have a problem with this user on two pages (and probably more in future we don't solve it now), Iran men's national volleyball team and Iranian Volleyball Super League, he is just reverting my edits without any reason, it seems he just doesn't like me ! I even tried to warn him in his talk page but all I got was personal attack. I know I should have been report this issue earlier since it's already an edit war but I thought we can solve the issue without coming here. in one of these pages, I just corrected some names and sorted them but he still reverted it and in another page, I made the page shorted by using templates instead of the names and removing an unreferenced section (which I wrote it myself few years ago) I changed the colors and etc to improve the page and he just reverted all of them without any reason. I explained my reasons in edit summaries. Mohsen1248 (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Al.dobyns reported by User:1995hoo (Result: one week)

Page: Washington Redskins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Al.dobyns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [222]
2. [223]
3. [224]
4. [225]
5. [226]
6. [227]
7. [228]
8. [229]
9. [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232]

Comments:

The edits relate to the current media fuss about the Washington Redskins' team name. The matter is already addressed in the article in question and in another linked article, but the user in question is determined to jam NPOV material into the lede. Several users have admonished Al.dobyns to quit it, but he/she appears not to care. Al.dobyns also attempted to remove the various warnings from his/her talk page, necessitating reverts there as well. Comment edited to add: I admit I may have accidentally violated the 3RR rule myself in trying to revert what I feel is blatant vandalism, so I am going to refrain from further efforts to keep the Redskins article cleaned-up. 1995hoo (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I am being target by several users including 1995hoo because they are fans of the washington redskins and I am trying to present the history of the slur, redskin. I have warned them that I am writing an article for a large sports news outlet and that their usernames will be used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.dobyns (talk • contribs) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked for one week by User:Bbb23. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lactasamir reported by User:Jaakko Sivonen (Result: Protected)

Page: Largest cities in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lactasamir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [233]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [234]
2. [235]
3. [236]
4. [237]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239]

Comments:

The dispute regarding the inclusion of certain cities on the article on the largest cities in Europe has been focused on cities such as Ankara, Baku and Yerevan, which user Lactasamir thinks need to be included even though they are not located in the geopgraphic Europe. I and other editors have provided detailed arguments against Lactasamir's stance on the article's talk page, but he has refused to discuss the issue ("I have nothing more to say"): while he has left some comments after this, he has declined to answer the arguments and questions made by other users. Still he has been edit warring and today broke the 3-revert-rule. Note that the time period is slightly more than 24 hours (19:02 yesterday to 19:42 today), but the policy states that "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation". Currently the article is protected. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 20:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Page protected – Three days, by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Frotz (Result: Protected)

Page: Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [241]
2. [242]
3. [243]
4. [244]
5. [245]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [246]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [247]

I reverted, asking Roscelese to explain his/her actions. The only justification offered was a reference to WP:POV and WP:BLP with no context or evidence. It appears that this is a case of attempting to censor embarassing facts. Further, this editor engages in personal abuse, as can be seen in my post at User_talk:Roscelese#Embarassing_facts. -- Frotz(talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Protected for 2 weeks. The history of the article and the appearance of the 174.x.x.x IP in the middle of the edit war, together with the editing history, leads me to suggest that protection is the correct path here. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:WKS Śląsk Wrocław reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Protected)

Page: Tourism in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WKS Śląsk Wrocław (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [248]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [249] (reverting while logged out, going on for a couple of years)
2. [250] (logged in)
3. [251] (logged in)
4. [252] (logged in)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [253]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [254]

Comments:

User WKS Śląsk Wrocław is a notorious revert warrior with a hidden agenda and long-term history of ignoring WP policy/guidelines. He's been warned by SPI clerk against logging in and out to cicumvent 3RR report like this, please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/87.99.45.74/Archive. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. WKS appears to have heeded the warning. Most recently, the only reverts were by the two of you, both logged in. Neither of you has breached WP:3RR. Discussing the dispute (I don't know who's right about the pictures, but WKS's rewording of the lead and removing the references without supporting his changes can't be right) on the article talk page is a good idea, but the provocative thread you opened belongs more at ANI than on a talk page and is not conducive to resolving a dispute. That said, WKS has only 230 edits, and all of them are to article space, so other than in edit summaries, he doesn't appear to talk.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark Arsten, but where does it leave us? The protection (featuring the disruptive edit actually) will expire in three days. What's next? Poeticbent talk 05:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe try to get some more users to weigh in on the talk page about the dispute. Perhaps ask Wikiproject Poland. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012 reported by User:Firkin Flying Fox (Result: Warned)

Page: 1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [255]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [256]
2. [257]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [258]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [259]

Comments:
All pages that are part of the Israel-Palestine conflict are subject to a 1RR limitation. (and there is actually even another revert by Pluto within this 24 hour window, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1947–48_Civil_War_in_Mandatory_Palestine&diff=576901289&oldid=576901120) Pluto is well aware of 1RR, having warned others about it [260], having been repeatedly warned about it himslef (see above), and having been blocked for previous violations under his previous identity (Ceedjee) (link showing Pluto2012 == Ceedjee, This information has since been removed by the users, in yet another violation of Wiki policy): [261] Block lock as Ceedjee, including a block for edit warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User:Ceedjee

The reporter is banned editor and notorious sockpuppeter NoCal100, as such this report should be disregared as to not encourage NoCal. Sepsis II (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There's some discussion on this. While experienced editors (check FFF's placeholder account, three years old, few edits, and almost invariably POV pushing) have a strong impression it's NoCal or someone of that school, - he certainly must have interacted with Pluto in the past, and NoCal spent a lot of time trying to get at him- the report suggests Pluto, one of our most knowledgeable editors on the 1947-8 I/P area, momentarily lost his cool. He's dealing with a potentially good but, until now, very 'deaf'-to-alternative-sources-editor, Ykantor. I think he realized his mistake since, rather than retract, he has taken a wikibreak. Whatever, in this area, we must expect pretty high standards. He should have reverted. I've done the revert, independently, on Pluto's behalf, and restored Ykantor's angle (though Pluto has a point - sources differ on whether Nachshon was part or not part of Plan Dalet. Ykantor says it was not, citing Morris: Pluto says it was, and the problem is that Ykantor is right if you cite one page of Morris (p.116), and wrong if you cite another page (p.119:'In retrospect it is clear that the Haganah offensives of April and early May were piecemeal implementations of Plan D.' which means Pluto is right) So Ykantor is being obtuse in cherrypicking data for his own thesis. I commend Ykantor however for not using the slip in order to register a complaint here.

Pluto should have been asked to revert, secondly, and Ykantor did not engage productively in trying to avoid the edit war, as FFF's diff here is used to assert .

But we're supposed not to hit the tripwire even under provocation. The fact that a useless POV pusher has made the complaint to get at Pluto has weight, but Pluto should just have reverted. No damage has been done to the article, and Pluto has withdrawn, I expect, for a cooling down period. It's up to arbs to figure out what is appropriate. It is an infraction. There are mitigating circs. Nishidani (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear why I am mentioned here at all. Anyway, Those Morris's pages are complementing rather than contradicting each other. Morris clearly says that operation Nachshon was not part of Plan Dalet. We may retrospectively look at, but at the relevant period the operation was independently planned. The rational is clear- Plan Dalet was supposed to start at the U.K. withdrawal and being completed few weeks later at the expected Arab invasion. operation Nachshon was triggered by the desperate situation in the besieged Jerusalem, although the British have not fully withdrawn yet. Ykantor (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned you because it looks like Pluto suffered burn-out with you, and made a slip. I resist the grinding boredom of futile new sections being opened on every other edit better, but understand the stress. You ignore the point. Morris's text can be read in two ways, he says it was not a part of Nachson (fact), but as an historian examining it retrospectively, judges it to have been. Good editors do not cherrypick. You did, and Pluto's frustration got past the tipping point. We shouldn't be arguing this here, but the background may help contextualise this triviality for an arb to make his call regarding Pluto.Nishidani (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pluto is a knowledgeable and diligent editor who is usually careful to respect the rules. This is a rare exception, almost certainly an accident. Zero^talk 08:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warned Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Izuko reported by User:MastCell (Result: blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Izuko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 20:50, 14 October 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:16, 14 October 2013 (undoes previous edit)
2. 21:32, 14 October 2013
3. 21:38, 14 October 2013
4. 21:47, 14 October 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:38, 14 October 2013, prior to 4th revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Link to talkpage thread

Comments:
Seems like a cut-and-dried 3RR violation. Izuko rapidly racked up 4 reverts against multiple editors, insisting that his text remain in the article as a precondition for talkpage discussion ([262]). MastCell ^Talk

• MastCell beat me to the punch. Feel free to collapse this discussion with the one immediately following. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, this is Izuko. I figured, since I'm being double teamed, I should go ahead and defend myself. I'll cover both hear, since it's two-against-one, if you don't mind. I notice how MastCell says that I insist that my work remain on the page as a precondition for talkpage discussion. Of course, that means that the contrary is true. He insists that the work I did be removed as a precondition to discussion. Almost each "revert," I tried to add a bit more, cite a bit more, show case a bit more, in order that it be acceptable to fair-minded individuals. Each time, they didn't do much but hit undo. Was each a "revert?" I guess so (granted, the first one was because I hit save instead of preview as I was checking my work). It only turns out that they had more people than me. Notice that, combined, they also revered my own work three times. So, is the problem an edit war? They were both involved. Or is the problem that I didn't get my posse together before "being bold?" If you're going to ban me for three reverts, I recommend that you ban them for participating in an edit war. Izuko (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours, as a clear cut 3RR violation. Will attempt to explain more fully on their talk page why things don't work the way they think they should work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

User:AOnline reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AOnline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263]

The page has a 1 revert rule restriction, and he undid two of my edits with that one revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

He deleted my request for him self-revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AOnline&diff=prev&oldid=577196781 Sopher99 (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Some explanation is in order. The revert reported here did not violate WP:1RR. One revert, no matter how much is undone in that one revert, is still one revert. So, the report as filed was baseless. Also @Sopher99:, who should really know better, did not notify the user of the report. That said, subsequent to the report, the user clearly violated WP:1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:209.115.232.65 reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

209.115.232.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
2. 21:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
3. 21:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"
4. 21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The IP address has been told by two different users that Template: Album ratings may only contain ten reviews, however the anon continued to add more reviews after it already reached the limit. Even after being notified of WP:3rr, they reverted a fourth time. STATic message me! 22:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:VictorD7 reported by User:EllenCT (Result: Blocked 48h)

Page: United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VictorD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [264]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [265]
2. [266]
3. [267]
4. [268]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [269]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:United States#Answers to various questions

Comments:

Victor has been deleting others' comments about his relentless right-wing POV pushing from the talk page without archiving the sections involved, and trying to keep complaints about his editing disconnected from his name.[270] EllenCT (talk) 08:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours even though this is his first block for EW/3RR, due to blatant statement in edit summary that "I'll keep stopping [you"], indicating a clear intent to continue edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:108.59.48.1 reported by User:Yopie (Result:24h)

Page

Genealogical Office (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

108.59.48.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577281046 by Pinethicket (talk)"
2. 13:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577280929 by Yopie (talk)"
3. 13:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577280447 by Pinethicket (talk)"
4. 13:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577280113 by Yopie (talk)"
5. 13:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577038164 by Yopie (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
2. 13:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking. (TW)"
3. 13:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

See his talk page.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Zad68 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:IVMD reported by User:Marek69 (Result: 24h)

Page: Chernivtsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IVMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. It`s not vandalism!!! It`s common sense! There is no need for Romanian name in the box. Chernivtsi is not rom.city (romanians - 5%)!
2. read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)!!! Thanks for the «Slavic idiot»!!!
3. Is it recommendation? Thank you! I'll think! You have good manners!
4. There is no need for Romanian name in the box. Chernivtsi is not roman.city!
5. The Administration! «Slavic idiot»!!! «go to Ukrainean wikipedia»!!! «go to Soviet wikipedia»!!! Is this normal?!

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:79.117.162.2 reported by User:Marek69 (Result: 24h)

Page: Chernivtsi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.117.162.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [272]
2. [273]
3. [274]
4. [275]
5. [276]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277]

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Alfonzo Green reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=577343940&oldid=577342743
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=577347195
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=577347780
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=next&oldid=577350476
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=577354986&oldid=577351941
6. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rupert_Sheldrake&diff=577360773&oldid=577358127
7. [278] even after being notified that this investigation was under way and making a statement here

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

• see the whole section: [279]
• as well as links to how WP:BRD works at [280]

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Testability_of_morphic_resonance

Comments:

This user was previously blocked for: 3RR, incivility on Rupert Sheldrake.

User deleted note explaining why he was reverted.[281]

User proceeded to war, saying, "If you think the edit is wrong, explain why on the talk page".[282]

I gave another explanation on the talk page.[283]

User continued warring, saying, "My edit continues to be reversed with no justification on the talk page" (while inexplicably removing sourced and accurate content never mind, it was moved instead).[284]

User was informed by administrator about warring and 3RR,[285] user responded to this message,[286] and continued to war.[287]

OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I made an edit to the Rupert Sheldrake page. When the the new material was removed, I reinstated it and initiated a new section on the talk page to discuss it. After that three editors serially reversed my attempts to restore the edit, and none of them addressed my justification of the edit on the talk page. As to the comment I deleted, this was only a reference to a comment in the edit history that was irrelevant to the topic on the talk page. Also, I did not remove sourced content but only moved it to the new section of the article (where it clearly belongs). Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lifeteenadmirer1 reported by User:Briancua (Result: Multiple blocks; semi-protection)

Page: Life Teen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lifeteenadmirer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [288]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [289]
2. [290]
3. [291]
4. [292]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [294]

Comments:

This has been an ongoing problem with this user. At first they were anon and using an IP address. Then they created an account, but their edit warring and violations of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV resulted in getting the page semi-protected. They are back again, using both an IP and a slightly altered username. There is only one user causing problems, and so far they have not expressed any willingness to work within community norms. I'd suggest that taking action against this user may be more effective than protecting this page again. --Briancua (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked Lifeteenadmirer1 indefinitely, blocked Lifeteenadmirer for two weeks, and blocked the IP for two weeks. I've semi-protected the article for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Kiril Simeonovski reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 24h)

Page: Macedonian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiril Simeonovski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [295]

1. 15 Oct, 18:35
2. 15 Oct, 18:42
3. 15 Oct, 22:05 (modified partial rv, but including crucial disputed element again)
4. 16 Oct, 07:22
5. 16 Oct, 10:10

Parallel rv on Bulgarian language:

1. 15 Oct, 22:07
2. 16 Oct, 07:23
3. 16 Oct, 09:57

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: standard 3RR warning; request to self-rv, ARBMAC warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Macedonian language#Torlakian dialects

Comments:
Edit-warring against consensus of three other editors. Spurious "vandalism" accusations in edit summaries [296]. Apparently a WP:POINT agenda: editor has conceded the edit may be inappropriate ("I totally agree..." [297]), but still insists on reverting it back in in order to force a different change on a third article in return.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

My intent was not to illustrate any point, but to reach a more neutral representation in the articles. In addition, there are sources that I listed on the talk page of all three articles that provide evidence about my edits. Future Perfect at Sunrise reverted my edits because he thinks it's not suitable for the infobox to contain disputed facts. I totally agreed with him on this one and invited him to go on the article on Serbo-Croatian to demand it be removed from the infobox (please note that there it's even mentioned in parentheses that the claim is disputed). If this was a valid reason to remove my edits from the infobox in the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian, then it surely should apply for the article on Serbo-Croatian as well (please don't double the standards). I asked Future Perfect at Sunrise the same question on his discussion page, but he didn't respond at all. Finally, my position is clear on removing the disputed claim from the article on Serbo-Croatian, which is supported by Future Perfect and Sunrise and his comment here that it's not suitable to include disputed claims, which does not give the readers a good insight of the article's quality if such a thing is mentioned in the infobox on the top of the article. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Editor was previously warned about 3RR here, and warned about violating principle of WP:BRD here, here, and here. --Taivo (talk) 11:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR. Kiril Simeonovski (t c), while you are blocked, please take a moment to read the edit warring policy again. Most relevant to the current situation is the fact that it does not matter who is "right", edit warring is still a prohibited behavior, and this is explained right in the first paragraph. Edit warring is likely to result in a block from editing to prevent disruption even when the article isn't under discretionary sanctions.

Because you have not edited the article disruptively after the warning you received about discretionary sanctions pursuant to WP:ARBMAC, I am not imposing any further sanctions beyond the block for violating 3RR. However, any further edit warring in this topic area will result in further sanctions. —Darkwind (talk) 12:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, Fut.Perf., I have logged your warning to Kiril on ARBMAC for you. —Darkwind (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:84.14.169.30 reported by User:Lesion (Result: protected)

Page

History of HIV/AIDS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

84.14.169.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577418670 by IseCreemV (talk)"
2. 12:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577417511 by Lesion (talk)"
3. 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577413309 by Lesion (talk) Does need its own sectrion, see French wiki for example of good balance. Theory is well documented, removing section constitutes bias. Stop vandalising."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "/* 3 reverts */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: protected)

Page

Haredi Judaism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Views on modesty */" deleting a passage
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC) to 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577280571 by Nomoskedasticity removing nonsense and rewording"
   2. 14:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "re-adding factual assertion"
   3. 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Views on modesty */ redundant, or"
3. 17:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 577305391 by Nomoskedasticity edits are self-explanitory"
4. 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "re-adding: "perception which is often held in wider Jewish and non-Jewish society""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Haredi Judaism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC) "/* Chesdovi to discuss edits to "modesty" material here */ new section"

Comments:

In addition to current edit warring, the most recent edit is a continuation of attempts Chesdovi has made to add a passage that has failed to gain consensus from editors in the past. An example of a past attempt is here; another is here. This sort of repeated attempt -- especially when it comes as a violation of 3RR as in the edit at 10:09am today -- is particularly tendentious. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There has not been a 3RR violation. Nomoskedasticity has a habit of removing citied material to show that inclusion is "rejected" but then does not engage fully to reach a conclusion. Hence there is no reply from him at "Most authentic" since July 26 and no reply at Haredim as the "real Jews" since Sept 10. It seems Nomoskedasticity is intent on keeping the material out of the article without discussion. He then has the gall of calling my re-addition of this text "edit warring." He calls for BRD but refuses to discuss? What makes his removal of sourced material more valid than my inclusion of it? If Nomoskedasticity cannot substantiate his removal of citied material, it is very disingenuous of him to stage an edit war in order to keep the material out. It is doubly disingenuous of him to provide a link supposedly indicating my repetitive attempt to insert specific material, when one of them is in fact the original placement of the text! At that time, his removal led immediately to discussion at talk which ended after 2 days after no response from him, presumably indication that this material was to be left in the article. He has since removed it each time I re-added (at approx. monthly intervals) it with flimsy excuses. I had expected to see a reply to my latest post at talk about my latest edits, but it seems Nomoskedasticity has other priorities here. As at the time of this post, there is still no reply? I feel this is wasting my time and yours. Chesdovi (talk) 13:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There is quite clearly a 3RR violation (I've adjusted the report to make it clearer). The bulk of Chesdovi's post says, I'm right therefore it's okay for me to edit-war beyond 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There has not been a 3RR violation.

10:12 I rm 862

13:40 Nomo re-adds 862 (1st 862 rv for Nomo)

13:59 I rm 862 (1st 862 rv for Chesdovi)

14:01-09 I add 901 and rm 2756

16:52 Nomo rm 901 and re-adds 2717 (2nd 862 rv; 1st 901 and 2756 rv for Nomo)

17:25 I rv 2717 (2nd 862 rv; 1st 901 and 2756 rv for Chesdovi)

21:27 Nomo re-adds 2717 (3rd 862 rv; 2nd 901 and 2756 rv for Nomo)

10:09 I re-add 901 (2nd 901 rv for Chesdovi)

It turns out Nomoskedasticity has reverted material thrice, while I have done so only twice. The bulk of my post actually wishes to highlight that Nomoskedasticity does not engage in discussion and reverts to posting invalid edit war reports hoping to prevent material being in the article. Chesdovi (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Why? Did you not find a 3RR violation by Chesdovi? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. By my count, you both have made three reverts. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In the list of 4 above, which is not a revert? I'm clear that all of them are -- so I'd like to know which one I can clarify. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't count the first edit as a revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's surprising, given the extent of material removed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And the extent of unnecessary material added by Mr Bluestein did not surprise you? His additions ruined this page. (I could not find similar in any of the other Judaism pages?) I have worked long and hard trying to improve this page. I do not view your edits as at all helpful. If you re-add material and do not reply at talk, what do you expect? Chesdovi (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Nomoskedasticity, but the bit I added about "real Jews" (901) is treated separately as it has nothing to do with Modesty section which you kept on re-adding. Chesdovi (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that any edit that removes text from an article is technically a revert, but I usually don't approach 3RR reports that way. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how to square that with the rule: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Not "could count", but "counts". My report adhered scrupulously to the rule -- a good thing, otherwise I'd be wasting people's time... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a significant amount of time between the 2 edits. The timestamp for the addition of the content is 2013-07-24T00:56:01. The timestamp for Chesdovi's edit the content is 2013-10-15T10:12:39. Gaps of that duration are often not treated as reverts presumably because this is an edit warring noticeboard. Chesdovi wasn't actually edit warring with anyone by making that edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it the clarification of the rule, it states: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. {clarify|date=April 2013|reason=it should be made clear if an initial edit modifying a page (edited by the other person/persons) counts}". So the rule is indeed currently ambiguous. This would not have started had Nomo decided to take his concerns to talk in the first place, rather than insisting on replacing superfluous material back into the article again and again. I also note that my last edit was a mere 3 mins out of the 24 limit. How jubilant Nomo must have felt!

Nomo is very concerned about the appearance of single adjectives (e.g. "scantily") which may paint Haredim as slightly normal, but cared little for the presentation and addition of reams of text added against policy guidelines. Why? He continues to disallow text which claims that there is a general perception of the Haredim as being the "real Jews" but will not attempt further discussion. On which board can I report this unsound behaviour?! Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

User:91.184.201.142 reported by User:HistorianofRecenttimes (Result: No violation)

Page: Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.184.201.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

The page is being attacked from Cyprus and essential details from the article are being deleted. The attacks delete my simple explanation of why US regulators have charged the company, which in their indictment describes it as a sort of boiler room scam, masquerading as trading house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk • contribs)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

User:91.143.60.173 reported by User:TheGoofyGolfer (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of United States Senators from New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.143.60.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [298]
2. [299]
3. [300]
4. [301]
5. [302]

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

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

Comments:
This IP user is putting in false information, yes there is a special election in New Jersey for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Senator Frank Lautenberg tonight October 16, 2013 but the result are not official yet. The user keeps putting Newark Mayor Cory Booker as the sitting U.S. Senator from New Jersey which he is not, Jeffrey Chiesa a Republican remains until the election results are official and the winner is officially sworn-in by Senate President/Vice President of the United States Joseph Biden. I did place two warnings on this user's page but obviously they are ignorning it. I request assistance in this matter. Thank you in advance. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked by User:Elockid as a proxy.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)