Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:37, 5 May 2014

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. 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. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

== User:Bloodofox reported by User:Haldrik User:Bloodofox appears to have a history of edit warring, where he pushes a POV corresponding to a modern idiosyncratic Neo-Pagan religion. He is currently violating the Three Revert Rule here in the Elf article. See history. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elf&action=history Haldrik (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gtfjbl reported by User:Qwertyus (Result:No action)

Page: Armadillo (C++ library) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gtfjbl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC) to 09:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
1. 09:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606453150 by Qwertyus (talk): for impact of the software, see list of citations on Google scholar: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=16996072155402675000"
2. 09:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "clarified applicability"
09:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606205958 by Qwertyus (talk): the point about the software license describes its effects and impact on where the software is applicable"
09:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606205879 by Qwertyus (talk): software is used as base for many other projects, making it notable"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No warnings on talk page given, but my edit summaries contain clear references to the policies violated by the user's edits (mostly WP:SOAPBOX). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that I have violated 3RR myself. I would like to state that this edit resulted from an accidental clash with Gtfjbl's edits, but I'll accept the one-day block. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No action taken. Given lack of clear warnings and admitted fault on both sides and the fact that more positive & collaberative discussions seem to now be taking place, I don't think blocks are called for. WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chealer reported by User:FenixFeather (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to

[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts

Continuation of edit warring on Memory Management in Heartbleed

06:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Behavior */ flag dubious part" – this one was during the middle of a discussion explaining to him why that part of the article makes sense.
23:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Behavior */ restore request for reference about the vulnerability resulting from custom memory management"
20:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Behavior */ clarify the part in need of sourcing - thanks User:FenixFeather"

Edit warring on LastPass in Heartbleed

21:30, 27 April 2014 "LastPass: flag as dubious and fix reference"
12:34, 27 April 2014 "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager and request for specifying which versions would be affected (see Talk)"
12:23, 27 April 2014 "reword LibreOffice to show affected versions rather than fixed versions"; Note that in this one, he hid his revert behind a seemingly innocuous edit summary.
12:16, 27 April 2014 "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager. request specifying which versions would be affected"
15:40, 26 April 2014 "LastPass: Fix syntax and restore request for reference"
17:12, 25 April 2014 "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager (not a request for a better source, just a source about LastPass Password Manager itself. LastPass != LastPass Password Manager)"
22:13, 24 April 2014 "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager (not a request for a better source, just a source about LastPass Password Manager itself)"
13:35, 20 April 2014 "restore request for reference for LastPass Password Manager"

The resiliency of his editing on LastPass, including an attempt to remove it entirely, leads me to suspect there is a WP:COI at work here. The rest of the requesting for references, on the other hand, especially the ones on LastPass (after he had "lost" his edit war on the Heartbleed page), seemed to have been aimed at making a point.

Edit warring on LastPass:

14:45, 27 April 2014 "restore request for reference on bookmarklet"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[2]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

02:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring "request for reference" from Chealer again */ You don't own this article. In case you haven't read the sentence, I will post it again: "If the memoory had been properly returned via free, it would likely have been handed to m"
03:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring "request for reference" from Chealer again */ I just did. "Crashes in malloc(), calloc(), realloc(), or free() are almost always related to heap corruption, such as overflowing an allocated chunk or freeing the same pointer twice.". So if"
03:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring "request for reference" from Chealer again */ Then I fail to see your problem. That source supports the entire passage."
20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Heartbleed "/* Proposed move to "Heartbleed bug" */ Closing - no move."

Also see these discussions:

Comments:

Chealer has clearly violated the 3RR rule, adding a "dubious" tag back into the article after we were in the middle of a discussion about why that part of the article is not dubious. He refuses to listen to logic or repeated explanation of the situation from multiple authors. This type of edit warring behavior has occurred before. Previously, he also edit warred over a tag about LastPass both on the Heartbleed page and on the LastPass page. This editor does not understand the concept of tagging, engages in serial drive-by tagging, and then edit wars when people explain to him why the tag is not needed. This is especially egregious when he claims he is the "de facto maintainer" of the article. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 13:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some evidence that he's engaged in drive by tagging: "Sorry to re-repeat myself, but I am not interested in sourcing that material per se." He indicates his refusal to actually work on any problems. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 14:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having problematic content flagged while it's under discussion is the least you have to accept. The content could have been tagged disputed, or even removed.

If you consider my edit on LastPass as edit warring... what can I say, don't listen to uncle Sam?

You might want to explain my alleged "refusal to actually work on any problems". --Chealer (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your insistence on deleting access dates in references probably doesn't belong here, but if you want that to be included too, why not? As for your editing style, that is not within administrator jurisdiction. The point is that you should stop pretending you are "de facto maintainer" of the article and stop making changes repeatedly against consensus that add no useful content to the article. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 02:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - I fail to understand to understand how the first 2 sentences of your reply and your opinion on my status relate to what I wrote. I have described myself as the article's de facto maintainer once, BTW.

Of course, I have not made and will not make "changes repeatedly against consensus that add no useful content to the article".--Chealer (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs speak for themselves. And your rhetoric on the talk page clearly demonstrates that you don't understand WP:OWN or WP:CONSENSUS. Even something as trivial as keeping access dates is worth you beating the dead horse over. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 05:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hear the same from the diffs.

If you think something I said demonstrates a lack of understanding, please reply to that rather than complaining about it here. What "dead horse beating" are you referring to? --Chealer (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved DRN volunteer: The other editors working on the page made a good-faith attempt to resolve this at WP:DRN, and Chealer was notified[3] and encouraged to participate,[4] but chose to not participate.[5] There is nothing wrong with that -- participation at DRN is voluntary -- but it does raise the question of what the other editors are supposed to do if they want help in resolving the underlying content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be confusing to imply that the issue discussed at DRN is the same as this one, but to set the record straight, I have not chosen to not participate to the DRN - except in so far as I preferred to start by discussing the issue, which allowed to solve the issue before participating to DRN was needed. --Chealer (talk) 02:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't pretend to understand this fully myself, but I'll do my best to help.

If what's reproached is the number of reverts, I am guilty. Although I don't remember resorting to rollbacks much, I did have to revert many changes. If what's reproached is the frequency of reverts, I am also guilty. Although I've only been maintaining the article for 2 weeks, the topic is hot (currently top 100). I recognize that a certain contributor has gotten adversarial in the last days, and we've seen lots of reverts (often pedantic). In fact, for the last week, a few editors have been editing pretty "boldly", to say the least.

If what is reproached is a 3RR violation, I could also be considered guilty, as it is not technically incorrect to view edit sequences 1-4 or 2-5 as violations, if 3 is interpreted as a revert, and if metacontent changes are taken into account. I acknowledge I did brutally solve an edit conflict in edit 3 (12:23, 27 April 2014 "reword LibreOffice to show affected versions rather than fixed versions"; Note that in this one, he hid his revert behind a seemingly innocuous edit summary.) I did not salvage the lost changes (mere tag removals) later.

I can't say what "point" and what "lost" edit war FeatherFenix refers to.

FenixFeather has a problem assuming good faith and a strong tendency towards personal attacks, but nothing unprecedented. He is certainly guilty of edit warring, but sanctions may not be needed yet. He was already warned about his 3RR violations. These might have been his first. I also explained to him that reversions need to be justified.

Thanks --Chealer (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guilty of edit warring? Can you provide these diffs? I've always gone to the talk page, and here, after you revert me back. I'm well aware of 3RR. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I won't be digging each revert you've performed on that article, but I can provide a few:

--Chealer (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those constitute edit warring, or even reversion. The only time I reverted you was on the cn tag, and I went to the talk page afterward anyway. Many of them are just modifications that accept your edit. In any case, it seems like the issue on the article has been resolved. Whatever the outcome of this report, it seems like you've realized your mistakes. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 07:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do constitute reversion. Your edits revert changes from the following edits (numbers corresponding):

If you think my edit on LastPass constitutes edit warring but none of the above does, you have double standards.

I recommend you save yourself from "modifications that accept your edit" if you're going to deplore your colleagues' misunderstanding of WP:OWN. --Chealer (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chealer, those edits are, at worst, partial reversions, and are not edit warring. You did not have an issue with any of them at the time. You can't just take all my edits on that page and claim that they constitute edit warring. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 18:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did have issues with your reversions at the time.

I didn't say they were all "complete reversions". Some of them being partial doesn't mean they don't constitute edit warring.

I didn't take all your edits on that page, I only took your edits from a 4-hour period (2014-04-29T16:15:17 to 2014-04-29T20:03:48 ET). All of them happen to be reversions. --Chealer (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use common sense. Slightly adjusting your edits is not reverting nor edit warring. It is normal collaborative effort to improve the encyclopedia. Nor was it repeated behavior, unlike what you demonstrated, clearly reverting over 8 times on one issue, then asserting your status as "de facto maintainer". – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 20:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What common sense tells me is that repeated "complete reversions" and "slightly adjusting" other people's edits are 2 different things.

Maintaining an article doesn't grant an editor any privilege; nobody can 'assert status as "de facto maintainer"' on Wikipedia.

"reverting over 8 times on one issue" is not something I remember seeing any single editor do since I started watching the article. It is certainly not something I have done. --Chealer (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The eight diffs I posted above beg to differ. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 01:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. As this comes from someone attacking its colleagues' technical competence, I'm first tempted to advise a revision of elementary maths. Over 8 and less than 9 are exclusive in discrete land, unless Math 2.0 is out. On second thought, I could also advise reflection before action. But in the end, it's probably myself that I should advise. I'm afraid I erred assuming good faith for so long. --Chealer (talk) 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Chealer, relax. The conflict is resolved now, and the edit warring is no longer occurring. I'm not interested in seeing you blocked, either, so let's not argue more over this and get back to editing. The admins will do what they decide to do. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to resume your editing. We know you can contribute positively; you've demonstrated it in the past and I hope you will in the future. You didn't even need to stop editing... just edit-warring. --Chealer (talk) 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: No action. Though User:Chealer has been less than 100% cooperative there is not enough reason to issue a block. If there are more disputes about single issues, I suggest that someone open a WP:Request for comment. Chealer avoided the DRN by refusing to participate, but if an RfC reaches a consensus and somebody reverts against it, they are edit warring and admins can respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Ed. I agree with your verdict, but would like to reiterate that I did not "[avoid] the DRN by refusing to participate", I simply did not participate until the content discussion ceased to make progress, at which point the DRN had already been closed. Had the issue not been solved and had the DRN remained open, I suppose I would have cooperated. My apologies if the reasoning behind my behavior was unclear. --Chealer (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suryasingh31 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Article protected)

Page: Jai Prakash Menon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Suryasingh31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(newest first)

14:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 1
13:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 2
13:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 3
11:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) diff 4

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

13:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jai Prakash Menon. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Single-purpose account making repeated attempts to whitewash the article, removing a controversy sourced to multiple reliable sources. Thomas.W ^talk 14:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I filed this report against Suryasingh31 another SPA, a brand new account named Theamigosinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has popped up, continuing Suryasing31's "job" of removing sources etc in the article. Thomas.W ^talk 07:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Mr. Thomas W seems like maliciously trying to insert hyperlinks to defame a person. The purpose of biographical pages are to provide information about a person and references for users to form their opinion rather than write de-famatory statements basis news paper articless. Mr. Thomas W intentions seems malicious and driven by for profits rather than providing information about a person. He has not contributed any thing in the article, but a single line defamatory statement. User talk:Suryasingh31

Comments:

I would like to request for credentials and expertise of Mr. Thomas W. He should clearly mention his research on the topic, their source and his own personal efforts. I have been an employee of Airtel since last 3 years and have performed thorough research on the topic. Mr. Thomas W shall mention his credentials and intent for writing defamatory statements in an informative page. User talk:Suryasingh31

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.10.182 (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What I have done is revert your repeated attempts to first remove all mention of Mr.Menon's quick exit from his previous employer, and then to rewrite it along the lines that he left because he wanted new challenges, totally ignoring what the reliable sources in the article say. A quick look at the page history will also show that I have previously reverted attempts to make that passus read that he was fired from his previous employer, so my reverts have gone both ways. But I'm not the one who added that passus to the article, I'm just "defending" it since it's properly sourced and doesn't say more than the sources say. Thomas.W ^talk 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryasingh31 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Your comments are primarily driven by conflicting articles in various public newspapers instead of any real data point. By making unverified changes, you are violating wikipedia rules - Shortcut:WP:ELBLP It clearly states that in biographies of living person, material available solely in questionable sources and, if derogatory, should not be used at all.

In biographies of living people Shortcut: WP:ELBLP Main page: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP. [[User:suryasingh31] ^talk]] 10:33, 1 May 2014 (IST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryasingh31 (talk • contribs)

Are you saying that The Economic Times, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu Business Line and the multiple other third-party sources that say the same thing about Mr.Menon's exit from Bharti Airtel are not reliable sources? The source you repeatedly replace them all with, to support your whitewashing, the only source I have found that supports that view, is a short interview with Mr.Menon himself, without editorial comment, and thus a primary source. Thomas.W ^talk 07:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to discuss the matter on the article talk page. Menon's departure from Bharti Airtel happened in December 2013. Only anonymous sources say there was any problem with his departure, even though reputable newspapers did print what they said. Is there really nobody who will go on the record about Menon? Have there been any charges or lawsuits filed? Menon was known in the business world outside India. Did any publications outside India comment? If not then it seems that WP:UNDUE should limit the prominence of these reports in our article. Consider asking for advice at WP:BLPN if agreement can't be reached. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: It seems to be a slightly odd case. I've looked everywhere but haven't found anything about charges or lawsuits, and Menon seems to have kept a very low profile, even though every major business paper and business site in India carried the same story, saying that Menon was sacked for violating Bharti Airtel's code of conduct by giving profitable contracts to companies that he had a personal interest in. And the only comment from Bharti Airtel has been a short note about Menon having "exited" the company. Because of WP:UNDUE I have reverted edits that said that Menon had been fired, but given the wide coverage in reliable sources I have felt that Menon's hasty exit from Bharti, and the story surrounding it, was worth mentioning. Providing of course that the WP article didn't say more than a multitude of reliable sources did. Unlike Suryasingh31 who has repeatedly tried to remove every mention of it. Thomas.W ^talk 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:2605:a000:f2c0:a400:cd9:4b89:6296:f4f6 reported by User:Collect (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [6] (one of his four earlier reverts/edits but a day earlier)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[7] 16:40 30 April consecutive to 16:17 [8]
[9] 16:01
[10] 14:23
[11] 15:55 29 April
[12] 15:06 (Five reverts in 25 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] 14:32 30 April

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Plutocracy#United_States_again

Comments:

This IP is rather insistent on material which, in some cases, does not remotely supports the claims made, or is not cited by others. Edit summaries like TRY TO DELETE THIS ARTHUR RUBIN. THAT'S SEVEN REFERENCES. AND THERE WILL BE MORE.) seem a tad clueless as to why WP:EW exists and what it covers. "Deal with it bro" in any post also appears uncollegial. Collect (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User notified of this post at [14] 17:05 30 April. Collect (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts 1 and 2 were as 2605:a000:f2c0:a400:ccd9:19a7:6c74:fa60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and there were some previous edits as other 2605:a000:f2c0:a400:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx:xxxx; I don't know enough about IP6s to determine whether blocking all of those would produce collateral damage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regard Collect having 4 reverts and I (Arthur Rubin) having 3 reverts in the past 60 hours, both reverting this IP cluster, that's true. (The IP had 6 reverts in that time period, under a number of previous IPs.) And, it's also true that few attempts, either by me or by Collect, have been made on the article talk page. Although, there was a dispute in 2012 about a similar issue which seemed to result in a consensus that the US should not be added as an example, except with the caveat "in the opinion of some scholars/politicians/journalists/.../whatever". Some attempts had previously made to resolve the dispute on the IP's talk page, but he had probably moved on before he saw them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Collect reported by User:2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Plutocracy&diff=606494263&oldid=606492651

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

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

United States again[edit] A floating IP is adding the United States to the list of plutocracies, quoting a probably unreliable source, even though linked. It's claimed to be forthcoming in Perspectives on Politics, a "peer-reviewed journal". We need to wait for it to appear, and then we could note that it is not a majority opinion, so it shouldn't be in the summary. Per WP:FRINGE, we should report the mainstream journals which do not assert that the United States is a plutocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC) It is completely corroborated by the peer reviewed charts at [7]. After several days of asking at other higher volume article talk pages, nobody has produced any sources to the contrary of the Princeton study's conclusions. EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC) It is not required to "prove" any study to be false - the onus is on those who wish to include a study to show that it is widely cited and accepted in the area of study. Collect (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC) My apologies for not knowing how to use the talk page. If the United States does not belong in examples then why is half of the plutocracy page dedicated to talking about the United States? Do you want to delete half of the entire article as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Nope -- what is needed is material which directly relates to the topic and is found in WP:RS reliable sources, and has wide acceptance in the area concerned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC) You wanted references? I got your references. The string of numbers is longer than the four words added. Deal with it bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Deal with it bro" is scarcely a convincing argument that the sources are widely cited and relevant. Perhaps you misapprehended the statement? Collect (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Well at least I have an argument and references. Whoever deletes this, please state why all seven references are invalid instead of bashing talk page humor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Give cites that your refs are widely cited by others, that they make specific claims that the US is a "plutocracy" and that they are not WP:FRINGE views. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC) For what other page or statement is it required that one has references for their references? You want an article to prove another article is an article? You would need to delete 99% of Wikipedia based on that requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC) I also must point out that not a single one of the other governments named in that list have a single reference, and you are not going about deleting them.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC) United States 3[edit] The United States section consists of (IMO, excessive) quotes, without adequate context to verify that they are relating to what we call "plutocracy". Furthermore, they are form a minority, if not WP:FRINGE, opinion, and should be balanced by reliable opinions which deny the claim that the US forms a plutocracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Is New York Times a fringe source? Feel free to add sources stating a counter-argument.2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I have added the United States to the list of examples of Plutocracy. It seems reasonable given that the majority of the page indeed talks about problems with the United States. Collect and Arthur Ruben continue to delete my edits. I have attempted to make the changes they wanted. I have added sources and more sources. They continue to delete it stating that I need sources stating that my sources are good. I know of no other place on Wikipedia where one needs sources for sources. Collect has reported me despite making no logical arguments on the talk page. I feel that the person making the deletions should also have an argument for why they can delete contributions. By his logic one would need to delete 99% of Wikipedia. I would also like to point out that he is not actively deleting things in the same paragraph that clearly have no references associated. 2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Template:Cue What a jumbled mess of comments. I've fixed it. And by the way, @2605:A000:F2C0:A400:CD9:4B89:6296:F4F6: you should not add , as it is hidden comment markup, and ensures that your comment is hidden from view. Epicgenius (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this is just a continuation of the above report, likely in retaliation. I have adjusted it accordingly. Epicgenius (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: IPs do not receive Echo/Notify messages; the {{ping}} above was wasted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: I did not previously know that; my apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jmorrison230582 reported by User:SSHamilton (Result: Both warned)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJmorrison230582&diff=606519314&oldid=605297047

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AScottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606499090&oldid=606219547

Comments: Following the addition of a fully cited paragraph describing an interchange of letters between the Convener of the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament and the Vice-President of the European Commission (Diff https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Scottish_independence_referendum%2C_2014&diff=606344210&oldid=606286368 ) Jmorrison230582 started removing large sections of the article including much properly cited material, without any prior discussion or consensus. In particular, the actions of Jmorrison230582 distorted the factual reporting of the exchange of letters, suppressing key information unless the references were followed. Each time the deleted material has been replaced, Jmorrison230582 has reverted the replacement.

Jmorrison230582 is conducting a similar war at Scottish independence

SSHamilton (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: the first two edits were more than 24 hours ago and the first of them was not a revert. The later edits are not full reverts either, as significant material was added by me in the interim period. User:SSHamilton also appears to be operating a sock puppet account. I attempted to discuss the changes at the article talk page, but User:SSHamilton used his apparent sock puppet to create a false consensus against my edits. I have reported this at WP:SPI. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that I have attempted to include the material added by User:SSHamilton (and his apparent sock puppet) in a way that gives the article an easier flow and puts it in the context in which the event happened. User:SSHamilton (and the apparent sock) refuse to accept any editing of the material they have added, even in terms of style or flow. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that SSHamilton has raised this, but it should be noted that the passage which Jmorrison230582 is so desperate to distort was added by me to both articles. It is my only contribution to these articles. The passage is a simple factual report about an important exchange of letters which are part of the public record and properly cited. Jmorrison230582 apparently wishes to control (own?) the article and insist on reframing the passage to remove items of obvious significance, the effect being to disguise the actual content of the letters, and the position held by the Christine McKelvie. Jmorrison230582 has also been distorting the chronology, showing speculative comments from political commentators, made before the definitive letter was written, in a way that (to a casual reader) modifies the meaning of the Reding letter. Such blatant political spin as is being practiced by Jmorrison230582 is surely not compliant with WP policies? ElectricTattiebogle (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jmorrison230582 displays a great tendency to make assumptions. There is nothing in my user name to indicate gender, yet Jmorrison230582 refers to me as a male, why would this be? For the record, I am a woman. We are not such unusual creatures, after all, both of the parties in the exchange of letters which form the subject of ElectricTattiebogle's post are also women. Then there is Jmorrison230582's crazy assertion that ElectricTattiebogle is my sock puppet - why? The history shows that the passage which Jmorrison230582 is so intent on hiding or distorting was added by ElectricTattiebogle - my role in this is just an attempt to prevent such manipulation. ElectricTattiebogle and I were at the same meeting here in the US (he has, I think, now returned to Scotland) and were discussing the very low level of the Scottish independence debate and the way that it is reported. He used Jmorrison230582's attempt to suppress his posting of some facts as a typical tactic, I responded by reverting Jmorrison230582 myself. Jmorrison230582 needs to stand back and assess their own behavior in this. How much other misrepresentation and bias has been introduced into these articles by partisan editors? Unfortunately I do not have the time to investigate further. SSHamilton (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it walks like a sock, talks like a sock, and edits like a sock, usually it is a sock. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Both parties warned. They are steadily reverting each other since April 29 about how to correctly present the statement of Viviane Reding on behalf of the EU. There is a thread on the talk page about this in which only the two of them have commented. The next time either of them reverts (before getting a talk page consensus) they may be blocked without further notice. The advice at WP:Dispute resolution explains how to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rondonvolante reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:Indefinite block)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Please stop undoing the entire contribution. As said before, you have been reported for vandalism of this article. If you have any questions, use the talk box otherwise removing text is a violation of the Terms of Use."
19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "The original article was properly referenced with appropriate sources. Please review the sources before deleting anything that you question."
19:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606522261 by Mosfetfaser (talk)"
19:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606520872 by Mosfetfaser (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Carson Block. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Single-purpose account repeatedly re-adding tons of material that has previously been deleted as BLP-violations. The user is also edit-warring on a related article, Muddy Waters Research. Thomas.W ^talk 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I filed a report, not realising this ones' existence, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Single_purpose_account_block_requested requesting an indefinite block due to this being a single-purpose account. Regards, Daniel (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely in light of persistent edit warring and BLP violations. Sole purpose account not here to work collaboratively. WJBscribe (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: Protected)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] Already warned and blocked various times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several times [22], [23], [24],

Comments: I've been involved in an awful edit conflict with the user AbelM7 for the last month now, not only in the border war article, but in several other articles [25], [26], [27], the edit history of the article "Battle of Parral" offers a simple example of what he does on every one of these articles: [28] this is, he ignores what the sources say and changes the ourcome providing a small word summary of why he personally considers it must be that way, then i revert him telling him that if what he wants to add isn't sourced it can't be added, but he ignores and repeat. I've started multiple discussions on his talk page [29] and he have removed many more, last week we seemed to finally have reached an agreement regarding how the outcomes should be, but two days ago he broke it and started to remove information again. He claims that he didn't knew what i added to the articles until now even though i clearly advised him [30] and he agreed and even wrote over that information after. he is also currently adding unreliable sources to the article (from sites that mirror wikipedia and that are user generated) and seems to not understand even though there is already other editor (Moxy) telling him that what he is doing is wrong [31] & [32]. He have had similar disagreements with other users before [33] & [34] I really don't know what to do anymore, he simply don't wants to understand and shows no signs of going to recapacite and stop, he have been blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3 revert rule before [35] and he just did it again as the main diffs above show, i think that more serious measures are necessary with this person. HMWD (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned with the level of competency here. I find it very odd the editor is not aware of any scholarly publication for there changes. Using travel and software web sites and the like for changes to military articles that by definition have lots written about them. -- Moxy (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy I already told you that information about the 1910–19 Border War is scarce. Most of the results I get are about the 1846–48 Mexican–American War which is a different war. Most of the books I read have information that are already included here.

See here - lots out there. If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found at some random website, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may be a fringe theory.-- Moxy (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@HMWD Hold on, I thought of a compromise that might be able to solve all of this. I will discuss it with you in your talk page. AbelM7 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy Of course I have already check Google books. Those books aren't about the 1910-19 Mexican-American Border War. First results are Border War: Fighting over Slavery before the Civil War, South Africa's border war, 1966-1989, Border War (2007), The Three U.S.-Mexico Border Wars: Drugs, Immigration, and Homeland Security, Border War (2006), The Border War on Drugs, From Fledgling to Eagle: The South African Air Force During the Border War, Border War: A Tale of Disunion, Quantrill and the Border Wars, and Border War (1985). Those books are either fiction or have nothing to do with the 1910-19 Mexican-American Border War. AbelM7 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article protected one week by User:Black Kite. Please use the article talk page to reach consensus. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. There is another report below about the same dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Billbowler2 reported by User:Darouet (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Today:

27-28 April:

At Casualties of the Iraq War:

(User:Billbowler2 admitted here and here that the IP edits were his own, making the sock puppetry apparently accidental, but violation of 3RR purposeful despite my warning).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49] - 1st warning [50] - 2nd warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk:Iraq_War#Moving_AP_Death_Toll Talk:Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Initial_table_should_distinguish_between_counts_and_scientific_surveys

Comments:
Every other editor except User:Billbowler2 has been able to engage in this disagreement, editing on the main pages of Iraq War and Casualties of the Iraq War and discussing on the talk pages, without going over the 3RR bright line. Bill is clearly editing against consensus at Iraq War, and while only he and I are disagreeing at Casualties of the Iraq War, in both cases he insists on breaking 3RR despite my repeated warnings. After my first warning he logged out and edited as an IP, violating 3RR at Casualties of the Iraq War, so I reported him as a sock. When he stated that he'd logged out accidentally, I took him at his word, but he refused to self-revert and instead broke 3RR again, this time at Iraq War.

The disagreement in both cases is over the nature of body counts versus survey estimates of violent deaths due to conflict. Bill is adamant that the distinction is an arbitrary one pushing a POV. -Darouet (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Billbowler2 has clearly shown a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality about consensus drawn at Talk:Iraq War, with a similar dispute at Casualties of the Iraq War resulting in another 3RR violation. The edit war has persisted for over three days, so a brief block has been placed on Billbower2's account. Darouet, I should point out that the editing history at Casualties of the Iraq War suggests you have also violated the three-revert rule. I realize that dispute is similar in nature to the other backed by consensus, but it's best to wait for preventive measures to be put in place and revert only when necessary. Despite the violation, I trust that such preventive measures are not needed in your case. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MusikAnimal. Regarding my own edits - I thought my first edit wouldn't count as a revert, since I was making an original edit (not reverting to a previous version)? Though I understand that "edit warring" isn't necessarily just breaking 3RR, and I fully acknowledge that I went on to defend the initial edit with three reverts, and talk page discussion. -Darouet (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Blocked for a month)

Page: The Godfather Part II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

02:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "international box office"
[51]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Back to edit warring behavior almost immediately after block expired: same disputed content put back in, same article, same rationalization and incorrect interpretation of policy as before (on his talk page: [52]). While not 3RR, to me, this is definitely edit warring behavior and smacks of WP:GAME and WP:POINT as well. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The complaint in the past was that the disputed figure wasn't sourced. So I have a source. Presumably, other editors are happy about that. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source that you have added does not pass WP:RS and you have already been told that. The fact remains that you are yet again totally ignoring the issue of consensus and are just doing whatever you please. 88.104.17.77 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with the source, its methods, or its numbers. Although that's not really germane to this accusation anyway. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not pass WP:RS. It is an amateur site that states it uses IMDB as a source, which itself is not a valid source for Wikipedia as it is user generated. The fact still remains you are again ignoring the issue of consensus and have continued edit warring on the same article the moment your block expired. 88.104.24.157 (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the page normally but you seem to be involved in some kind of vendetta and dragging content issues into this. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone buy @EdJohnston: a pint. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 month The argument over sources is irrelevant, as edit warring is unacceptable whether the edits are "right" or not. The editor has been blocked for edit warring, and on the expiry of the block has returned to continue the same edit war: that is enough. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:StAnselm reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: 48h)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk): Not supported in the article. (TW)"
21:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Theroadislong (talk): That implication must be made in reliable sources with respect to the subject himself. (TW)"
03:15, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by MrBill3 (talk): Per WP:BLPREMOVE. (TW)"
diff
diff
diff

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ken Ham. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated removal of pseudoscientist category */ new section"

Comments:

Clear 3RR MrBill3 (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC). Sources provided diff. Explanation and quotes given diff. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) This behavior is getting out of hand. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user behaves as though he WP:OWNs all articles related to his religion. He was warned about WP:ARBPSCI, but that doesn't seem to matter to him. jps (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48h. WP:BLP is not a get-out-of-jail-free card unless the BLP violation is unambiguous. Not only is the editor warring with multiple editors who are providing reasonable explanations of why BLP does not apply here, sources have been provided on the talk page. StAnselm should have followed BRD or gone to BLP/N. Neither was done and six reverts on such a shaky basis are not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User seems to indicate that they will continue to act this way and have even asked to be unblocked because they believe their actions to be unambiguously correct: [53]. This will only get worse, I'm afraid. jps (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (AKA jps) has a block log 45 entries long. It is less than two months since his/her last block. On 30 March 2014 he went to 4RR where the total time elapsed for his/her four reverts was 26 minutes. Less than a week later he was brought to ANI for "slow motion edit warring".

Three weeks later he/she has started the current dispute. He/she has not participated in the talk page discussion, diff. Category:Pseudoscientists specifically states, " 'Pseudoscientists'...may be a contentious label." There is no mention of the words "pseudoscience" or "pseudoscientists" in the current revision of the article. About unsourced material, WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (bold in original). With this diff he restored contentious material identified as a BLP violation. WP:BLP states, "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from WP:BLP:

“

Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.<ref>Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.</ref> Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

”

User:HMWD reported by User:AbelM7 (Result: protected)

Previous version reverted to: [54] (The last edit before HMWD started to edit the page)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] Already blocked before

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several times [60] [61] [62] (this is was when we agreed on the outcome)

Comments: HMWD has been edit warring in the Border War (1910–19) aricle ever since he started editing and particularly only seems to have created his account specifically for the Border War (1910–19) article and other articles that includes the Border War such as List of wars involving the United States, List of wars involving Mexico and Battle of Parral and seems to be a single-purpose account. He has been edit warring with me through several articles [63] [64] [65] [66] and won't stop. He seems to have a personal issue with the way the Border War turned out. The Battle of Parral has had United States (or American) victory since it was created [67] and he changed it [68] and reverts every time I restore it [69] [70] He removes information that have been there before he started editing that we doesn't want [71] claiming for it to be "original research". Last week, we agreed on the outcome of the Border War but then he started to add more information which we didn't agree on. I didn't paid too much attention since I was just relived we had come to a conlusion and I took a break from Wikipedia. After returning and seeing the changes he had done, including the amount of results he had added, [72] [73] (including removing a sentence that has long been there since the article was created), I later restored [74] and removed the extra information [75] but then he added them again. The amount of results that he added is ridiculously too much for a minor early 20th century war like this one. Not even the Seven Years' War, World War I and World War II, which were much bigger wars, have that many results listed. We agreed on the outcome and he goes on adding more results and giving the outcome a ridiculously long term "Mexican Carransista/American Victory on Villista rebels" [76] (it would be the equivalent of having "Allied Victory on the Axis Powers" for every country that participated in World War II "list of wars" aricles) He has been blocked for edit warring and breaking the 3 revert rule before [77] and continues to edit war. I've tried talking and reasoning with him but he won't stop. He even said he "won't go away". Something must be done with HMWD. AbelM7 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48h. Persistent edit-warring. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is all messed up ...pls read over Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AbelM7 reported by User:HMWD (Result: ) -- Moxy (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected instead. The wider issue wasn't apparent to begin with. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:204.108.244.86 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24h)

Page: University of Phoenix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.108.244.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

13:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "This is not breaking news. This is part of a pattern of corruption at Apollo Group and University of Phoenix. Should we have a specific section about how Apollo Group buys off politicians and hires people to do "damage control"?"
15:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Including important legal and consumer information. Posters appear to be systematically whitewashing article so that the public is unaware of Apollo Group's systematic abuse of government funds and exploitation of potential students."
15:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Posters are systematically whitewashing key legal and consumer information about Apollo Group and University of Phoenix. Be advised, all of your edits are being monitored."
16:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Key legal and consumer information. If removed, this puts Wikipedia's credibility into question. Is this eventually going to be an advertisement for University of Phoenix?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith on University of Phoenix. using TW"
15:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on University of Phoenix. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Lede */ new section"

Comments:

Blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yuvaraj Poondiyan reported by User:AntanO (Result: 24h )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

18:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: listing at articles for deletion of Rajsiva. (TW)"
17:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rajsiva‎. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Removing templates Anton^Talk 17:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24h. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:ElectricTattiebogle reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83],[84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(Non-administrator observation) I think this is too old. Blocks are meant to prevent further disruption, not to punish users, so I don't believe blocking is needed now. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong it was a few days ago. And I insist on taking action in respect of this editor because the editor Amensnober91 has been blocked several times for such actions. He also provokes the war of editors. Also this editor was warned that if he again violates the 1RR rule when editing this article it will be blocked indefinitely. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stale Seriously, a block 5 days after the fact is punishment, not prevention. If this is "persistent behaviour", then an WP:RFC/U may be in the cards. 3RR or 1RR reports must be CURRENT to obain action the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fireydash21 reported by User:Immblueversion (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

(Non-administrator observation) Of course this made it to AN3. Just a reminder: Immblueversion, you are required to notify a user by adding {{subst:An3-notice}} to the user talk page.

Anyway, I think it's subsided. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive, and I think this edit war has already ended.

Personal comment: If you study the reversions carefully, you may notice that it caught a change in cleanup templates ({{plot}} to {{fanpov}}), which was added by a certain user after consensus Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for escalating edit warring, harassment, and refusal to discuss conflicts on the talk pages. Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:009o9 reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: )

User breached general sanction (1RR). User was notified of restriction on 29 April 2014 : Talk:Bundy_standoff/General_Sanctions#2014_notices

Revision as of 19:35, 1 May 2014 [93]
Revision as of 20:26, 1 May 2014 [94]

Cwobeel (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second listing above is indeed a reverted revert. The first entry was restoration of my Op-ed template and the removal of some POV content that had been inserted into the lede. see Talk:Bundy_standoff#Section_--_.22Cliven_Bundy.27s_worldview.22_and_race-baiting

If both edits are to be considered reverts, we also need to examine the 24 hour period for the removal of my (Oped) tag. Thank you. 009o9 (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is two reverts of same content in the span of less than an hour, and a breach of the 1RR sanction. Cwobeel (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner reported by User:Sportmedman (Result: No violation )

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies}}
User being reported: Bobrayner

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 3 of my edits reverted by User:Bobrayner in less than 24 hours

[diff] [95]
[diff] [96]
[diff] [97]
[diff] [98] "However, this retraction remains controversial.<ref>Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck(2013)Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards Environmental Sciences Europe, 25:33</ref><ref>Christopher J. Portier, Lynn R. Goldman, and Bernard D. Goldstein(2014)Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t! Environ Health Perspect 2014</ref><ref>A. Rosanoff (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 389</ref><ref>Brian John (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 391</ref>" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.[99]

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

User:Bobrayner reverted edit, I undid revert and asked to Talk[101] User:Bobrayner reverted same edit again without Talk. [102] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Attempted to discuss 3RR and Edit Warring in Talk, but User:Bobrayner does not appear to understand Three revert rule or Edit warring.[103] Comments:

Sportmedman (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made one edit today. Not three edits. I have already attempted to explain this on the article's talkpage but Sportmedman seems to resolutely cling onto the belief that I performed three reverts simultaneously in a single edit. This looks more like a competence problem.
Sportmedman, trawling further back through the article history is unlikely to help your case, since other editors have disagreed with your proposed changes (example) in previous weeks.
Further discussion of disputed content on the talkpage could be a good idea. Not spurious accusations of editwarring, but actual discussion about the disputed content. Could we try that? bobrayner (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. SmartSE (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4th revert was made by User:Bobrayner during same edit in less than 24 hours. [104] "However, this retraction remains controversial.<ref>Hartmut Meyer and Angelika Hilbeck(2013)Rat feeding studies with genetically modified maize - a comparative evaluation of applied methods and risk assessment standards Environmental Sciences Europe, 25:33</ref><ref>Christopher J. Portier, Lynn R. Goldman, and Bernard D. Goldstein(2014)Inconclusive Findings: Now You See Them, Now You Don’t! Environ Health Perspect 2014</ref><ref>A. Rosanoff (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 389</ref><ref>Brian John (2014) Letter to the Editor. Food and Chemical Toxicology Volume 65, March 2014, Page 391</ref>" Was also reverted by Bobrayner in same 24 hour period.[105] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportmedman (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? Both edits that you link to were made by different people, and neither of them were Bobrayner? 3RR refers to the same person reverting multiple times - not multiple people disagreeing with your edit (by the way, the latter is the definition of WP:CONSENSUS) the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about a boomerang? Either for false accusations or for lack of competence... Thomas.W ^talk 12:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is a blatantly false accusation. As can be clearly seen in the page history Bobrayner has made only one single edit on that article over the past two weeks, so how on earth can you claim that he is edit-warring and has made four reverts in less than 24 hours? Thomas.W ^talk 11:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Simon_Collins&oldid=605252892

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&oldid=606729747#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Simon_Collins&oldid=604981085#Request_For_Comment

Comments:

This case is documented in its entirety on the Administrators' noticeboard/incidents board in full detail. The most recent example of edit warring, happening today, has prompted the discussion to be moved to this section. Please read the discussion here [106] first. That link documents past reports, past incidents and everything leading up to this moment. The material documented in that report is being reported here as well, as it details the poor conduct of this user. This user has been reported three times: twice on the Edit Warring noticeboard, and last week on the Incidents noticeboard. That third case remains open, while the results of the first two notices can be seen in that Incidents noticeboard discussion.

Today, User:Winkelvi removed an entire section of content on Simon Collins that was recently approved in a Request for Comment session. The edit history can be seen here: [107]. One of the revisions can be seen here: [108]. All of the content in question was approved in an RfC on that article's talk page last month (see: [109]). This goes completely against the consensus reached in the RfC. This user even added a "citation needed" template when no such template was required. This is unacceptable behavior and could perhaps be considered vandalism at this point.

User:Winkelvi then reverted my reversion of that user's vandalism (see: [110]). The comment that user submitted is: "Reverted 2 edits by Vuzor (talk): No, the content I removed wasn't "approved" and consensus can change. (TW))" This is ridiculous, considering the content was approved. Consensus has not changed, so the excuse that "consensus can change" is complete nonsense. This has become ridiculous.Vuzor (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of forum shopping that may turn into a case of WP:BOOMERANG. The other two instances of edit warring reports Vuzor filed are from a year ago and no one was blocked at that time. Warnings were issued to both of us for one of the reports. Vuzor has a tendency to over-state and over-dramatize, I urge anyone reviewing this to not take his claims at face-value, but to look into diffs and page history to get the real story.

Today, I reverted once - that is not edit warring. Vuzor reverted three times. Two of those reverts were wholesale reverts of editing I had done on the entire article. (1 - [111]; 2 - [112]; 3 - [113]. That appears to me to be edit warring behavior. A 3RR Warning was placed on his page here: [114]. Please see the following I recently added to Vuzor's report at AN/I, found here: [115]. The report he filed days ago has received little to no attention. There is also an RfC that Vuzor started days ago which has also received no attention. It can be seen here: [116]. Both the RfC and the AN/I remain open. It is my opinion that in order to get the punitive result he wants for me, he has come here, filing a frivolous 3RR. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You made two reversions. I made two. To avoid any further edit warring, I redirected you to the AN/I page. The first and second of my "reversions" as listed in your comment were back-to-back as a result of attempting to use the "undo" button. They count as one reversion; the second was in response to your second reversion. I told you to take your reasoning for the bulk removal to the AN/I, considering you did not comment on the talk page in response to the RfC. Your first was the wholesale removal of the content approved in the RfC. User:Winkelvi has edit warred in regards to nearly everything on a particular set of pages over the past year. The user has used abusive language, fought against consensus, and attempted to prevent additional material from being added to this series of pages (found on Template:Sound of Contact). Vuzor (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation So, I'm no math genius, but it occurs to me that 2 reverts is not a violation of 3RR. Because 2 is not only not a larger number than 3, but a smaller one. Since this board is for reporting violations of either the general 3RR for the whole project, or specific 1RR violations, that makes this very easy. There is already an ANI thread about this issue, let it get resolved there. -- Atama頭 15:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Sorry to comment after the conclusion was posted, but User:Winkelvi has reverted the article again. This counts as three reversions in a span of seventeen hours, including the two mentioned initially in this report (see: [117], [118], [119]). The user even erased additional material from the page. It appears User:Winkelvi just couldn't leave it alone while we sorted things on the AN/I. Vuzor (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was never two reversions from me to begin with, just one. The latest is only the second, and not for the sake of edit warring, but to restore the good edits I made that you reverted completely without consideration for the article. And, no, there was no "additional material" "erased" from the page. Nothing is being sorted out at AN/I, that's over with, too. I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Please put on your big boy pants, comment at the article talk page, and drop the stick, Vuzor. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, Atama's own comment on the AN/I declares that you made two reversions initially (see: [120]):

" I just closed the AN3 report with no violation. It was easy, since the board is for reporting 3RR (or 1RR) violations, and per your own admission there were only 2 reverts. For Winkelvi's benefit, your initial series of edits that removed a lot of information counts as a revert. (I don't subscribe to the "any deletion is a revert" philosophy that seems to be a recent trend, but you removed content that was very recently added by Vuzor, and WP:3RR makes it clear that doing so is a revert.) Regardless, that only makes 2 reverts by each editor. A serious edit war that needs to stop but nothing to block anyone over (and any blocking would be equally applied to both editors).

Boing! said Zebedee was correct, you need to stop sniping at each other. This boils down to a content dispute and should be handled as such. This should be hashed out on the discussion page of the article if possible. There was an RfC, and while I see there was no formal closure (the template expired and was removed by a bot) the comments should definitely be taken into account when determining a consensus. If you can't come to a decision calmly between the two of you, you should take this to WP:DRN. I can't say, however, that any solid consensus was ever hashed out on the talk page of the article; a few editors did provide input but there was nothing actually agreed to. So I can't say that either of you is violating consensus with your actions. But you need to stop attacking each other over this. -- Atama頭 16:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "

This would count as the third. Vuzor (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what Atama was saying. What he was saying is that your report was for two reverts, not three. He never said I reverted more than once in a 24-hour period. My history at the article yesterday was editing, not reverting. Even if it was for two reverts, today only makes three. No violation. This is closed. I've started a dicussion at the article talk page. You didn't get what you wanted: to remove me from being able to edit the article and its associated articles (remember your request to have me topic banned?). Go to the article talk page and start discussing and stop fighting and sniping, as Atama suggested. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation itself begs to differ. I do not understand why you would deny what was clearly said. I have proposed a solution on the AN/I report. Consider it. I am negotiating with you. Vuzor (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Atama's clarification at the article talk page here: [121]. Hopefully, this is the end of the discussion. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tracield reported by User:Mark Miller (Result: Tracield and Iracaz warned)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [127]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128]

Comments:
Editors attempted to discuss this dispute on their individual user talk pages but no attempt was made to discuss the issue on the article talk page and the DRN filing was abandoned by this editor when it was noted that they had indeed crossed the 3 RR bright line.

The editor began a DR/N filing but refused to return to it when the discussion began. I made it clear in the filing that should either editor return to edit warring I would close the case and refer it here. The user Tracield has returned to reverting instead of discussing the content dispute where they initiated the discussion and request. It seems they attempted to wait out the 24 hrs to skirt the 3 revert rule.

I include the history here to also demonstrate that the edit war began much earlier (on April 28) and that there were quite a few more reverts that also include another editor. I will leave it up to those here to decide if both editors are guilty of the violation or if the other editors stopping has made their violation stale. This is a referral from DRN by a volunteer who gave all chance for the editor to stop and behave but it looks like they have not gotten the message.--Maleko Mela (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to report that I did not know to leave the page alone after filing the DRN. This was my first filing, being a semi-new user. I will make note of this procedure. Thank you. Tracield (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Tracield and Iracaz are both warned for 3RR violation. The next person who reverts (before getting a talk page consensus) may be blocked. The dispute is too stale to issue blocks now since more than 24 hours have passed since the last revert. It is noted that Tracield abandoned their own DRN after filing it. I recommend that Tracield return to the DRN since a compromise may be possible. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ed. I purposely left the DRN open, just in case this was the outcome.--Maleko Mela (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earl King Jr. reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [129] & [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A previous lengthy discussion[137] -- Recent addition[138]

Comments: This user's battleground behavior has been going on for awhile now. He is currently edit-warring over multiple articles. Largely a single topic editor he clearly doesn't understand how WP:BRD works. Another editor, AndyTheGrump, has provided numerous diffs regarding this user's disruptive behavior.[139] --- It's likely that Earl will come here and present a lengthy "defense", but this has been going on for too long. Please assist. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Zeitgeist article is problematic and controversial because of the many sympathizers it brings to the page. The editor making the complaint is one of those. I have done my best to get the article neutral. I have not violated the three revert rule ever to my knowledge despite what the above says. I may have reverted a couple of things twice in 24 hours thinking others might back that through consensus and sometimes they did. I am not a single topic editor. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add to that that I have come to the conclusion that Earl King Jr.'s entire behaviour regarding the Zeitgeist-related articles has become so problematic that I think a topic ban may be necessary. He has been using the TZM talk page a a forum for half-baked conspiracy theories, making personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and editing in a manner entirely inconsistent with NPOV and RS policy - he is clearly not 'neutral' regarding TZM, as recent posts by him on the talk page make clear. Anyone involved with these articles will be aware that it can be difficult at times dealing with the relentless attempts by TZM supporters to spin the articles their way, but the way to deal with it is by making clear that content needs to be based on on-topic sourcing and strict adherence to policy, rather than by engaging in synthesis and turning articles into attack pieces based on conjecture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of edit warring to go around. There is now some active discussion about merging all this junk into one cesspool....my honest take is the movement is a hoax...created by just another charlatan and giving space to this crap is not in our remit. Let's see if Earl can cease edit warring and also if Nagualdesign can cease calling him "Zionist" which is absolute bullshit.--MONGO 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a topic ban may be necessary. This message board posting is not about whether you agree or disagree with the article topic, it's about an editor's disruptive behavior which has not only been cited in this complaint but ongoing for too long. And yes, he is largely a single topic editor, [140] who has recently blanked his talk page from this unresolved dispute. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both SomeDifferentStuff and Andy are extremely aggressive editors. I have not edit warred by continual reverting after consensus. I have not broken the three revert guideline to my knowledge. I do not take the bait when those two provoke which they do on the The Zeitgeist Movement article talk page. I discussed the other article pages by opening a thread on the Zeitgeist movement page about redirecting those articles. SomedifferentStuff for whatever reason has edited with the in-plants from the Zeitgeist movement. I have no ownership issues with the article, though it is mostly myself that rewrote it from the mess it was previously. I have no agenda beyond presenting the information neutrally. I have created a couple of articles on Wikipedia that have zero to do with this topic and my watch list is well rounded. I edit the related Zeitgeist articles a lot because there are constantly issues there and I appreciate other people that are trying to keep the article from being an advert. I would note again that SomeDifferentStuff has been overtly aggressive and accusatory on the talk page and I believe trying to provoke a personal battle, which I have not done. Example above SomedifferentStuff is accusing me of blanking my talk page. No, I just removed his message which is a way to tell someone I got the message. But, it is an inflammatory rhetorical way to present me so he did it. Andy also has never edited the article beyond making reverts and using extremely caustic, provocative, maybe nasty language on the talk page to make his points. His block history makes it clear as does SomeDifferentStuff's that they are familiar with issues related to problematic editing. I have not taken the bait from Andy on the talk page either. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"SomedifferentStuff for whatever reason has edited with the in-plants from the Zeitgeist movement". I have no idea what an 'in-plant' is supposed to mean, but it clearly isn't a complementary way to describe a contributor. And it should be noted that Earl King Jr. also seems to think that the TZM article talk page is an appropriate place to describe members as "brainwashed" [141], and to accuse Peter Joseph, the founder, of using "neuro linguistic programming and meme control". [142] None of this has anything whatsoever to do with article content (and is arguably a WP:BLP violation), and accordingly has no place on the article talk page - but Earl's response to me asking him not to use the talk page as a forum has been to carry on regardless. As for the issue with redirects, it should be noted that Earl made no effort whatsoever to indicate on the talk pages of the articles being redirected that there was a discussion going on - instead he simply claimed that there was 'a consensus' for this, and attacked anyone who disagreed. Clearly Earl isn't the only one causing problems - neither he nor User:Nagualdesign should be using edit summaries for personal attacks as seen here, [143] but it seems to me that it is Earl that is provoking this, with his repeated talk-page posturing and refusal to take disagreements regarding article content as anything but evidence for some sort of improper pro-TZM agenda. Maintaining reasonable policy-compliant coverage of this topic requires patience, and a commitment to ensuring that policy is complied with - and not just the policies that prevent TZM members turning the article into a puff-piece as many would clearly like. It needs a commitment from all contributors to maintain neutrality by working strictly from sources, and avoiding the sort of synthesis that Earl has been engaging in lately in his efforts to promote what amounts to a conspiracy theory - that Peter Joseph founded the whole thing as a money-making scheme for personal profit. [144] If Earl wants to promote this theory, he should find some other place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy I am referring to the meat and sock puppets in the article. There is a long and huge history of that. Also you present me as promoting conspiracy theory. I have discussed the article and the article is in the conspiracy theory category on Wikipedia. Also what you are saying about Joseph is a real stretch and any appraisal I may have done about him is not the way you 'paraphrased' it. Your caustic approach to people you disagree with and your rephrasing to put things in a darker light, and saying I am promoting a theory on the talk page is unwise. Also saying that I provoked the editor into him calling me Earl 'Zionist Agenda' King Jr. is kind of ridiculous. I respect a lot of your work though I do not like your caustic approach but I think you have gone too far, if this is what you are saying. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple verifiable fact that you posted accusations of "brainwashing" and nonsense about "neuro linguistic programming" (which incidentally is pseudoscientific hokum) and "meme control" (whatever that is supposed to mean) on the talk page - and you have repeatedly argued that Peter Joseph concocted TZM for personal gain. That is self-evidently a conspiracy theory. Such comments have no place on an article talk page, and can only ever be seen as provocative. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and your personal opinions of TZM should have no bearing on article content - yet you have repeatedly argued for inclusion of content not sourced to material directly discussing TZM on the basis that it fits in with your personal theory. [145]. That is not the action of a neutral contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article as said Andy is in the Conspiracy Theory category of articles so its doubtful that things about that would not come up on the talk page. Again you are paraphrasing very poorly your interpretation of anything I wrote for effect here. Also you did not respond to what I said. You said that the editor that called me 'Earl Zionist Agenda King Jr.' in his edit summary [146] was not guilty of anything because I may have provoked him. That is ridiculous. Saying a racial/ethnic slur here is justified? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the article has been placed in a 'Conspiracy Theory' category is of no relevance whatsoever - you are promoting your own conspiracy theory on the talk page. As for your suggestion that I stated that Nagualdesign "was not guilty of anything", that is an outright lie, as everyone can plainly see. Frankly, I am beginning to have serious doubts as to your present competence to be editing Wikipedia at all - your posts are becoming increasingly irrational. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You said above that I provoked the other editor into it. One of your posts above says: User:Nagualdesign should be using edit summaries for personal attacks as seen here, [147] but it seems to me that it is Earl that is provoking this, with his repeated talk-page posturing and refusal to take disagreements regarding article content as anything but evidence for some sort of improper pro-TZM agenda. Maintaining reasonable policy-compliant coverage of this topic requires patience, and a commitment to ensuring that policy is complied with - and not just the policies that prevent TZM members turning the article into a puff-piece as many would clearly like. End quote Andy from a couple of paragraphs up, it shows that user calling me Earl King "zionist agenda" Jr. The editor that called me a zionist agenda I never had noticed before, but warned him on his talk page. Andy's comment here was that I provoked it. That is clear. I think this is way off base. Also listening to Andy going into paroxysms of rage over his conceptions is getting old. I find him contentious most of the time like this example. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I said your behaviour was provocative - it was. I didn't say that Nagualdesign wasn't guilty of anything. He clearly shouldn't have made the comment he did. You always had the option of reporting his comment - instead you responded in kind, further inflaming the situation. [148] As for "paroxysms of rage", it is you that is exhibiting irrational behaviour clearly driven by emotions, not me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion in progress about how best to arrange the pages about the Zeitgeist movie and their related "movement." These pages have been difficult for some time, as single-purpose accounts and promoters of the movement and its conspiracy theories have tried to use the page as a promotional platform to present their views, repetitively and at length across multiple articles. It's hard for me to see that Earl King Jr. is the problem. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, this complaint is not about how Earl deals with IP's coming to the page. It's about his battleground behavior and blatant disregard for WP:BRD when interacting with established Wikipedia editors. It's unacceptable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really characterize the situation as I see it. The idea that Earl is the problem isn't supported by the links presented, or by the discussion just above for that matter. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? We must be looking at different links. The ones I provided above clearly show edit warring over multiple articles and disregard for WP:BRD. Equally important is that this battleground behavior is not new. On top of that it appears this complaint may be past its due date even with this mess of evidence over 3 different articles [149][150][151]. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miraclehr1 reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: 48h)

Pages:

Ligi Ndogo S.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2014 Ligi Ndogo S.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Miraclehr1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Ligi Ndogo S.C.

23:22, 29 April 2014

2014 Ligi Ndogo S.C. season

22:54, 29 April 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Ligi Ndogo S.C.

2014 Ligi Ndogo S.C. season

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:23, 2 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 21:54, 30 April 2014

Comments:
The user constantly reverts my clean-up edits for no apparent reason like he owns them. His diffs clearly had clutter, poor grammar and formatting mistakes which I've been trying to correct but he doesn't want to accept my contributions. Also refused to reply to my messages on his talk, and even after notifying him of the report he continues with the reverts. Please handle this ASAP. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 12:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is no one looking into this? Reports around mine are being resolved and mine isn't?? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs 14:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This is not as straightforward as many AN3 reports, but there are definitely ownership and communication problems. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:23, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lokie Dokie reported by User:331dot (Result: No violation)

Page: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lokie Dokie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

15:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC) ""
16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC) ""
16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606785405 by 331dot (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Harassment of other users on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). (TW)"
16:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is continually trying to reopen closed discussions, including the linked-to one at the VP, but also on the ITN pages. They have also indicated that they are on a crusade to get their point across. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

331dot is continually trying to close sections which are complaints about him. That is quite obviously completely improper. And his accusations of harassment are nothing short of a disgusting smear. As such, I have raised my own complaint about this, and other things, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out to others that read this that I am not the only one who has dealt with this user, or closed their posts. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And in case anyone doesn't read that noticeboard, 331dot has informed Rambling Man and Doktorbuk about this, but if they turn up here to talk shit about me, be advised they are also the subject of my complaint over there, so I of course reject anything they have to say, unless they have a change of heart and start speaking openly and honestly about what they've been doing to me today. I shouldn't have to point things like this out, but it's becoming clear to me that some people on Wikipedia (specifically Doktorbuk), will sometimes exploit the fact that perhaps not everybody is aware of what the relation is between various users, before trying to influence things as a supposedly neutral observer (I guess I'll have to spell it out though - I have specifically used one of Doktorbuk's comments as an example of what's aparently going wrong with how "consensus" is assessed at 'In the News'. Lokie Dokie (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this discussion taking place in several locations, I am willing to allow this to be closed and the discussion confined to the page this user started(and linked to above). If that is not desired, that's OK too. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As his contribution history shows, LD is being a curious nonsense across numerous pages, despite his complaint being involved with an issue in one specific part of Wikipedia. I closed a discussion for getting into a circle of insults and counter claims with no constructive purpose. Lokie has showed almost no civil behaviour in any of his recent edits, and I wager he won't start any time soon. doktorb _words^deeds 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, so, you saw a section opened at Village Pump, and before anyone (not already involved) had even commented, you decided it had no constructive purpose, and shut it down. Even though it was only there because the exact same counter-productive approach had been taken by Rambling Man at Wikipedia talk:In the news? And that's what you class as civil behaviour is it? Interesting. Most people would think the civil thing to do in that situation, would have been to take some step that would actually resolve the dispute (and of course, to disclose your connection with the person whose section you were closing, if you felt you couldn't stop yourself from getting involved at all). Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and "How sad, oh dear, never mind" is civil is it? Do you think the outside world would agree that this is how someone claiming to be a paragon of ciivlity would say when shutting down someone else's complaint before anyone has even answered it? You've got a real nerve, talking to me about civil behaviour. Although I have to say, your approach looks pretty normal for Wikipedia to me - completely and totally hypocritical. Lokie Dokie (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a new guy heads straight for ITN/C with his first batch of edits? Someone do a WP:SOCK check on this "newbie". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No violation. It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. But if Lokie Dokie is conducting a crusade, it's going to run out of ammunition soon. See WP:STICK. And all this excitement from a brand-new editor such as Lokie Dokie raises questions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lokie has been blocked for 24 hours for incivility and DeadHorse doktorb _words^deeds 20:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alhanuty reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Warned Alhanuty and Paolowalter)

Previous version reverted to: [152]

Diffs of the user's reverts

I just reverted twice,that's it,nothing wrong here,I didn't revert 3 times,and my edits are based on a reliable source reuters,http://in.mobile.reuters.com/article/idINKBN0DI15B20140502?irpc=932 And I am not going to break the 3 revert rule.Alhanuty (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty you do not properly understand the data from this source because source only said that because clashes hampered the transport links with Sayqal air bases and it makes it difficult to export the remaining stockpiles of chemical weapons there because because it isolated air base located in the desert but the source does not say that it is the rebels besieged it. Also source only said that Dumayr air base, came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels but source not said about clashes in this base or around her. So you were wrong when noted these two air bases as besieged.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based from the template,if a base comes under attack we put a ring on the base,so Dumeir needs a ring around it,and for sayqal,it say isolated and the rebels are advancing on it,but okay then for sayqal But So why did you report me then.Alhanuty (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the data directly from the source: Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held. While the rebel attack appears more focused on Dumair and on breaking the military stranglehold which Assad's forces have imposed closer to the capital, the fighting has increasingly isolated Sayqal and encroached towards it. The diplomat said rebels have overrun the abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal, which lies between Dumair and Sayqal, and cut the road linking them. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat why did you report me if I didn't the three revert rule,this page is used only if an editor breaks the rule,which I didn't.Alhanuty (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Clearly Alhanuty broke the one revert rule (1RR) wich is in effect in the Syrian civil war template, and is not credible that he dont know that rule, wich have been widely commented on the template talk page (where he had been editing the map for many months), and also he was notified about the general sanctions, so...--HC PUNXKID 09:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template syrian civil war map.doesn't state there is a one edit rule,also the situation between me and hannibal has been resolved,so stop.Alhanuty (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont need say that the problem is solved because you have grossly violated 1RR rule but in this article is permitted to make only one revert of per day. But at the same time I admit the fact that you not have broken the 3RR rule. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:Alhanuty and User:Paolowalter are warned for violating the WP:1RR on this page. Next time blocks will be issued. The talk page of this template redirects to Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War where the 1RR notice is prominently displayed. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fraggle81 reported by User:86.142.250.139 (Result: no violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[diff]
[diff]
[diff]
[diff]

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

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

Comments:

No violation. Simple reverts of vandalism on a BLP. Reporter blocked. Kuru (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mark Miller reported by User:WeldNeck (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Comments: User needs to calm down and talk this out.

WeldNeck (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff 3 and 4 are consecutive edits. I have no idea why the editor is stating "User needs to calm down" as there is no indication of excitement or anger in the tone of my edit summaries. I began a talk page discussion, but previous to this removal the content had been taken out at least two other times and was added back with no explanation. While discussion is one way to determine consensus, editing is another natural process that determines there really is no consensus for the content. It is off topic and undue weight. While reverting is not my favorite thing, I do feel it is justified at times, but never by going over the bright line rule.--Maleko Mela (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. I see three reverts, but not four. That said, it's better not to repeatedly revert. The best way to demonstrate consensus to remove the material is for multiple people to remove it. Let someone else take it out next time, and the removal will carry more weight. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:109.188.125.133 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Semi)

Page: Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.188.125.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)109.188.124.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)109.188.127.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably other IPs

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[169][170]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

talk page consensus further talk page discussion

Comments:

One IP-hopping user is insisting on going against long established talk page consensus. Recommend page protection to prevent further disruption. Charles (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article semiprotected two months due to IP-hopping edit warrior. If he moves on to other articles a range block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:009o9 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[172]
[173]
[174]
[175] blatantly obfuscates content

This is not a complex case, obvious WP:COI from users' actions and from user page [176]. Editor cannot support claims, dictates acceptable references (i.e. in one instance Glenn Beck (already ref'd in article) acceptable for his Left viewpoint, same source is not acceptable for Right viewpoint)009o9 (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:

I've been trying to tone down some contentious racism accusations against a living person, but two editors insist the indecent belongs in the lede. (There are redirect to this article using the mans name.)

Example of what I'm dealing with, I added Balance:

This edit -- adding balance -- to the lede no less

After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, forcefully condemning his remarks as racist.<ref name="Nagourney"/><ref name="reidstmt"/><ref name="sltrib"/><ref name="LAtimes20140424"/><ref name="CBSdenounce"/><ref name="CNN201404024"/><ref name="hannity140322"/><ref name="GlenBeckPolitico"/> Ben Swann examined Bundy's comments in broader context and found that Bundy was not given a truthful representation,<ref name=SwannMediaMatters>Swann, Ben (25 April 2014). "Truth in Media: Cliven Bundy's "Racist" Remarks Were Also Promoting Hispanic Culture? What MSM Isn't Telling You". Ben Swann. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> the American Thinker revealed that Bundy was speaking to the consequences of Government welfare on black families and stated, "He is no more a racist than is E.W. Jackson, Thomas Sowell..."<ref name=AmericanThinkerMediaMatters>Clarice Feldman (27 April 2014). "Cliven Bundy Delenda Est". American Thinker. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> David Brock of Media Matters for America confirmed that they themselves were the source of this news. <ref name=MediaMatterBrokeStory>Jim Hoft (27 April 2014). "David Brock Says He Doesn't Know if Media Matters Worked With Sharyl Attkisson Before Group Attacked Her". The Gateway Pundit. Retrieved 2 May 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)</ref> </nowiki>

Becomes this in mere moments -- I have no idea how many sentences have been rendered useless like the Ben Swann one below--the entire article is going to have to be read over with a fine tooth comb.

After making remarks about black people maybe being better off as slaves than under government subsidies, Bundy was widely condemned in mainstream media, and was repudiated by Republican politicians and talk-show hosts that had previously supported him, many of whom forcefully condemned his remarks as racist.<ref name="Nagourney"/><ref name="reidstmt"/><ref name="sltrib"/><ref name="LAtimes20140424"/><ref name="CBSdenounce"/><ref name="CNN201404024"/><ref name="hannity140322"/><ref name="GlenBeckPolitico"/> Ben Swann<ref name=SwannMediaMatters>Swann, Ben (25 April 2014). "Truth in Media: Cliven Bundy's "Racist" Remarks Were Also Promoting Hispanic Culture? What MSM Isn't Telling You". Ben Swann. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref> and the American Thinker defended Bundy's comments as being truthful.<ref name=AmericanThinkerMediaMatters>Clarice Feldman (27 April 2014). "Cliven Bundy Delenda Est". American Thinker. Retrieved 2 May 2014.</ref>

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section summarizes arguments. Just as we do not go into extensive detail about the statements made about Bundy's racist remarks in the lead, neither we do not go into extensive detail on the counter-claims about those remarks - which are made by, at best, fringe organizations - in the lead. I did not revert your edit (which would have involved a wholesale deletion) - I edited your edit.

As I have noted, "The Gateway Pundit" is not an acceptable source for any contentious statement about a living person, and it cannot stand even for a moment. Please see the biographies of living persons policy for information about sourcing claims about living people.

I also reject any claim that I have a conflict of interest - I do not work for the agency involved in this dispute. Unless the above user is asserting that all 4.1 million federal employees automatically have a conflict of interest, which is patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tried to provide reflist, collects all refs on page, no good009o9 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Not only are the diffs provided not all reverts, but some are correct within policy (i.e. negative statements supported by blogs or opinion pieces). Suggest WP:DRN as the correct venue here. Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another admin has already determined that the clear prohibition against any reverts was violated. Edit warring notice board isn't just 3RR and an experienced editor like yourself should have recognized that. 184.241.11.124 (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that a random IP shows up to comment on this... block-evasion by User:009o9 perhaps? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jiltsedge reported by User:Renzoy16 (Result: 48 hours)

Page: List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jiltsedge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

08:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "abs cbn fakcrupt"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This has been the IP that I reported before who was adding non-factual information in various Philippine-film related articles. He keeps bugging me, telling me that I am bias towards a film outfit called Star Cinema which is owned by ABS-CBN. I don't know what's with him. He keeps starting to make an issue, but I decided not to entertain him. I just want to stop his behavior, that's all. AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of his behavior while still being an IP:

Vandalism in my talk page
Gave him a warning. He was blocked after
Previous history of vandalism in the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013
Comparison of edits showing that IP and Jiltsedge are one: Jiltsedge's edit and IP's edit

Aside from these history, he keeps adding a twitter search result as a reference. We don't allow that in Wikipedia.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 13:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See his behavior below (he created a new section with full of allegations).--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you started it im just stating my side — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like both of you should be blocked for WP:3RR. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Well, I didn't knew there was such WP:3RR rule. But thanks for letting me know about that. However, one thing is clear. The reported person keeps adding false information and that is why I keep reverting his edits. Personal attacks? False accusations? Repeated vandalisms? Doesn't that deserve more weight for a block than blocking someone who was only protecting an article from having false information?--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine as long as he gets block as well you don't want a company mole in your site his spying on all of you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 16:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renzoy16 is a fancrapt of abs cbn i have some evidence
Television programs

He created all of this TV shows are from his favorite channel abs cbn his using his position to spread lies especially in the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013

i want him to stop edit warring the List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 with his bias figures in favor of Abs Cbn's movie outfit Star cinema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 14:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the edit history on List of highest grossing Filipino films in 2013 and the warning you've just had on your talkpage, looks like you'll be blocked, and quick. You need to raise issues about the film article on the talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering who will take the block? You, me, or both? Let's be real here. Everybody knows who deserve the block, its you. Senseless rationales. Bad behavior. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renzoy16 is a company mol

obviously his been planted by his station abs cbn so that he could promote and campaign for his company you have a mole cant you see — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiltsedge (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Blocked 48 hours. Jiltsedge, if he is also using IPs, is warned about the WP:SOCK policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twittspiral reported by User:SuperHamster (Result:24hr )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

14:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606854172 by SuperHamster (talk)"
03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606852410 by SuperHamster (talk)"
03:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606849921 by SuperHamster (talk)"
02:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606847618 by ClueBot NG (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

03:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Havergal College. (TW)"
03:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

03:39, May 3, 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Attempted to assume good faith with user's edits, and tried to resolve issue on user's talk page. User never replied or attempted to correspond ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 14:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours the panda ₯’ 00:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:009o9 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result:24 hr )

Page: Bundy standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 009o9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 23:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) to 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
1. 23:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ 300 is the confirmed munber by BLS spokepersn Jessica Kershaw, BLS had 11,621 Permanent employees in 2012 according to official Wiki page"
2. 23:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ Becket Adams is professional journalist, Beck/Blaze already sourced elsewhere in article"
3. 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Free speech and no fly zones */ Daily Caller is in the White House rotating press pool"
07:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Bureau of Land Management actions */ paste revert, references are fine Glenn Beck/Blaze already in used in artilce"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned of 1RR sanctions by User:Tiptoety.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

07:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Reliable sources issues */ new section"

Comments:

Repeatedly warned not to remove tags inserted by other editors without consensus on the talk page.

I disputed his use of sources and tagged them as questionable. He removed those tags in the "paste revert." I reinserted them and advised him that it is inappropriate for the user whose sources are being disputed to unilaterally remove the tags. He has, once again, reverted those tags out without discussion or consensus on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, good faith edits. Out of the half dozen inline tags that editor posted in a few paragraphs, I am double checking each for paid journalism and notability of source, I am also in the process of providing additional sources. Editor's section tag will remain until consensus is reached.009o9 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that you intentionally violated the 1RR. OK then. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours the panda ₯’ 00:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:23.115.148.21 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: Semi)

Page: Peter Lemongello (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 23.115.148.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

06:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
06:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "It's Not True!"
05:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "{{request edit}} None of this legal difficulties ever happened its false information! Please delete it!"
05:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal difficulties */"
05:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "None of this "Legal Difficulties" Bullshit is true! This is Peter Lemongello, Jr. I think I would know!!!!! Whoever is doing this better cut this shit off before I take to the police for harassment!!!!"
05:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor claims to be Peter Jr. and has repeatedly deleted sourced information despite warnings. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest no further action (see my comments on the IP's talk), and would prefer to see this report speedily closed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. No problem with that. Sorry if I was overzealous. Seemed like a notable and well-documented series of events and I felt like it was described in proportion to the third-party coverage on it, but I can understand your rationale I think. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some references to RS's, and if this wasn't a BLP issue, I'd say they suffice, but when considering due weight, BLP, and what sources we currently have, both their small number and little depth, I'd say leave the section out. And yes, there was edit warring here (from all sides), and the issue would have probably been helped with less semi-automated edits and blanket reverts (from all sides), and more discussion (and more experience in the way Wikipedia works from the IP, but newcomers lack that by definition, unfortunately), but we are where we are, and I think this should be settled now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article semiprotected. The IP continues to add promotional text in spite of Martijn's reasonable advice. It would be best to get a talk page consensus before anyone re-adds the material about legal problems in Florida. The article can probably do without it. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:122.168.177.36 reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)

Page: Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.168.177.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC) to 12:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
1. 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC) "This is not vandalism. And Summichum go join your KQ firqa."
2. 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 12:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
05:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC) ""
05:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC) "this is not vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is disrupting Bohra articles by removing content Summichum (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing Admins I don't know enough about Islamic issues to be able to express an opinion on who is right or wrong in their editing, but I will suggest that Summichum's edit history warrants some close scrutiny. He/she has a history of EXTREMELY bold editing that includes a lot of mass redacting of material with which he/she disagrees and sometimes labeling edits by others as vandalism. Recently I had to remove CSD tags he/she had applied to a number of articles after gutting them down to a stub. An examination of his/her contrib log showed a number of articles had been speedy deleted at his/her prompting. FreeRangeFrog subsequently reviewed these and concluded that they had been nominated under highly improper circumstances and reverted the deletions. See the talk pages of all editors/Admins mentioned in my comment for more details. On another note this editor has demonstrated a grasp of WP policy, which has been quoted in support of their very aggressive editing, that I do not normally encounter in such a new editor (only a little over 600 edits). This is true going back as far as I was able to in their contrib log. Finally the history of aggressive editing and its narrow focus suggests an agenda. But again I don't know enough about intra-Islamic sectarian disputes to be able to express any informed opinions on the merits of the editing conflicts. Anyways I thought anyone reviewing this matter should be aware of some of the deeper background. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No violation The edits are certainly not vandalism, as Summichum claims; this is a content dispute where both sides have reverted equally. I have watchlisted the article and will protect it if further edit-warring occurs. Use the talk page or use WP:DRN. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: )

Persistent edit warring despite warnings [179]

Seems to be "timing" his reverts to avoid 3RR.

Revision as of 20:00, 2 May 2014 [180]
Revision as of 20:15, 2 May 2014 [181]
Revision as of 20:10, 3 May 2014 [182]
Revision as of 21:20, 4 May 2014 [183]

Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, the edit warring on this article is being perpetuated by other editors (including user:cwobeel) who continue to restore content to the article without engaging in specifics on the article Talk page.CFredkin (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be useful to inquire how user:cwobeel became involved in the dispute, since he/she has no prior history of involvement with the page.CFredkin (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made two edits and stopped due to the persistent edit warring. Cwobeel (talk)

# of times user:cwobeel has engaged regarding the specific issues that have been posted (repeatedly) in article Talk = 0.CFredkin (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended my edit intervals in order to give the editor who posted/restored the bulk of the content the opportunity to respond in Talk, since he/she appears to be on another continent. So far that has been mostly in vain. In addition I recently posted a RfC in an effort to engage other editors who might actually be willing to discuss specifics.CFredkin (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:34, 5 May 2014 edit Haldrik (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 6,304 edits →User:Gtfjbl reported by User:Qwertyus (Result:No action) ← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:37, 5 May 2014 edit undo Haldrik (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 6,304 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:

	== [[User:Bloodofox]] reported by [[User:Haldrik]]		== [[User:Bloodofox]] reported by [[User:Haldrik]]
	[[User:~~Bloodoffox~~]] appears to have a history of edit warring, where he pushes a POV corresponding to a modern Neo-Pagan ~~religiosity~~. He is currently violating the Three Revert Rule here, in the [[Elf]] article ~~here~~ https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elf&action=history [[User:Haldrik\|Haldrik]] ([[User talk:Haldrik\|talk]]) 00:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)		[[User:Bloodofox]] appears to have a history of edit warring, where he pushes a POV corresponding to a modern idiosyncratic Neo-Pagan religion. He is currently violating the Three Revert Rule here in the [[Elf]] article. See history. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Elf&action=history [[User:Haldrik\|Haldrik]] ([[User talk:Haldrik\|talk]]) 00:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards