Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive245

Page: The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Zeitgeist: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Zeitgeist: Addendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] & [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A previous lengthy discussion[9] -- Recent addition[10]

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.[11] --- 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)

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)

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)

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)

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, [12] who has recently blanked his talk page from this unresolved dispute. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

"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" [13], and to accuse Peter Joseph, the founder, of using "neuro linguistic programming and meme control". [14] 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, [15] 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. [16] If Earl wants to promote this theory, he should find some other place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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. [17]. That is not the action of a neutral contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

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 [18] 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)

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)

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, [19] 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)

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. [20] 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)

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)

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)

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)

? 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 [21][22][23]. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You may be laying it on a little too thick S.D.S. considering you were blocked for editing warring and tendentious editing previously on these articles [24] I warned you as did some others on your talk page at the time prior to your being blocked. I hope your current report is not revenge related. I know that is in the past but your current over the top 'complete with capital letters type of 'yelling' is getting old. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added the other article pagelinks to the top of this section. Sorry if this is inappropriate, but since my own interactions with Earl have been mostly limited to Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie I thought it worth linking. More importantly, if Earl needs a holiday then it should be from all 4 pages. nagualdesign 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You never did apologize or refute making a racial/ethnic slur to me on the article edit summary nagualdesign. Just what is my 'Zionist Agenda' to your mind? You are an example of negative participation on the article by people with an agenda. That comment deserved censure. You used it in two edit summaries and instead of reporting you I warned you on your talk page [25]] which you mocked. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I certainly did refute making a racial/ethnic slur [26] as I resent the accusation. I didn't apologize because I don't feel it necessary, as I didn't use any pejorative terms. And although Zionist is arguably the wrong adjective to describe your apparent agenda, I do believe you are staunchly.. how shall I put it.. anti-Zeitgeist? anti-anti-Semitic? pro-Jewish? These are descriptive terms, not rude words! Of course you are more than entitled to your own world view, but in my original edit summary (the one that offended you so very deeply) I was simply trying to point out that such conflicts of interest are contrary to WP guidelines, hence the link to WP:Agenda account. Of course you already know all this, but thank you for the opportunity to clarify things for the casual observer. If you'd like to take that further then take it to ANI. This section is about you, not me. nagualdesign 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is about the big picture and anyone that comes here is under scrutiny. Your statement above What I am against is the constant erosion of these articles by Earl King Jr. and co. who seem intent on undermining the perceived "anti-Semitic" message of these films by souring the articles. The fact that you refer to me as Earl Zionist agenda' King Jr.' is pretty damning and that you did that just recently in the history of the article. When you say, I do believe you are staunchly.. how shall I put it.. anti-Zeitgeist? anti-anti-Semitic? pro-Jewish? These are descriptive terms, not rude words end quote. Not sure what those statements you are making mean except that your interpretation seems disconnected to anything I have done. How is it that you think I am pro Jewish, or that you think I edit across these articles that way. What does anti-anti Semitic mean and what group are you referring to by 'Semitic' Arabs or Jews? Anyway your attitude does not make a lot of sense to me. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Umm.. Perhaps you should write and ask Michelle Goldberg what Semitic means. Isn't she the reliable source who says that Zeitgeist: The Movie is "covertly anti-Semitic"? Surely you must remember, Earl, you made great efforts to have it included in the article lead. And that's why these films don't 'deserve' to have articles on Wikipedia, right? ..Anyway, let's not stray off topic. Like I said, take it to ANI if you wish. *yawn* nagualdesign 00:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how you equate me with having a 'Zionist agenda'. I don't think what you are saying makes a lot of sense from any perspective. I still do not have much of a clue about your ideas except it sounds like conspiracy thinking as you referred previously to myself and others as maintaining a stance. You are complaining about Michelle Goldberg a journalist from a notable newspaper that has been cited on some article information, and you have no problem saying that I am a Zionist agenda editor. That journalist was discussed at length on the talk page and checked out and passed notability tests elsewhere. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm complaining about Michelle Goldberg now, am I? That's news to me. If any uninvolved administrators wish to ask me sensible questions relevant to this complaint about Earl I'd be happy to help. As for silly questions (red herrings, really) like asking whether Semitic refers to Arabs or Jews, or implying that I said something then expecting me to defend myself, I have no interest in that. I won't be responding directly to any more of Earl's bullshit. nagualdesign 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Less than a year ago SomeDifferentStuff was found in violation of editing guidelines on the article in question [27] It was shown that he violated the 3 revert guideline. I have not violated the three revert guideline to my knowledge and opened a thread to discuss putting the movies into the Zeitgeist Movement article. I do not think I have gamed the system either When S.d.s. was blocked he was given this message by an Admin. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. For what ever reason these Zeitgeist related things cause great consternation among the followers or sympathizers and others. I have tried to be a neutral editor on related articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Earl, using a distraction tactic can be useful but I would encourage you otherwise. I was previously blocked because I exercised poor editing behavior, which I take full responsibility for. -- Even with the evidence against you, it is unlikely that it will result in a block this time, but I encourage you not to take that as a green light to continue your disruptive battleground behavior. This noticeboard complaint will soon be part of the historical record, accessible for future use if need be. -- I will not post here further. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Earl continues on his warpath. [28] I don't think he's taking this complaint very seriously, and thinks he can abide by the letter of the law but flaunt the spirit of the law, so to speak, and he'll get away with it. He thinks he knows just how far he can push. The problem is he's always pushing. Do you see? Can we wrap this up please? nagualdesign 04:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So you think I am like an Indian on the warpath, because I supported another persons edit. You also think I have a Zionist agenda. You think I am 'pushy' and keep on pushing, and you have told me on the talk page of 'Zeitgeist movement' to stop editing and move along. Anything else you want to get off your chest? I fail to see that you are making any serious conversation about anything here. A couple of paragraphs up you said I won't be responding directly to any more of Earl's bullshit., but you just keep coming back here insulting and baiting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This user is continuing to edit war. Here is a fresh revert from today[29] without consensus and with zero discussion on the article's talk page.[30] - He still hasn't grasped the concept that edit warring is not justifiable under any circumstances. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought you said a couple paragraphs above that you were through posting here. So far its established that you were definitely blocked previously from editing the article for edit warring and disrupting Wikipedia and violating three revert and that was not that long ago [31] and I was one of the people that warned you at the time on your talk page. Also I did not edit war. I made one edit a day ago. I affirmed someone elses edit, Bobrayner's an experienced Wikipedia editor with a good reputation if I can say so. Also there is a discussion on the talk pages now of those articles. Even if you underline your message and embolden it, if it is not true, it does not really matter, no matter how you 'market' that idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There is "a discussion on the talk pages now of those articles" (or more accurately, a note pointing out that there is a discussion taking place elsewhere) because another contributor added it. You restored the undiscussed redirect before any such notification of the discussion had taken place. Why? What is the urgency here? Why are you so keen to redirect the articles, and so keen to avoid participation in discussions from people who have been involved in their creation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not. Those articles originated generally by groups of Zeitgeist supporters and were not neutral nor was the Zeitgeist Movement page for a long time. Mostly they are all marginally o.k. now, because they have been reedited by neutral editors and changed from advert copy paste things, but the question is if they are overkill and not needed except maybe the first movie one, Zeitgeist the Movie. That is the flow of current discussion. Manipulating language to sound harsh is not really advisable. You have done about zero in a positive sense Andy. You contribute zero to the articles just hit the undo button now and then and make your scathing comments. You could have added discussions at those talk pages at any time, instead you have harped over and over that someone should. Your summary here is also wrong. The redirects have been discussed now in edit summaries on the article pages and on the Zeitgeist movement page and now on the pages of the articles. It does not matter who created the articles either because here we are all volunteer grunt workers. Editing on Wikipedia is an existential exercise and the articles have no intrinsic value unless they pass muster in the here and now, which according to the marginal consensus on the Zeitgeist movement page, they do not. I supported Bobrayner's edit after the fact, because he supported the redirect and that right now is the consensus more or less on the talk page by neutral editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So basically you are saying that you alone get to decide who is a 'neutral' contributor, deserving of notification regarding this issue - in spite of the ample evidence already provided that you have let your own anti-TZM feelings, and insistence that you 'own' the article influence your editing behaviour. Well tough - Wikipedia doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You can flame and bait from now till the cows come home. Assuming I hate Zeitgeist is wrong. You assume too much. As said you are contentious on this and tendentiously attack for what ever reason. You have not done anything to back your theories of how the article should or could be, just accused others and read people the riot act. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

My 'theory' is that articles should comply with policy, rather than with the half-baked conspiracy theories of contributors who fill article talk pages with bollocks about "brainwashing", "neuro linguistic programming" and "meme control". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably if you followed your theory your block log would look different. It is a conspiracy category article.[32] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is an article about a political movement that some have accused of promoting conspiracy theories. Not that the article topic is relevant anyway, when discussing your abusing the talk page as a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Yesterday AndyTheGrump posted a reminder that any proposal to redirect the articles should be noted on the talk pages of the articles concerned, with a link to the discussion, to which Earl responded with more bullshit. [33] Of course Andy was correct, and it was up to Earl to sort it out really, but he didn't appreciate the advice. I tried to help him by adding a note to each of the talk pages, to which he has responded with yet more bullshit. [34] [35] [36] Laughably, he has yet to provide a clear rationale as to why these pages should be redirects. He says what he'd like to do, and a few others simply agree (ignoring all guidelines), but hasn't said why, even after all of this brouhaha. And he calls that "the flow of current discussion"! nagualdesign 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a bad place to call Wikipedia editors contributions bullshit. This is not a free for all for name calling. You could get blocked for doing that and you have used that word recklessly in other places, not just the immediate above. Uncivil, baiting nagualdesign. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Not when you post bullshit conspiracy theories on article talk pages, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I warn you also that you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is never o.k. to make personal attacks Andy. Looking at your block history you have not understood that. Never means never. Not here and not on article pages. Earl King Jr. (talk)

Describing your bullshit conspiracy theories as bullshit conspiracy theories is not a personal attack. Still, if you want more attention drawn to your bullshit conspiracy theories, feel free to report me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Your block history says it all Andy [37] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit cited by Somedifferentstuff to open this thread is the first on that article in 9 days by Earl King Jr. Just pointing out what should be obvious.--MONGO 01:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Stale. This was a valid report at the time, and I'm not really sure why nobody took action while the issue was fresh. That being said, the edit warring has ceased, at least for now, so no action is necessary at this time, and I am closing this thread with the following admonishments:

• @Earl King Jr.: You were edit warring on each of the three articles linked at the top of this report. There's no doubt about that, and your reasons don't matter. Edit warring is unacceptable regardless of who's right or wrong, whether or not you think one or more editors have an agenda, or regardless of any other excuse you might come up with. If your tendentious editing continues, I would not be surprised to see someone file a report at ANI next time and ask for a topic ban.

• @Somedifferentstuff: Please remember that BRD isn't a policy, it's a suggestion for one way to deal with editing conflicts. Editors are not required to follow BRD, so I advise against using someone's "disregard for BRD" as an argument in a discussion. Editors are required to avoid edit warring, however, so the intent of your report was correct.

• @Nagualdesign and AndyTheGrump: In the spirit of civility, please try to avoid describing other user's contributions or comments as "bullshit". It is by nature an inflammatory term, and is never useful for actually calming a dispute. I'm not trying to say everything has to be sunshine and rainbows all the time, but before you hit "save page", please try considering how you'd react if someone described your contributions the way you're describing others'.

I suggest, if this dispute continues, that it be taken to ANI for discussion of topic bans, or to other forms of dispute resolution, or request page protection instead of edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page:

• Nagarjuna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Samkhya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Adi Shankara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Nagarjuna

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

• Samkhya

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

• Adi Shankara

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notification

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

Comments:

• Stale - report was valid at the time but this is now 3 days old. Please re-report as necessary. —Darkwind (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Nickki praize (Musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ikonmc (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

1. 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Nickki praize (musician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User keeps recreating the same page after it has been deleted several times (see talk page) Gparyani (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the article recreation seems to have stopped, this account has 28 edits, all of which have been deleted, and presumably concern the article in question. A quick glance shows three deletes under this title and one here. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the reason why he stopped is because I gave him lots of warnings (4im and then 4) Gparyani (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• No violation: Repeated page re-creation is not edit warring per se. If this happens again, you can request the page be salted, or report as vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qwaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]

Comments:
As you can see, Qwaider was invited on two occasions to join any of the seven talk page discussions about this material but declined ("This isn't worthy of discussion"!), racking up five reverts in as many hours. This material has been repeatedly attacked by a long stream of apparent sockpuppets/meatpuppets; it was deleted three times by Older Sam, and challenged on the talk page by Eng.eslam87, Amal_Mosad, IP 86.97.0.130, IP 176.225.18.2, User:بلال الدويك, IP 76.185.173.125, and IP 94.129.52.24. All are brand-new accounts whose first and only edits are about this highly controversial topic, except for Qwaider and بلال الدويك, who are very possibly alternative accounts operated by the same person (بلال الدويك boasts of living in Jordan, while Qwaider's earliest edits were to Jordan; Qwaider has returned to Wikipedia after many years for the sole purpose of edit warring on this topic).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Response:
From Qwaider: I'm not sure how this works or if I can have a say in this issue. But I would like to make it clear that this person "The timesAreAChanging" have reverted the changes often times without providing cause. He insists on including anecdotal inflammatory unsubstantiated content. He has continuously refused requests to breakdown and cleanup the events in the table. He relied on one source that was disputed over and over including other pages on wikipedia. He also rejected changes from many other editors, without providing any reasonable cause.
On the other hand he accuses people of being alternative accounts with no proof, and bullies/threatens of blocking in the case he doesn't have his way.
This is the absolute opposite of the open communications that we need to have. He has not even once presented any alternative choice and have continually badgered other editors no matter he is told. From all my comments on the change he took "This is not worth discussing", which relate to the unsubstantiated anecdotal. I humbly request to have this page be reverted to the right content, and a protection be imposed. Any additional information requires verification of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwaider (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I find this diff to be downright fascinating. It says that in a week with 48 edits, the only change that's managed to stick was adding a "vandalism" template by an admin. (Apparently nobody can agree to anything else.) In any case, regardless of who's right or wrong, it's blindingly obvious that:

1. Nothing is getting done to improve Wikipedia,
2. editors are spending a lot of energy on this nothing, and
3. the current approach of reverting and re-reverting just isn't working.

I'm encouraged by the fact that there are no less than six sections on the talk page dealing with this (a seventh, indirectly, as it is an edit warring notice), so I really want to tell everybody to calm down, maybe take a break, get some tea, and try to talk it out. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not a fair characterization of what's happening. This article is under a sustained, specifically focused, attack from an outside source which has galvanized people to come here and remove reliably source information they find what has been generally described as "offensive to Islam". The deletions are accompanied by a angry entries on the talk page a a few additions to the help desk The source seems to be an Arab language blog or other website as nearly all the single purpose accounts originate in Arab-speaking countries, with a college (Texas A&M) town in Texas and Malaysia being the exception. The Texas IP seems to belong to someone who utilizes English as a second language. Almost all of the edits you've mentioned has been reversions of these attacks by long established editors. This is not an edit war or a generally contentious article, it's outside canvassing of single purpose meatpuppet accounts to vandalize and censor an article. These established editors need help, not patronizing links to wiki essays. GraniteSand (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that we're dealing with established editors or sockpuppets? It sounds like you need to assume good faith. Saying that it is being reverted because it is "offensive to Islam" when I cannot find this language anywhere is tantamount to accusing the editor of being a radical. On the other hand, you say "established editors need help" — sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

In any case, the purpose of this board is to call attention to active edit wars, and to deal with them appropriately. Banning or blocking a user should always be a last resort, as it is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Has a block been earned here? Definitely. Will it be given? I don't know. If the user in question decides to quit the edit-warring behavior and contribute on the talk page, then there's a good chance the answer is no. The appropriate way to deal with it depends greatly on the situation. If an editor can be brought around, then why not try it?

Also worth noting is that the version that GraniteSand is looking for is in fact the version that currently exists on the page. I'd say that a revert against consensus will probably be the litmus test as to whether a block is given or not. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

From Qwaider: Good advice. Getting my Jasmine green tea, and Organic Honey, and will update the talk pages when I have details. Qwaider — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We also need a automatic temporary 3RR block for Qwaider as evidenced by the diffs provided by TimesAreAChanging. GraniteSand (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We need block for TimesAreAChanging for cyber bullying and threatening others. He also have reverted the same article many many times and we have reasons to believe that he will continue to do this. He is probably friends with GraniteSand and insists on spreading wrong and misleading information GraniteSand (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwaider (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You're liable for a block for violating the WP:3RR rule. It would behoove you to read the rule. Several experienced editors have reached out to you to engage and help explain things to you. You've declined up to this point and now you're put yourself in a position where you've qualified for temporary block. GraniteSand (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's clear that TimesAreAChanging and GraniteSand are a tag team performing the same type of changes to the same page so they can get around the WP:3RR rule, they are engaged in edit war. There have been more than 10 people requesting this change which means the insisting 2 editors are forcing everyone into their form of consensus. They are forcing an unsubstantiated source onto everyone. This has been rejected by about 10 editors already and yet they keep this game.

I would like this addition to be removed and the page be protected. The content they provide is inaccurate, highly controversial, and unsubstantiated by any scientific source. It promotes hatred and intolerance by promoting lies and anecdotes.

On several occasions, they reverted the content more than 3 times, either without providing cause, or after threatening with banning users "Further edit warring will likely result in ANI intervention and sanctions." I'm not sure who appointed these people Wikipedia police? If I find their content being misrepresented I have the right to point that out. And I did.

My criticism is more than one issue, first, this information is far from accurate, second it spans 5 centuries and not a single event or a single war. Finally some of the events rolled into this entry are already mentioned in the same table.

Admins, please do not allow such practices to ruin this great platform. I have asked only to have the numbers CLEARED and BROKEN DOWN to the actual events that happened. Not lump everything under 5 centuries of events between many nations! In all events a specific event is mentioned, unlike this case.

Dear admins, this is a campaign by islamophobes and they're trying to tarnish the name of Muslims by blaming them for these casualties instead of blaming specific incidents that caused that problem. Not even a single sect of Islam is being blamed, but all of the Muslims and this is unfair and flat out racism.

Kind Regards

Qwaider (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy — majority rule doesn't count for anything here. What should be moving us is the quality of argument.

In reading through this entire piece of prose, I see only one argument here: that a five-century-long campaign ought to be broken out into its constituent parts, as there was not a single campaign running steadily through all those five centuries. It is an incontrovertible fact that this is by far the longest event listed on this page (the runner-up, at 196 years, is the Crusades).

You should focus your efforts on proving one of two points:

1. The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent is a bad article title, is too long of a conflict, and should not be included in the list of deadliest human disasters.
2. The number is inaccurate, and an alternative number is ???????. Alternately, you could argue that the number is inaccurate, and cite sources that take issue with the 80 million number.

If one of those can be argued successfully, you might succeed in building the consensus you seek.

Going on about "campaigns by Islamophobes," "ruining this great platform," "more than 10 people requesting this change," and the like will not help your case. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Qwaider's summary of events strikes me as rather surreal; I have seldom seen so self-righteous an edit warrior! I was one of three editors who reverted him, but I did not add the material in question, and my so-called "cyber-bullying" consists entirely of the following warning: "Please adhere to WP:BRD. Further edit warring will likely result in ANI intervention and sanctions." (I clearly wasn't blowing smoke, and it's impossible to argue that there has been no 3RR violation.) I have never interacted with GraniteSand before in my life, and Qwaider is one to talk considering the numerous brand-new accounts repeating his arguments. In fact, it's rather difficult for me to believe that all of these single-purpose accounts with Middle Eastern origins who openly seek to combat "Islamophobia" are acting in good faith.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe too, but I'm trying not to take sides here. I am certainly not arguing that there has been no violation. I provided Qwaider with steps to advance his cause within the bounds of the wiki. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jsharpminor for not taking any sides here. I would like to touch on the fact that the numbers have been inflated and cited from an unreliable source. The problem is clear that we don't have any level of accuracy with absolutely no statistics, the cited work commits a grave extrapolation statistical mistakes and I am in the process of obtaining it and writing a full thesis on it. In the mean time. As mentioned earlier:

# This is really a long period of human history, with no records and

# there are 2 items in the same table that are part of this 500 year history. These items are: Item 3, Mongol Conquests 1206-1368 and item "Conquests of Timur-e-Lang".

What I am seeing is extremely zealot editors engaging in edit war, that I unknowingly, and unwillingly engaged in trying to state the facts that we don't have any reliable source for this information. It's not serving the truth or knowledge.

This is not a single purpose account, I use wikipedia all the time, I just don't edit that much. I do have a day job and don't have too much time to edit as much as I like. And I detest this continuous line of accusations. This has been mentioned several times. One time I am someone else, another time I was called what "edit sock??" or something like that? I don't know what you people feel but this isn't something that I enjoy being called.

I'm perplexed to compare last centuries statistics compare to 10th century statistics and come with only 20 million error margin, while we can't do the same for WWII which has values ranging 45 million. The audacity of such a claim is beyond anything preposterous I've ever seen!

And how come suddenly GraniteSand came here to "demand" a block for another user? Isn't this a clear case of collaboration? Anyway, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything I can't prove. All I know is that I am reading some inaccurate information on this page and I would like it to be corrected scientifically with real tangible facts, not anecdotes.

Once again, thank you J#minor for being neutral on this. Qwaider (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days. I bumped up the protection to "full protection" because this is a clear content dispute involving (auto)confirmed editors. The entire first page of history represents exactly 0 bytes of productive editing - in 53 revisions by 26 users, no net change was made to the article except tagging with a protection template. With an article history like that, I am not going to declare that any one particular person is at fault -- but I admonish everyone to remember the edit warring policy as well as the three-revert rule to avoid further disruption. Please seek dispute resolution if the talk page discussions are not fruitful. —Darkwind (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Autism Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) to 06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to"
   2. 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
   3. 05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
   4. 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
   5. 06:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Updated reference to ARI supporting ABA"
   6. 06:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ This is a research funding organization, not a medical organization - updated "medical citations" required throughout"
   7. 06:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ removed extra "arrow" in text"
   8. 06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ fixed Quackwatch reference - was a broken link"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Autism Research Institute. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Concerns about criticisms */ r"
2. 08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Gross violations of WP:MEDRS, lack of WP:RS */ new section"

Comments:

Note misleading edit summaries. Note changes to references gave them titles that were not accurate. This editor filed a notice at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and proceeded to revert multiple instances of multiple editors work without waiting for resolution or any consensus building. For a detailed explanation of the problems with the article justifying the tags see the talk page. There has been ongoing discussion, this editor made one comment and then proceeded to make multiple reverts. MrBill3 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 initiated the reverts earlier in the day without explanation and reverted to content that was out-of-date and inaccurate. For example: the organization ended its conference two years ago - which was noted earlier in the Talk - but MrBill3 edited this back in. The organization also sponsored research with INSAR at one time, but it was noted that content was out-of-date as well - but MrBill3 reverted that back in too. He arbitrarily reverted back to a version of the page with outdated references that were discussed in the talk without explanation and will not accept changes from others. Neuroresearch (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears this article needs to be recast to frame the information around the organization's role as a non-profit that is funding autism research and omit out-of-date information. I am working on a draft based on the original that cites third-party sources. Neuroresearch (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize if MrBill3 felt the summaries were misleading - that wasn't the intention. It didn't make sense that edits that had been addressed previously in the Talk were being disregarded when he reverted.Neuroresearch (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked for sock puppetry. —Darkwind (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

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

Comments:

Articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed are subject to a one-revert restriction. See WP:ARBPIA#Further restrictions. Uishaki was alerted to the sanctions.[57] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked - the last revert was well over 24 hours ago, and there is no longer a plausible threat of disruption. However, additional (separate) sanctions may be necessary pursuant to ARBPIA, and I will handle that directly on the editor's talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) to 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "false information based on boulevard press, irrelevant for the company"
   2. 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "Too much information which is irrelevant for the company and concern the chairman personally"
3. 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) to 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Asmallworld. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Many other editors also gave warnings. Tried to resolve on user talk page Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked by Ymblanter (t c). —Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor:Moxy is edit warring on three separate edit pages simultaneously (Putin, Russia, Ukraine), and has published a personal attack against this editor referring to me as child and inferring that he/she is the only "adult" editor on my Talk page. The edit warring by Moxy is further wallpapering false statements about "cut-and-paste", which has nothing to do with my edits which contain a fully researched quotation presented with full citation and URL given from mainstream news sources such as the NYTimes and The Wall Street Journal. Wikipolicy on "Valid usage" and "Fair usage" is explicit on this matter. These are the diffs for the edit warring on "Vladimir Putin":

(cur | prev) 20:58, 7 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (194,063 bytes) (-1,432)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job - Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. - this is not hard to understand) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:52, 7 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (195,495 bytes) (+1,432)‎ . . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Add recent report in NYTimes of Putin attempt at de-escalation after Crimea military build-up. Add cite and url.) (undo)

These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on "Ukraine" page:

(cur | prev) 20:44, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (247,691 bytes) (-625)‎ . . (WP:NOTHERE - editor has been told to join the conversations - but yet still edits this copy and paste job !!) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

(cur | prev) 20:27, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,316 bytes) (+625)‎ . . (→‎Russian intervention in Ukraine: Adding update and cite of status of 2014 International Geneva Pact. The International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the direction and progress of events in the region.) (undo) [automatically accepted]

These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on "Russia" page:

(cur | prev) 20:47, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (201,538 bytes) (-1,523)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job again.. Did you even read your tlak page messages?) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 20:35, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,061 bytes) (+1,523)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact: Agreement with PhilKn on condensed version, and the International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the progress of events in the region. Add cite.) (undo)

The edit warring by User:Moxy must be halted and the personal attacks must be retracted. FelixRosch (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Posted directly on Talk page for User:Moxy on my account name.

Comments:

Attempt to request that User:Moxy stop edit warring and retract personal attack has been ignored. User:Moxy has now resorted to starting a whispering campaign on various Talk pages to foment further edit warring behavior against this editor (e.g., User:Irina and User:Malick, after being requested to stop edit warring on 3 wikipages simultaneously.) FelixRosch (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So lets look at the real story here - as in this editor has not replied to one of my posts. FelixRosch has been adding editorial quotes (copy and paste) of news article on multiple pages and has been reverted by multiple editors. He has been asked to engage in the talk page conversation to no real avail - until today after implementing the text again . There are concerns raised about the edits that is begin ignored like WP:BROADCONCEPT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:QUOTEFARM. As I have said to Malik Shabazz " I do blame myself for this - as my approach to him was heavy handed of the bat - a personal thing I have with copy and pasting that gets me upset. All we need is Felix to talk this out with the others over editing .....even if they revert him today again - how can we make this clear? I wont be reverting any more but I am afraid the others will and thus we will just be going in a edit war circle again. I have joined the conversation he started here and was wondering if a RfC would be a good idea - as we need some outsiders looking at all this."

• Russia:-FelixRosch edits that have been reverted by 5 editors two times by me (Moxy).
• Putin:-FelixRosch edits - that have been reverted by 2 editors two times by me and saw the removal of QUOTEFARM tag with an summary saying "Repair Quotefarm problem..." - however nothing was fixed in that regard.
• Ukraine:-FelixRosch edits that have been reverted by 3 editors 1 time by me (Moxy).

Example addition below -

On 7 May 2014, The New York Times reported: "Putin Announces Pullback from Ukraine Border" after discussions with Switzerland's Dieter Burkhalter in an attempt to de-escalate mounting tensions of Russian troop massing on the border of southeast Ukraine during and following the Crimean intervention.[120] Putin stated, "We were told constantly about concerns over our troops near the Ukrainian border... We have pulled them back. Today they are not at the Ukrainian border but in places of regular exercises, at training grounds." Putin added that in regard to pro-Russian forces acting within Ukrainian borders and in an appeal "to representatives of southeast Ukraine and supporters of federalization to hold off the referendum scheduled for May 11, in order to give this dialogue the conditions it needs to have a chance."[121] In a reference to the scheduled 25 May 2014 presidential elections in Ukraine, Putin added: "Let me stress that the presidential election the Kiev authorities plan to hold is a step in the right direction, but it will not solve anything unless all of Ukraine's people first understand how their rights will be guaranteed once the election has taken place."

-- Moxy (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. When providing diffs, you actually need to right click the "diff" or "prev" link and copy the URL. Don't just highlight and copy the entire line from history, because there's nothing leading to the actual edit when you do that. —Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Dinosaur Train (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

CharlieBrown25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]
7. [64]
8. [65]
9. [66]
10. [67]
11. [68]
12. [69]
13. [70]
14. [71]
15. [72]
16. 04:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Mz7 suggested using milder wording. Thanks Mz7, I think you may have come up with the solution :-) !"
17. 04:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Oh gosh, come on, what's wrong with THIS now?"
18. 04:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Look, this version says it isn't definate, but possible. Can you please explain what's wrong with that?"
19. 05:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Look, please don't block me, I've waited for a talk page response, and no one's saying anything. And this isn't the same thing I've said before."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [73]
2. 04:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */ c"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot */ c"
2. 05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot */ c"

See also Talk:Dinosaur_Train#Shiny.5CGilbert_Romance_Plot, User_talk:FilmandTVFan28#Peaceful_Request

Comments:

Stale. This report was valid at the time, and 3RR was definitely broken, but the last revert was over 24 hours ago and the page is now protected. There's no current threat of further disruption, so no block has been issued. —Darkwind (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Florida Atlantic University High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608128133 by AbigailAbernathy (talk)"
2. 22:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608126638 by AbigailAbernathy (talk)"
3. 21:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608124617 by 2Flows (talk)"
4. 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608124141 by 2Flows (talk)"
5. 21:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608123120 by 2Flows (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Florida Atlantic University High School. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Just got the following post on my talk page, which indicates the user intends to engage in an edit war through VPN IP addresses to get his vandalism in the article: User_talk:2Flows#yeah so.... 2Flows (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 2Flows. Sorry to butt in, but I've requested that the High School's page be protected because of his vandalism (just in case the threat was real).--A Wild Abigail Appears! _{Capture me. Moves.} 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AbigailAbernathy, I see the page is now protected, so hopefully the IP editor will stop with their disruptive editing. 2Flows (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked for vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Sukhoi PAK FA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608162779 by SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk)"
2. 03:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608165463 by Winkelvi (talk)"
3. 03:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608166363 by Winkelvi (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sukhoi PAK FA. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Seems like a possible vandalism-only or agenda-only account. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Now this guy is making uncited changes too. Seems like he got too carried away with reading APA. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Darkwind (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: Version as of 18:03, 11 May 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff- Revision as of 21:37, 11 May 2014
2. diff - Revision as of 21:39, 11 May 2014
3. diff - Revision as of 21:42, 11 May 2014
4. diff - Revision as of 21:44, 11 May 2014
5. diff - Revision as of 21:48, 11 May 2014
6. diff - Revision as of 21:57, 11 May 2014
7. diff - Revision as of 22:01, 11 May 2014
8. diff - Revision as of 22:11, 11 May 2014
9. diff - Revision as of 22:13, 11 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
Conflict of interest diff. Attacks diff, diff. Not sure what this is supposed to be diff but the edit summary makes COI clear. MrBill3 (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.228.216.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]

Comments:
User has been edit warring using several different IPs:

• 198.228.216.17
• 198.228.216.24
• 198.228.216.35
• 198.228.216.45
• 198.228.216.28

User made changes information to inaccurate information. The original information had remained unchanged since 2011. User refuses to use the Talk page before making changes. I have submitted a request to protect the article temporarily [83].

Comment - Kentronhayastan, it looks like you've done your share of reverts as well.... Jsharpminor (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember breaking the 3RR rule, but I guess there was one too many reverts there. However, I did constantly invite the user to the Talk page and I did stop reverting. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since those reverts aren't all within 24 hours, you technically didn't violate 3RR. In any case, the object here is to bring both parties to the talk page to start the discussion. I don't know yet what's going on; I'll look at it. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I tried to bring him/her to the talk page; no result (s/he kept reverting). The worst part is that the page is now protected and can only be edited by administrators (even though I put the request for semi-protection), and the last edit that was kept was his/hers.Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected by another admin. After analyzing the article history, it appears that Kentronhayastan (t c)'s change was what that the IP address editor saw as undesirable and reverted, so the "stable" version Ymblanter (t c) protected was the version prior to that change. I agree with that decision. @Kentronhayastan and 198.228.216.17: you were both edit warring here. I am not blocking either of you because the disruption has ceased, and blocks are not punitive, but I admonish you both to remember the edit warring policy and I suggest the "bold, revert, discuss" cycle as a means to avoid future edit wars. —Darkwind (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Darkwind Actually I was reverting an edit made by the IP [84] and the following edit [85], which I would have reverted immediately when it happened had I been watching the article, because the information is not consistent with the rest of the article. The information the IP changed was discussed and accepted since 2011. The article is about the Kingdom of Armenia, so including the dates of its predecessor (Satrapy of Armenia) and a capital two predecessors (Urartu) ago is illogical (like I said earlier, it's like including the dates of the Roman Republic in the Romen Empire article). I did not break the 3RR, but the IP did, and I continuously invited the IP to discuss it on the Talk page with no success, yet the IP's misleading information is remaining in place. (I invite you to read the sources I have stated, including from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Iranica in the talk page of the article). Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Master of ravens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) to 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
   2. 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Interpretations of Genesis */"
2. 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
3. 22:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608128593 by Editor2020 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Added knew info that states the areas of the book of genesis that old earth creationists believe can be interpreted metaphoricly"
   2. 21:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
5. 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */ For the 100000 time I am trying to make Wikipedia fair by not showing some one elses view as fact. But atheist keep changing back. please help so this site can become a better place."
6. 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
7. 21:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
8. 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) ""
9. 01:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:33, 11 May 2014
2. 21:29, 11 May 2014
3. 02:05, 11 May 2014
4. 01:43, 11 May 2014

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Ronhjones Jsharpminor (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Party of Slovenian People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 93.103.69.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jazbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:08, 3 May 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

As anon:

1. 14:08, 3 May 2014
2. 14:10, 3 May 2014
3. 10:33, 6 May 2014
4. 03:17, 7 May 2014
5. 03:23, 7 May 2014
6. 07:31, 7 May 2014
7. 10:50, 8 May 2014
8. 10:12, 11 May 2014
9. 08:45, 12 May 2014
10. 16:16, 12 May 2014

As User:Jazbar

1. 14:19, 3 May 2014
2. 10:44, 4 May 2014
3. 16:10, 6 May 2014
4. 03:38, 7 May 2014
5. 03:47, 7 May 2014
6. 04:04, 7 May 2014
7. 02:10, 8 May 2014
8. 16:09, 8 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• to Jazbar:

1. 02:54, 8 May 2014
2. 04:16, 7 May 2014
3. 03:50, 7 May 2014

• to anon:

1. 14:13, 3 May 2014
2. 03:20, 7 May 2014
3. 03:25, 7 May 2014
4. 18:36, 12 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:
Low-intensity edit-warring, not sure if there was a breach of 3RR strictly speaking, but there are more than enough reverts for the situation to be clear. I strongly suspect this is the same user, reverting alternatively as logged-in and non-logged-in (same pattern). User Jazbar responded to my attempt of resolving the dispute at Talk:Party of Slovenian People, but gave no arguments, just vague accusations of bias. Note that he has also threatened me and generally behaved uncivilly, which I reported at WP:AN/I, but my report was overlooked (see [87]). — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked - both IP and registered editor have been blocked for 3 days. Length of block is due to slow pace of edit war. —Darkwind (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04 May edit (but this had happened intermittently since February 2014)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:44, 12 May 2014
2. 21:10, 12 May 2014
3. 21:13, 12 May 2014
4. 00:26, 13 May 2014 (This one is slightly different, but still a revert to his version. At this point, rather than running afoul of 3RR myself (I hope), instead of reverting the content I simply restored the {{Unreferenced section}} tag (00:04, 13 May 2014), which had been in place since Feb. 2013. But Gembres reverted this, as well)

This is just in the past 24 hours; the reverts have been occurring since around the beginning of the month. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Amhara people#Notable Amhara people 02 May, 12 May although I have attempted to maintain a discussion on that page with this user since February 2014. User:Dougweller, at my request, weighed in as well (06 May).

Comments:
I had tagged this article back in February 2013 for reasons I've laid out at Talk:Amhara people#Notable Amhara people. Gembres believes I am singling out this article due to ethnic bias, but I have explained why I have specific issues with this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Edward Guiliano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608314588 by Neonorange (talk) excuse me? Kndimov agreed with me that GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet"
2. 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608313613 by ClueBot NG (talk) again Kndimov agreed with me. GB Fan is a banned sock"
3. 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "kndimov agreed to take back his edits, see his talk page"
4. 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet. See Loriendrew's comment on GB Fan's talkpage"
5. 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "reverting vandalism and editwarring by GB fan"
6. 01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608310236 by GB fan (talk) not reliable source, NYT is a reliable source"
7. Consecutive edits made from 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608308072 by GB fan (talk) non notable"
   2. 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "delete"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Edward Guiliano. (TW)"
2. 02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
3. 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

We are having dscussion at WP:ANI. Matter is settled now. No editwarring going on for a while now. This is totally unwarrented.--Paeancrime (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Declined. This report may or may not have substance, but a thread is already open at WP:ANI regarding the dispute between these two users over this article. Posting here strikes me as forum shopping, and I am declining this report accordingly as redundant. Let it play out at ANI. —Darkwind (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: each thread was opened by a different user, so it's not forum shopping per se, but it's still redundant. —Darkwind (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The report clearly does have substance, and nothing much seems to be happening at the ANI thread so far. I'm reopening this one, and I've blocked for 31 hours for 7RR vio; more may be added over the issues at ANI. Note that while the edit warring warning listed here came too late, after the edit warring, there was also a timely one here. I hope the bot won't have a nervous breakdown over the two templates, but I didn't like to tamper with Darkwind's post. I'll make a note on ANI. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Page

Nordic race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 13:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 12:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Using multiple accounts */ new section"
2. 17:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nordic race. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

He's ignored messages at his talk page so didn't bother to do this. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Continued edit warring, changing images and removing maintenance templates since May 9th, at one point after being warned created a sock to do it. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not sure they've found their talkpage, as the sock was created before the warnings. (Possibly by mistake, even? It's an easy typo to make.) But hopefully a block will help them find it, and it's pretty much the only thing left to try. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

Page

Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Relationships */ where she lives isn't exactly vital information people need." (1 set of reverts)
2. 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 608221102 by Rusted AutoParts: The problem here is, though the source says she "lives" there, Johansson has said in numerous interviews she "spends time there". . (TW)"
3. 18:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Not really needed in the infobox." (2nd different set of reverts)
4. 20:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "It's a useful parameter for politicians and such. For an actor, its not immediately important to know where they live. As long as its in the article body, an infobox addition isn't necessary. If you feel different, please take to the talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

00:34, 3 April 2012 (See also block log

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Why are people so swift to interpret this as an edit war? It's baffling, as both are two sets of different edits not in combative form. First two were removing the info from the article completely. Other two are from the infobox. Why I'm being reported is understandable, I have a history, but in this context, in no way am I engaging in a war. They are two separate edits of different contexts, failing WP:3RR. I personally feel this is a jab considering we were on different ends on the spectrum on a previous debate. I must make clear that in no way I went in here with a malicious intent, and ask that this be dies acknowledged so a discussion at the relevant talk page can unfold. Rusted AutoParts 21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the language of WP:3RR specifically says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." That said, I have no inclination to block anyone if there aren't going to be any more reverts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Theres a discussion going on as we speak. No one has reverted since the discussion began, and can assure no more will occur. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: A diff of edit warring is supposed to indicate that you've warned the editor in question recently about this edit war. A warning from two years ago seems a little out of place here. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think at this stage, it is safe to assume RAP is aware of WP:3RR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Rusted AutoParts: I just noticed that your previous 6 month edit warring block was undone in February when you agreed to a 1RR restriction; which you've violated twice now on this article alone. Something you didn't mention when you tried to parse the meaning of a 3RR restriction. Did you forget about that promise? What possible reason can there be for not re-imposing the 6 month edit warring block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't forget. I've prided myself with avoiding any edit war, seemingly up until now. Those incidents were because I got hotheaded. Here, it was a blunder on my part as I forgot to go to the talk page. But I swear, I am engaging in that discussion and this is just an isolated incident. I'm not the world's most perfect person, but I do my best to do what's right. Looking at the issue, I was in the wrong, I acknowledge that and apologize. I look back on my blocks and shake my head, wondering why I was so dumb. Then again, when I started on Wikipedia in 2010, I was 15. I was young, cocky, naive. It's 2014. I'm gonna be 20 soon, and maturing. I have my growing pains, but I take them as learning experiences and try and discipline myself to prevent any further incidents. I got slipped up a bit here. Rusted AutoParts 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a feeling if some of the admins involved in that February unblock discussion on your talk page saw this, they would re-impose the 6 month block. If they did, it would be nearly impossible to argue with them. However, because (a) I'm just an old softie, (b) I suppose perfection is an unreasonable expectation, (c) it's such a shame to block an otherwise good faith editor for 6 months even when they're frequently stumbling into trouble, and (d) my instinct is that you actually are trying to change, it ain't going to be me doing the blocking. Please consider limiting yourself to 0RR except for vandalism; just discuss all good faith disputes rather than revert even once. That's a really strong suggestion, not a requirement, but being scrupulous about 1RR is a requirement. You're on life number 8.99; it's only because I'm rounding down that your 9 lives aren't up. Please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I swear if I do it again, I won't even argue for another chance. I'll just walk away. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 4.5 months considering previous behavior and warnings. See my full rationale here. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: The Beatles discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Discographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: The Beatles discography: Revision history

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

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

Comments:

• Comment@User:Lukejordan02: As much as at first glance, your entire series of edits appears positive, and that I can understand your frustration at having that work reverted, you have of course read WP:BRD, which applies regardless of whether or not you think the talkpage has gone quiet, and that forcing someone to break WP:3RR (especially via your comments in the edit-summary) is considered inappropriate, and can lead to a block in and of itself? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you spend a few minutes reviewing Lukejordan02's edits, you will note that he makes massive content and style changes to discographies without edit summary, discussion, or collaboration. If anyone reverts him, he immediately reverts again and will engage in edit wars at the drop of a hat. Take a look at this talk page; his response to people who attempt to engage him in conversation is to simply blank the page. I would reject this report as being malformed for a start, but his behavior really needs to be addressed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.164.250.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:33, 13 May 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:57, 13 May 2014
2. 16:58, 13 May 2014
3. 17:00, 13 May 2014
4. 17:03, 13 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:00, 13 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are existing discussions at Talk:Russell_Targ#Assert_mainstream_scientific_consensus, Talk:Russell_Targ#Misconceived_difference, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Russell_Targ--Remote_viewing_is_not_Pseudoscience._Change_it_now_please, and Wikipedia:Help_desk#My_23_years_of_research_at_Stanford_Research_Institute_has_suddenly_been_defamed_and_libeled_on_my_bio_page. The article subject has been trying to censor the page, and the IP has to be either a sock or meat puppet since he's been citing Targ's spam. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Another user has pasted this same spam to the talk page diff. Has this risen to the level of WP:MEAT? There is clearly disruptive editing in matching and coordinated form going on. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For now, I can force myself to assume he's just a sympathizer, as that user is more concerned with the article on himself. He could actually be a friend of Targ's, though. At any rate, I believe that Targ is not here to build an encyclopedia, but promote himself and whitewash what the scientific community thinks of his work. I'd honestly not have a problem if they were blocked until they agree to a topic ban on themselves and their work (beyond suggestions on talk pages that may be removed by any editor who feels they are being tendentious). This is not the venue for that, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a case of WP:MEAT. As mentioned in the past already - Targ has been requesting from his paranormal friends on Facebook (and forums) to edit his Wikipedia article [89]. Considering the IP is now copying and spamming Targ's own words it is most likely a friend of Targ. Targ in his own words has written "I am prepared to take all necessary measures public, Internet or private to discover a path to redressing this libel". Goblin Face (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'm convinced this needs to go to ANI now. Would y'all mind coming over? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take it to ANI if it continues or you'd like to, but I'm about to look over what occurred here and take care of any problems I see. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's already at ANI and probably belongs there, but I've blocked the original IP along with Targ's account, extended the protection, and cautioned Brian. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: There is a discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard as well. Jsharpminor (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Egyptian445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608395709 by AntanO (talk)"
2. 15:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608394940 by AntanO (talk) see article talkpage"
3. 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608393095 by AntanO (talk)"
4. 15:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608391626 by AntanO (talk) see your talkpage and rv unexplained revert"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Using talk page as forum. (TW)"
2. 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Egyptian445 (talk) to last version by AntanO"
3. 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Microsoft. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is not supportive and revert edit before issue solved, and blanking his/her talk page Anton^Talk 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

you have reverted just as many times as i did Egyptian445 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

and you also reverted me on my talkpage Egyptian445 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I inform you to discuss at talk and solve the issue before revert. It's the Wiki norm, and you were not supportive. I did not revert your user talk page "several time" except once. User talk page uses for discuss not blanking. --Anton^Talk 15:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Am a sock puppet of user User:Chaosname who ususes the same swedish ip does the same edits about germanic swedes, english and afrikaners etc, and also did a edit on nazi germany which i did earlier as an older sock puppet Egyptian445 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC),

i also live in sweden if somones wondering Egyptian445 (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 12 hours. Both users violated 3RR within a very short space of time. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

• Block evasion IP 95.199.205.195 seems to be the same editor evading their block - see the senseless repeated edit done at Communist Party of the Soviet Union. I have already reverted twice so I cannot continue due to the 3RR rule. On one of my reverts I unfortunately left a rather rude edit summary out of frustration - sorry. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

i stoped doing that 95.199.205.195 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... How long does it take for someone with the necessary authority to actually take action here? This IP is continuing their disruptive and argumentative behavior. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Up to 24 hrs. Besides, this board does not deal with "disruptive" (unless it's 3RR) or argumentative behaviour the panda ₯’ 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: [[<Oathkeeper]] 
User being reported: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several attempts in article discussion. The disagreement is currently part of a DRN, but the user is still trying to force a preferred version.

User is engaged in edit-war with two other editors:
Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

User Jack Sebastian reverted content on the grounds that it was unsourced. Edit summaries refer to the specific secondary source containing the content—listed in a reference tag the whole time—and grow increasingly specific. The content is also supported by a primary source, which is also cited. And it's three other editors, Jack. Who did you forget to count? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that is not an exception to the Three-Revert Rule. The editors I counted were you, DQ and myself. I did not count DM, as he is involved in another article. Right now, we are focusing on your violation of the 3RR rule. I even gave you the opportunity to self-revert, and you decided to avoid the point yet again. So, we're here, and you violated 3RR. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Filipino people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PacificWarrior101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608588132 by 86.174.240.211 (talk)"
2. 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608586750 by 86.174.240.211 (talk)"
3. 18:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608583074 by 86.174.240.211 (talk)"
4. 18:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Persistant vandalism, I have proof on my talk page."
5. 16:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 15:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608558328 by 86.174.240.211 (talk)"
7. 15:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608550554 by 86.174.240.211 (talk)"
8. 13:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608543898 by G S Palmer (talk)"
9. 13:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page

Filipino people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 15:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 15:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 14:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours: Both PacificWarrior101 and 86.174.240.211|86.174.240.211 have gone well past 3 reverts in the past 24 hours, and have technically had a non-stop edit war for the past 3 days. Other editors have also been involved in reverting in that timeframe, but only these two editors have been at it constantly, and nobody else has come close to violating 3RR. -- Atama頭 21:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Remote viewing */ improving precision: the view that RV is PS is not held by _all_ as existing version implies"
2. 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608357278 by MrBill3 (talk) where there is controversy, a respectable encyclopedia would say 'generally'"
3. Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "including 'pseudoscience' is unnecessary as it is referred to in the article, and more significantly conflicts with WP:NPV"
   2. 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "restored 'generally', as it is untrue to say there is no controversy, as evident in many of the sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */ new section"
2. 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */"
3. 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Improving the lede */ cmt"

Comments:

Note this editor has a COI and continues to edit the article directly rather than propose changes on talk and follow consensus. MrBill3 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment by editor concerned: readers of the above will note that my edits involved straightforward points that should not reasonably have required discussion on the talk page (for example, RV clearly is a controversial area, contrary to what was asserted by the editor that I reverted). Also that I have received praise and encouragement for my editing by editors who obviously think I am doing the right thing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If Brian Josephson is edit warring, so are the other participants: User:MrBill3 and User:Viewmont Viking. Users cannot edit war with themselves, it's a multi-person ordeal. And edit warring in tango with others isn't an exception to the edit warring policy.--v/r - TP 16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis you seem to have also forgotten User:JzG. I saw that there had been an edit war and reverted it back to before the edit war started. Brian Josephson Made a bold edit, he was reverted; that is when he should have gone to the talk page. He continued to edit User:MrBill3 did go to the talk page on the revert. He also has a COI which he has been notified about, and just got off a block for legal threats. Yes it takes more than one to tango, but someone normally leads. VViking_TalkEdits 16:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis if you examine my edit history on the article with some care I think you will find my edits in keeping with policy and supported with discussion on the talk page. I think you will also find my comments on the talk page to be reasonably offered arguments supported with policy. If you take a look at the actions of several other editors I think you will find tendentious, disruptive and non policy based actions often against consensus. Should a report be made at another board or is this the appropriate place for discussion? - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

While all of that is probably true, I doubt I need to double check since I'm not opposing it, none of it is an exemption under the edit warring policy. Correct, sourced, policy-based edits that revert another editors multiple times are still edit warring. In any case, I've fully-protected the article for a day to facilitate discussion because the edit warring has gotten out of hand on this article. See the other report below.--v/r - TP 17:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Being "obviously right" or having "straightforward points" is never an excuse for edit-warring the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Meh. I've encountered him on numeorus pages related to pseudoscience and crank ideas. He is polite, yes he advocates fringe content and edits articles accordingly, but he rarely if ever edit wars and he is not some crazed kid on a mission, he is a Nobel laureate who advocates fringe ideas. He has sufficient self-awareness to recognise that his ideas are often well outside the mainstream, sometimes to the point of being in a different river altogether. My personal view is that he keeps us honest, without overwhelming us with crap. I think that's within the boundaries of OK, though not always and often not by much. I think patient cluefulness is the best approach here.

In short, some people are not worth dealing with, others are sufficiently intelligent and articulate that they benefit the Project even while being mainly wrong. I would far rather ten Brian Josephsons than a single Dana Ullman. The one thing you can say for Josephson, he has intellectual honesty. I do not believe he represents his views as anything other than alternatives to the norm, he seems to me to take criticism in good part. I even like him. He seems pretty calm, has access to the research, and so what if he concludes differently? He seems to accept compromise and consensus which is not flattering to him. I'd invite him to a certain party if I was not sure he'd be busy.

Some folks are fun and instructive to debate and encourage properly robust thinking. I think he is one of this rare breed.

I understand the context of the request, but a few decent editors with no COI are working with Josephson to fix issues without accepting his opinion on them, and he is genuinely co-operating. This is different in character form your typical advocate for refuted ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully understand the constraints under which WP has to operate. I tend to take short cuts when I think logic strongly supports the edits I am making, but this doesn't always work out as I thought it should.
One point -- I don't know how many editors are aware of this -- is that there is an advocacy group dedicated to removing items they consider (from a very entrenched sceptical PoV) incorrect. There is a video on the internet where their leader explains how you can use WP guidelines to achieve this. I should imagine a number of this clique are working here on the various pages I have been involved with. Also there is reason to believe that some people watch over my edits and mindlessly revert these edits automatically. A spectacular case is where I spotted an error in the name of my physics master at school and corrected it, whereupon one of these trolls leapt up claiming this was a CoI, there was no RS for this (this is a classic case of problems with the guidelines -- the only reference to my physics master on the web has the name wrong, so in theory that wrong name is the one that has to appear in the bio. Fortunately in this case common sense prevailed and my correction was allowed to be put back). But to get back to the point, neither exploitation of the rules to support a PoV nor watching over an editor so as to revert whether or not there is good cause would seem to be in accord with WP ethics.
One more point before I close this already too lengthy comment: consensus is in principle fine, but the problem is distortion in the population of editors. By this I mean that many editors seem to have little in the way of the broader understanding needed to produce a good result (those who do tend either to be too busy or to be fed up with what goes on in the WP world so leave) with a consequence that might be described as insufficient wisdom. I'll stop there. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there can be very excessive scrutiny sometimes. An amusing case I remember: this very stern warning was posted on a user's talk page. Why? Because an article about a TV programme the user had directed mistakenly linked to a comedian with the same name. He had removed the link so as to leave his name as plain text.[94] When various people removed the warning from the talk page the scrutineer edit-warred to restore it.[95] Thincat (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Stale This happened 2 days ago, it's been thoughtfully discussed, and I think everyone involved understands the way forward. I don't see anything being gained here from a block, and possibly quite a bit lost. Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Godwin's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608464518 by Wzrd1 (talk)"
2. 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608464801 by Wzrd1 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Godwin's law. (TW)"
2. 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Using improper humor in articles on Godwin's law. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I reverted an inappropriate attempt at humor twice, IP editor reverted his changes to article. I warned IP editor in talk page and in edit comment that AIV would be filed if IP editor persisted. AIV now filed. Wzrd1 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Islam90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 11:46, May 13, 2014‎ UTC

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:06, May 13, 2014 UTC
2. 03:20, May 14, 2014 UTC
3. 09:56, May 14, 2014‎ UTC
4. 11:49, May 14, 2014‎ UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:34, May 14, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:17, May 12, 2014

Comments:

User is constantly adding a very small minority view, with no sources into the page. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

all of this because a minor change on this page , also user Jeff3000 treats others by religious intolerance. to get more information about this article See the talk page of article. --Islam90 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Another policy of Wikipedia is to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]. Please comment about user actions that reasons. The content of Wikipedia is based on policies, and your insertion is breaking WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:V. Regards -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours That's pretty lenient considering the level of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on here, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the obvious language barrier. However, if this behaviour persists, a competence block of longer duration may prove necessary. Yunshui ^雲_水 12:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You blocked him just because he is Muslim? --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

List of Two and a Half Men episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rswallis10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608788688 by Davejohnsan (talk)"
2. 02:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608757605 by Davejohnsan (talk)"
3. 20:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608736655 by AussieLegend (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608645999 by AussieLegend (talk)"
   2. 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608601920 by Davejohnsan (talk)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"
   2. 20:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Series overview */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[96]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page

[97][98][99]

Comments:

Despite multiple attempts by various editors to ask this user to explain his /her edits, he/she has continued edit-warring and remains unresponsive. Davejohnsan (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

They have also been edit warring over at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes with the same style of edits and not communicating at all. Diffs can be provided if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• This editor has been problematic at several articles, but mainly at the two already mentioned. Nineteen of this editor's last 25 edits have been reversions, mostly unexplained. After making 3 unexplained reverts in 6 hours I left a 3RR warning on his talk page, clarifying it with a lengthy explanation of why we don't make the edits that he is making.[100] However, it has clearly been ignored.[101] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours for strange edit-warring across multiple articles the panda ₯’ 10:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Once Upon a Time (season 4) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mmddyy28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]
4. [106] after 3RR warning

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, through summaries by 4 different users.

Comments:

• User is consistently disregarding the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystalball, and is also continuing to be disruptive to other editor's on Wikipedia. Full diffs:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]
5. [112]
6. [113] livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

There could've been a talk page discussion just for show, but yeah, he needs to back off and actually discuss things. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

But this user is clearly only interested in now vandalising and hiding themselves from Wikipedia, to promote their own personal gain. Action must be taken. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What evidence is there of a conflict of interest? He's in the wrong, and failing to get the point, but he doesn't appear to be acting in bad faith. Disruptive behavior isn't always vandalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I never stated there was a conflict of interest; my use of "their own personal gain" is meant as a way of saying they're doing this to prove their point, and constantly removing this discussion. And it is vandalism if it's continually done, even after being warned. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)WP:Disruptive editing is not vandalism. Read WP:NOTVAND. He's being WP:tendentious, especially in trying to hide this report, but his behavior still stems from him trying to put what he thinks (however mistakenly) is the truth on this site despite not knowing how things work around here. As bad an edit as it may be, and as disruptively as he's doing it, it's technically in good faith and not vandalism.

Has anyone sent him a written message (not a template) explaining what he's doing wrong, and explaining why we have those rules? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

None have been sent from today's edit war, but his constant readdition of the episode table from a few days ago was removed by him and no actually answered in anyway, instead he started moaning at me for monitoring pages on my watchlist.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I had a problem with him doing similar things, once another user stepped in he began to remove warnings on his page and despite more warnings to stop and to not personally attack other users(1). If he doesn't get his way he begins to delete messages of other peoples as well as his own talk page, ignores warnings and just generally just tries to annoy the people who are reverting his edits per any wikipedia policy. I also took the opportunity to include my warnings to him, including a link to the edit on his talk page as evidence.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:UP#CMT allows users to remove warnings from their pages. He is being WP:Tendentious, but he's still acting in (a totally ignorant and disruptive) good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

If he is acting in good faith then why won't he relay a valid source like the edit summaries have asked?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Since when are good faith and competence the same thing? I've already said that his behavior is disruptive, heck, I'll risk someone fussing about WP:NPA at me for saying he's been a downright idiot so far, but his actions (from his perspective) are meant to improve the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Why report someone who was acting in good faith, trying to make Wikipedia more accurate? I was simply trying make an edit that I thought was correct, after reading something in the internet, that the show's creators confirmed. "Deleting my own talk page?" That was an accident. I didn't purposely delete that to stop receiving warnings. I tried to get my talk page back, but failed, until ditto51 kindly stepped in and got it back for me. I joined Wikipedia two months ago, and I don't yet understand or know all the rules. Possibly someone could message them to me so I can better understand and follow them in the future. I would also like to thank those who kindly re-reviewed rules, and stuck up for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmddyy28 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Because you're being disruptive and otherwise doing everything wrong. That's why you were reported here instead of WP:AIV. And while I'm trying to argue that you are ignorant of the rules, you're making a really dumb mistake in continuing to remain ignorant of those rules and refusing to listening when other people when they try to explain them. I'm working on a message for you right now that I strongly advise you listen to. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You were reported for violating several Wikipedia policies, one including the edit-warring policy, which was delivered to you at least once or twice, which is more than enough. It has zero to do with how long you've been on the website. Yes, you edits were in good faith, but consistently ignoring notes and talk page discussions, it does not reflect well on your behalf. So instead of edit-warring multiple times, and denying you were doing so, you should've asked about things. We consistently told you your edits were violating the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystalball, etc. and you continued to ignore them. And continually removing the report shows badly and poorly on your part. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

[114] further evidence against him, I think that may be the second or third time he deleted this discussion--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours the panda ₯’ 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "Note differences to address concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamophobia&diff=608547360&oldid=608423108"
2. 14:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC) "I hope this makes it clear."
3. 18:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Please read the reference cited before you revert this."
4. 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "If you read the reference cited, you'll see that Harris cites Cummins with glee, indicating the level of his personal rejection of the idea."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned before last edit.[115] Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Derntno has now "conceded". They made a new, last edit which was mostly copyediting and adding an appropriate source. User is pretty new - april 2014 - so they probably don't fully understand the technicalities in 3rr, but I believe they have ceased edit warring. Iselilja (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Derntno made the last edit but am closing based on your comment and their edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Eternal derby (Romania) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:DLM 1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:57, 14 May 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116] [117] [118]

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

Comments:

Protect this version. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eternal_derby_%28Romania%29&oldid=608565285

Cupa Ligii was a friendly competition. Read this article. http://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/nae-si-onofras-umiliti-de-ciini-in-ghencea-povestea-celei-mai-dure-infringeri-a-stelei-in-fata-lui-dinamo-211247.html

After finishing the 1999-2000 season the Red and White (Dinamo) were crowned champions followed a nature friendly competition: Cupa Ligii.

Mihai Stere, Dinamo player: Mihai Stere recalled for gsp.ro Ghencea memorable game in which even managed to score the first goal: "I remember the match with Steaua. Demoted with Farul and went to Dinamo. Signed with them for 6 months and was first my match. Even if playing in the League Cup, a match between Steaua and Dinamo can never be considered friendly.

Steaua used only player who was in trial (like Daniel Munteanu from Universitatea Cluj, Alin Savu from CSM Resita or Alin Biţiş) at Steaua, they have never signed with Steaua, or signed contracts in future years (Mirel Rădoi next year, and Marius Onofraş in 2010).

These players have never had signed contracts with Steaua, automatically were unable to play in a official competitive match, because they had no license to play for Steaua, and the referee had no way to start the game in this situation.

Sorry for my bad English.

• Page protected (semi) for six months by Casliber.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: New York City Department of Correction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.210.104.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:I wanted to leave a message on this editor's talk page, but I saw a warning there about harassment of other editors and I'd rather not deal with that. I did my homework on the edit when I originally made it. Thanks!

Magnolia677 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

As far as I can tell, User:31.210.104.114 made an edit at 16:36, 15 May 2014‎, which was not a revert, and made a single revert at 16:44, 15 May 2014. So definitely no 3RR violation. Looking further back, there has definitely been disagreement/edit war on this one sentence. However, User:31.210.104.114 has only edited the article one other time which was over six weeks ago. Furthermore, there has been no discussion on the issue on the article talk page and no warnings were ever issued to User:31.210.104.114 on edit warring. Magnolia677, is there more to this situation? What benefit is blocking this specific IP when IP has had only two edits in the last month? Kirin13 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The user made two edits today, and it would have been my second revert, yes. As I said, I saw the warning on that user's talk page about harassing behavior and wanted to avoid that. I'll just revert it again, and add a note to the article's talk page. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this is an IP, we cannot assume it's the same person. Looking at contribs, I don't see a connection between BrayLockBoy ‎and any other pages this IP has edited. This event is also over a month ago. There is also no indication that this IP has ever harassed anyone who undid their edits or who attempted to talk with them. Thus, in good faith, I think we should consider those edits to be by a different person and ignore them in dealing with the current situation. Also, personally, I would be more offended by someone reporting me on AN/EW after I made a single revert and without any sort of talk attempts then if someone created an edit warring warning on my talk page - so if you're worried about being badgering, you're giving them more ammunition. At the moment, I don't think you have a case for getting this IP blocked. Kirin13 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. The IP has only made two reverts as has the reporter. As for the vandalism to BrayLockBoy's user page, I don't know if it's the same person (unusual geolocate), but I'm not going to block an editor for edits made in March.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Party of Slovenian People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jazbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looks like the three-day block for edit-warring was insufficient (see previous AN report), immediately after it expired, the user reverted again, again accompanied by non-arguments and incivility in the edit summary [123] and on the talk page [124]. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Again lies and lies, Hey dude you have issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazbar (talk • contribs) 10:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Serbo-Croatian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperNepoznat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

Note that the revert is not always to the identical diff, but the substance is the same: reinsert the statement to the effect that Serbo-Croatian is a dead language and/or political construction, despite a long-standing consensus Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Informed in edit summary [130]
• Informed by another user [131]
• [132] (last para)

Comments:
Run-of-the-mill Balkan nationalist, probably actionable by WP:ARBMAC as well. No such user (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was about to report this user for the same. Notice also the message they left on the article's talk page. It's a typical case of "I know the truth, why won't anyone believe me?" CodeCat (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:SuperNepoznat, User:Lighthouse01, User:LightWiki91 and User:WikiLite91 are the same person with same behavior. He also vandalizes other language Wikipedia's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.196.247 (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A case for WP:SPI? CodeCat (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Also note that several of these accounts have been used to vote in a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10#Srpsko Sarajevo. CodeCat (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely a WP:DUCK case:

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

Lighthouse01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

LightWiki91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

WikiLite91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks, 78.0.196.247. No such user (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

77.77.240.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the same user. Apparently it is a static IP. 93.139.51.224 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

195.222.56.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. CodeCat (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you submit it to WP:SPI? The sooner we stop this the better... CodeCat (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it will speed up the things, but it's a slow day for admins today. The sockpuppetry is so obvious that I don't doubt the outcome, but there will be a lot of damage to fix afterwards. No such user (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The user just added this here, but then removed it. Presenting it as further evidence. CodeCat (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

You are funny. You can't stop me. ;) --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Clear demonstration of bad faith if I've ever seen one. CodeCat (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• No it's not bad faith. I registered here just to do good things. But then I saw some articles not WP:NEUTRAL and could not resist to change them. But they you people appeared. Bad faithers.--Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Well at least it's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour if you're implying that you're in some kind of struggle against us to keep us from "stopping" you. I'm not an admin so I can't stop you anyhow. But I can report disruptive behaviour and let admins decide. CodeCat (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The user is now edit warring on Bosnian language as well. CodeCat (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• No such user is in battlefield with me hahahahhahaha... Hate both of you :P --Lighthouse01 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Link to SPI 93.139.51.224 (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I've blocked Supernepoznat for one week for violating WP:3RR. There's an SPI pending at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperNepoznat. The connection between all the named accounts except SuperNepoznat are obvious to me. Although I haven't reviewed the report, the connection with SuperNepoznat is not as obvious. As an SPI clerk, I will probably endorse the requested CU so the technical relationship can be established.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: People's Democratic Reform Committee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biglobster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

People's Democratic Reform Committee:

1. 16:36, 16 May 2014
2. 16:27, 16 May 2014
3. 12:28, 16 May 2014
4. 12:05, 16 May 2014
5. 12:09, 16 May 2014

2013-14 Thai political crisis:

1. 15:07, 27 April 2014
2. 16:39, 27 April 2014
3. 17:32, 27 April 2014
4. 05:08, 28 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:29, 17 April 2014
2. 05:51, 17 April 2014
3. 05:49, 28 April 2014
4. 14:55, 28 April 2014

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

Comments:

•  Comment: Lobster appears to have made about 6 consecutive edits to the PDRC article - and as they're consecutive with no interruption, they're considered to be a single edit. The other appears to be a series of edits from over a week ago, an ddo not appear to have been edit-warring - a block would therefore not be protecting anything at this moment the panda ₯’ 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135]
3. [136]
4. [137]
5. [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bangladeshi_diaspora#Bengalis_in_Pakistan

Comments: User is editing on an agenda here. He's made up to five reverts on the Bangladeshi diaspora article within the space of 3 hours over a content dispute, and has not given a satisfactory justification for his repeated removal of sourced content. There's a discussion on the talk page but the user would rather prefer to be trigger-happy with Twinkle and keep up the edit war instead of making adequate use of the talk page and validate their rationale. I am reporting the user as 3RR has been violated. Mar4d (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this was a revert to an IP vandal who has been making disruptive edits to several pages by adding unsourced content and making factual errors. I don't know how this counts as a revert as it succeeded my own edit. Secondly, I'm being reported by an user who has previously been accused of pushing his nationalist POV numerous times and whenever he involves in a dispute he accuses others with the same liner that he used here "User is editing on an agenda". He is adding contents with WP:SYNTHESIS, I've quite clearly raised the concerns over those sources in the talk page and tried to reach a consensus but he kept on adding them.--Zayeem ^(talk) 13:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, I'm being reported by an user who has previously been accused of pushing his nationalist POV numerous times and whenever he involves in a dispute he accuses others with the same liner - quote evidence if you want to be taken seriously. Putting personal accusations will not get you anywhere. And you have still not explained what is WP:SYNTHESIS about the figures in the article. Mar4d (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Your block log explains it pretty well, also this one. Anyway, don't want to dig into your editing analysis. I've clearly expressed my concerns in the talk page and you are yet to address them.--Zayeem ^(talk) 14:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with my block log? This report was filed with regard to a perceived violation of 3RR on your behalf. If you have clear evidence of POV-pushing from my behalf on this issue, present it. You haven't, instead choosing to get personal and digging into arbitrations or block logs that are over two years old. Your conduct as an editor is open for analysis too. And I will repeat, your concerns on the talk page have not adequately explained where the WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:OR is. The sources I've given as a matter of fact are not exhaustive. I have more. Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit-warring across multiple articles. The exceptions to WP:EW do not include any of the reasons that led to this block, and accusations related to ancient situations are more of a personal attack or battleground behaviour ... or as a minimum, a red-herring the panda ₯’ 19:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Bosnian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: No such user (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]
4. [143]

Comments:
Edit warring with me. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC) CodeCat is possibly sock-puppet of user No such user. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Lighthouse01 for two weeks for edit warring, disruptive editing, and probable socking.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [144] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

Comments:

User is aware of 3RR and of BRD, but chooses to edit war instead, despite attempts to discuss on talk Talk:Joni_Ernst#Blog_Post. Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The comments above are definitely a mis-characterization of the facts. I initiated the article Talk discussion. The edits posted above were made in response to attempts by this and another editor to circumvent the Talk discussion. I encourage whoever reviews this to read the article edit history and Talk discussion.CFredkin (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

3RR is a red line, and you started the discussion after multiple reverts. There is no need to editwar, just follow WP:BRD and you will be fine. Cwobeel (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

With this edit I removed POV commentary posted on the BLP by another editor. You then largely restored the content, and initiated the so-called edit war, instead of starting a discussion in Talk as would be indicated by WP:BRD.CFredkin (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your fourth revert came in the middle of the discussion on the talk page, there is nothing to "mis-characterise" there. Furthermore, making your fourth revert and claiming that it was "per article Talk" when there was no agreement to make the change is the only instance of any editor trying to "circumvent the discussion". Tiller54 (talk) 00:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tiller. Actually I believe it was you who repeatedly attempted to restore POV content to a BLP without Talk page consensus: 1, 2, 3, 4.CFredkin (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that content is "POV commentary" does not make it so, as you were repeatedly advised on the talk page (not that it's relevant to this noticeboard anyway). Furthermore, you removed content that had been agreed upon by all other editors in a discussion by claiming "per talk page", now you're attempting to claim that when I restored said agreed-upon content it was "without consensus". That's patently untrue as you were the only editor arguing for the removal of all mention of the negative response to Ernst's comments. Tiller54 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I encourage whoever reviews this to examine the edits at this BLP and the Talk page commentary. These editors are essentially waging a sustained POV attack on this BLP and engaging in bullying behavior to steamroll opposition to their POV editing.CFredkin (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Minutes before accusing others of "steamrolling" on here, you continue edit warring on the page despite being the only editor in favour of removing the content you want removed and adding the content you want added. Once again, claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is engaging in a "sustained POV attack" just because they disagree with you, then ignoring everyone else on the talk page and claiming "per talk page" as you make the edits that only you want made violates so many policies, not least of all WP:AGF and WP:OWN. Tiller54 (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In reality, I was hopeful that we had effectively reached a compromise earlier today, until you re-ignited the edit war with this edit.CFredkin (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What amazes me is that it is always the other side who is "wagging POV attacks". That article is off my watchlist, I have better things to do with my wiki time. Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion ongoing on the talk page and then you decided to circumvent it, claiming "per talk page" even though you were the only one who wanted those edits made. And yet, when I restore said agreed-upon content it's apparently me who "re-ignited the edit war". And now I see you've reverted to the version you want and then asked for full protection. That's really not on. Tiller54 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – Five days. Please use the talk page to get an agreement. I don't see any BLP violations here in the sense of defamation. It looks like a series of questions about neutrality and balanced coverage that will need consensus to resolve. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually I did notify BMK see my talk page, and should perhaps have notified AGK. Thanks for your response, I shall follow your suggestions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC).

Page: List of Digimon Fusion characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 02:51, 15 May 2014 (Grammar.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:21, 15 May 2014 (What is wrong with this? Should I ask here? Should I ask on the talk page for this article? Should i ask on your talk page? Where?)
2. 00:46, 16 May 2014 ("Clean version"? How was this not a "clean version"?)
3. 03:45, 17 May 2014 (I have provided reasoning for the name change. It was SkullKnightmon who wanted Deckerdramon on his team (even if he was DarkKnightmon/AxeKnightmon at the time).)
4. 08:29, 17 May 2014 (I had to stop in the middle to help my family. Let me finish giving my explanation. Please.)
5. 13:14, 17 May 2014 (Okay I will source them. Just give me time.)
6. 13:37, 17 May 2014 (Sourced. 15/27=5/9 mentions have sources next to them.)
7. 00:56, 18 May 2014 (Whole parts of this article aren't given sources for the information but are still here. Unless one is going to state where the citations are needed, why criticize one individual?)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:15, 17 May 2014 (Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Digimon Fusion characters. (TW))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:27, 17 May 2014 m (→‎Addition of original research/uncited material)

Comments:

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Jimbo Wales (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smallbones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

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

Comments: Smallbones seems to think he has CheckUser and Sockpuppet Investigation powers that enable him to tell if a new user is a banned user or not. He shows an utter disregard for the 3RR convention.

2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK and WP:TROLL aside, you too were edit-warring to include inappropriate comments on someone's talkpage ... there's no beneficial purpose for those comments anywhere on the project, but yet you persisted past breaking the same rule you're filing against someone else? the panda ₯’ 10:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's right, 2601:B:BB80:E0:39E8:8E4C:FD09:D212 is a ban-evading sock. Reported at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MyWikiBiz#16_May_2014. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014 (same troll/sock, slightly diff IP range). Coretheapple (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action here. The filing party has already been reported at WP:SPI. When a brand new IP makes an AN3 report on their third edit it does not inspire confidence in their case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: Jessie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.174.173.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 00:44 04 April 2014
2. 01:47, 12 April 2014
3. 01:42, 25 April 2014
4. 14:58, 27 April 2014
5. 01:32, 16 May 2014‎

• Attempts to communicate:

1. here
2. here

Slow motion edit warring adding inappropriate-to-this page and false info to a disambiguation page. This looks now to be deliberately disruptive. —Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No technical violation, but I agree it seems deliberately disruptive. I semi-protected the article for 3 months and will warn 67.174.173.239 shortly. Zero^talk 06:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User QuackGuru has already been banned before from alt-med articles[155], as well as warned before for edit warring the alternative medicine articles by administrator EdJohnston[156] and administrator Tiptoety[157]. A short caption from Tiptoety's warning to QuackGuru:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As administrator Tiptoety's warning makes it really clear, there is not any "specific amount of edits that you can do each day". It does not even matter whether you continue that disruptive behaviour on just one or even more articles. QuackGuru has been specifically warned about edit warring Pseudoscience related articles. As far as I have been involved in developing some other alternative medicine articles, such as traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture, I have noticed the same editing behaviour by QuackGuru even there.

Two days ago, QuackGuru was already warned two times by different editors:

• at 07:13, 14 May[158] (Mallexikon),
• and at 17:38, 14 May[159].

However, it seems that the same editing pattern keeps repeating with QuackGuru:

• at 21:02, 9 May 2014 on the article, Chiropractic, QuackGuru made a revert on {{POV}} tag[160].
• At 19:18, 14 May 2014, he made his second revert on the very same article, on that very same thing[161].

As stated by WP:3RR: ".... The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so..."

However, yesterday QuackGuru also made his 3rd revert, so even the bright line of three reverts applies.

1. Here you can see him inserting the {{MEDRS}} tags: [162][163]
2. Here you can see the tags being removed by another user, DVMt: [164]
3. Finally here, QuackGuru crosses the line and reverts the last edit by DVMt: [165]

WP:3RR is extremly clear on this:

The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

The issue has been tried to be resolved at the Talk page:

1. [167]
2. [168]

Also the edit summaries have been well-established. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

There is a fine line between "edit warring" and "defending the encyclopedia against pernicious nonsense". In this case, it would appear that that people are using defective sources, QuackGuru is tagging the defective sources, and other editors are removing the tags rather than correcting the problems. It isn't happening at a rate that violates 3RR. In this case, my inclination is to warn editors that cite alternative medicine sources that such sources are not to be taken seriously and do not meet WP:MEDRS: removing the tag without correcting the issue is disruptive.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources in question are not defective and there is currently a discussion about this at WP:MED talk. There is ONE constant in all of these alt-med articles and is QG and his editing practices. A topic ban at this point should be considered seeing how the same issues keep coming up again and again and again. Also, Kww it would be nice to assume good faith in other editors with respect to using reliable sources. We're all here volunteering to make WP better. DVMt (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The other editors at TCM and acupuncture are not only conscientious about quality of sources, they are careful to not over-value particular sources. Quack Guru regularly edits in a disruptive and disrespectful manner. Kww, I invite you to pay closer attention to the edits themselves rather than the kind of sweeping generalizations you made. A sincere consideration of the issues and true consensus building is what we need at those articles, not missionary zeal to push a POV.Herbxue (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

A few comments on report:

• Using a 9 May edit to demonstate editor ignoring talk from 14 May - doesn't quite work.
• For 3RR you need more than three reverts, so making three reverts is not a violation of 3RR (but may still be edit warring).
• Consecutive reverts count as one revert for 3RR purposes, so now down to two reverts.
• The first 'revert' doesn't seem like it's reverting to any previous edit, thus it seems to me like a new edit and not a revert -> down to one revert.
• The "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" provided above is a notice of AN/EW discussion. That's not the same. The point of giving a warning is to try to halt behavior to prevent bringing an issue to an administrators' noticeboard. (Though given editor's history, it reasonable to believe that he's familiar with given polices and an edit warring warning may not be necessary.)
• In general, article talk pages should be used to discuss article, not behavior of a user. Both of the talk pages linked have section that are more about this editor than about any content. Some editors may view this as a personal attack.

I'm not saying it's not edit warring, but when you bring an issue to a noticeboard, you'll have a much stronger case if everything is lined up. Kirin13 (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Herbxue has been notified of the sanctions.

Herbxue is a WP:SPA currently the subject of discussion at ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Herbxue.

User:DVMt has been notified of the sanctions.

DVMt wrote Rather than individually deal with this individual, it might be better to work in conjunction to help prevent in what I see is sociopathic behaviour which ruins the experience of helping WP achieve its goal of being a reliable and credible source for medically related topics. The part "this individual" is referring to me. The editor DVMt has continued his bad behaviour. The paragraph contains the follwing specific sentence written by DVMt: I've tried in good faith with you here, but your editing behaviour seems to be congruent with this [169].[170] On the chiropractic talk page the link is to the page Profile of the Sociopath. He also accusing me of stalking and being a meatpuppet of Ersnt[171][172][173] and having a COI.

Jayaguru-Shishya has been notified of the sanctions.

User:Jayaguru-Shishya has been indef-blocked previously for disruptive behaviour. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jayaguru-Shishya_is_not_moving_on_and_he_is_continuing_his_battleground_behaviour.

Jayaguru-Shishya has a history of disruptive behaviour. See User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_32#Question_about_the_resolution_of_an_editwar_dispute_at_Administrator.27s_noticeboard. Both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia. Both editors are unable to collaborate. Take a quick look at the comments on the talk page. See Talk:Chiropractic#Removal of the MEDRS tags and failure to collaborate. See Talk:Chiropractic#Tag restored against CON again. WP:BOOMERANG should apply. QuackGuru (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cherry picking again, are we? Other editors have had concerns with your radical behaviour [174] concerns regarding neutrality again with QG as the primary culprit [175], more disruptive editing here [176], tendentious and repeated refusals to answer a fundamental question [177] and on and on. Considering how recent QG was warned regarding his editorial behaviour at alt-med pages, this warrants a serious investigation. DVMt (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

User:DVMt is planning on rewriting the chiropractic article and making significant changes after the dispute at chiropractic was previously resolved. DVMt refuses to moved on. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you looking through a crystal ball? I've collected 70+ reliable and MEDRS compliant sources and this is my work ground. I'm not proposing anything yet, I'm just organizing references. You seem to have an ownership issues and besides constantly pushing Ernst, you admit to being in contact with him and receiving emails from him [178]. How is that not an act of meat puppetry? You're canvassing offline with a known controversial skeptic and push his research at chiropractic, alternative medicine, acupuncture, etc. DVMt (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can contact Ernst for a copy of a study. I have read numerous WP:MEDRS compliant reviews and have updated the chiropractic article accordingly. You should stop trying to restore past versions of the article that are no longer relevant. You proposal on the talk page was an old version (you claim it is a new proposal) of the article that was previously rejected in mainspace. See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments. QuackGuru (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that contacting a controversial author, editing his personal page and pushing his POV on his behalf is 'normal' behaviour. I'm not doing anything other than using talk to discuss salient issues. Like I mentioned above, I've accrued 70+ new reliable sources in my sandbox and I'm actively discussing the problems at chiropractic elsewhere as well to try and build consensus over SPECIFIC issues pertaining to chiropractic. Your interpretation of the events are off-base. Considering you were warned as recently as April 29/14 regarding your editing behaviour, you just seem to keep popping up at ANI over and over and over again. DVMt (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the edit warring noticeboard, and as such, other discussion shouldn't be happening here. Therefore, as no edit warring by QG has been demonstrated, perhaps this should now be closed. This is not the place for fringe pushers to try to get their fringe ideas into an article. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

This was a bogus 3RR report but we should leave this open for admins to apply WP:BOOMERANG for the continued behavior problems and tactics both Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are guilty of. The sandbox DVMt is referring to is a WP:FAKEARTICLE.[179] QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Roxy, you have made allegations, please provide evidence for your claim, or hold your peace. Not a fake article, quack, unless you've now moved onto trying to removing 70+ new MEDRS sources. Why are you creeping out my sandbox anyways? You're kind of proving my stalking allegation. DVMt (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? No diffs have shown edit warring, what other allegations are you on about. Stop wasting our time. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack has been warned about edit warring several times and has been cautioned as recently as April 29/14. He is essentially on probation and continues to act in defiance of the recommendations. Recidivism is in play. DVMt (talk) 22:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to make false accusations is making you look very silly at this point. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I tagged a source that was over 30 years old. We have newer sources on the topic. Using a 30 year outdated old source to argue against newer sources currently used in the article is inappropriate. Removing the tag without properly addressing the problem is disruptive. The evidence shows User:Jayaguru-Shishya is not contributing constructively and is repeating past mistakes. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit warring has been demonstrated clearly in the above diffs. The bright line of 3RR applies. Moreover, as I clearly quoted [[WP:3RR] above:

"The three-revert rule ... is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so

This same has been stated by administrator Tiptoety in his warning to QuackGuru[180]:

Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring on Traditional Chinese medicine. While it is obvious that you have intentionally not gone over three reverts in one day, please be reminded that the edit warring policy does not specify a specific number of reverts, and simply engaging in a long term pattern of edit warring can result in a block. I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions authorized at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Tiptoety talk 16:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru has defended his behaviour by stating that his reverts were right justified. WP:3RR however is extremly clear on this:

...whether or not the edits were justifiable: it is no defense to say "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring".

Taking into opinion QuackGuru's latest warning by administrator Tiptoety, and QuackGuru's continued edit warring, I think the necessary actions should be taken.. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As we're looking into editor's backgrounds, it's worth noting that Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt are both editing with a POV which attempts to legitimise alternative medicine such as Chiropractic, Acupuncture and Traditional Chinese medicine, where the bulk of their contributions will be found. Jayaguru-Shishya was blocked last month for edit-warring at Acupuncture and despite his assurances in his unblock request, has now moved on to the same behaviour at Chiropractic. DVMt is a well-known sockmaster who has calls for him to be topic-banned from CAM/pseudoscience topics - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt/Archive for the details. QG is wrong to let himself be drawn into an edit-war with SPAs, but I believe he recognises that and has stepped away. Several other editors have now intervened at Chiropractic to support his removal of a primary source, a survey published in a CAM journal, that has no place in a medical article, particularly a controversial one that requires the highest standards of sourcing. --RexxS (talk) 13:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rexxs! I have learned my lessons and haven't repeated the same mistakes again. I'd like to remind you that I got banned even without making three reverts. This is made clear both in WP:3RR and administrator Tiptoety's warning.

However, this dispute is about QuackGuru who has continued edit warring even despite of being warned by admins as the diffs above clearly show it. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, you're mischaraterization of the facts are noted. No one is trying to legitimize anything, rather, we are trying to delineate what specific aspects of chiropractic are considered fringe and what one's are considered mainstream. Besides, the source was a sociological study describing factions and making no medical claims. More interestingly, you seem to think that all CAM is pseudoscientific and thus cannot have an evidence-based faction. You don't even know the details of what is occurring, so your opinion, unfortunately, as an uninformed one. Similar to 'true believers' your extremist POV towards chiropractic and acupuncture doesn't really add anything to the mix. Jaygurus behaviour is fine at chiropractic, we're all using talk pages to resolve matters. Since when is is Bio Med Central not a credible source? DVMt (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

When the source is a primary source. With another dispute, it was previously suggested an indefinite block to resolve the situation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DVMt/Archive. DVMt thinks Secondary sources are not required for non-medical claims. WP:COMPETENCE is required to contribute to Wikipedia. DVMt is repeating past mistakes like restoring a primary source (see WP:SECONDARY) and edit warring against CON[181][182] to restore a tag. DVMt claims the dispute is not resolved but it was.

Kirin13 said I only made one revert but Jayaguru-Shishya falsely accused me of breaking WP:3RR[183]. Jayaguru-Shishya is repeating the same type of nonconstructive behaviour he did in the past that got him blocked. QuackGuru (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Quack, you're simply trying to censor anyone that disagrees with you by suggesting they're radicalists, pure smear campaign. Anyone who actually reads the talk page can see the process develop itself. Suggesting I'm not a competent editor is a bogus accusation and there is no 'resolution' that you're claiming. How about you work with us and share a little. You've done nearly 50% of the edits at chiropractic in 2014 and got reported for previous edit warring over CAM related articles. You want to tell the fringe story, I want to share the mainstream/MSK story. Given that the MSK faction represent 80% of chiropractors, and given that chiropractic management of MSK issues is not controversial, naturally so should the emphasis. That's not to suggest there is no controversy historically or currently, but we can't work from a script that says manipulative medicine is pseudoscientific (see OMM) and try to 'balance' things out. Let's take this back to the talk page or if you're willing to go to ArbCom we can get further guidance. Cheers. DVMt (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why did you add a space to the diff in my comment that broke the link? Do you still think primary sources are acceptable?

Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception for the treatment of back pain.[10][184] A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective for any condition.[11][185]

Do you think these MEDRS compliant sources that summarise the body should still be deleted from the lede? Are you ready to accept MEDRS?

You said I've done nearly 50% of the edits at chiropractic in 2014. You should give me a little more credit than that. I shaped practically that entire article from top to bottom. Who do you think was making massive changes to the article years ago and continued to update the article. Very few editors can write such an impressive well sourced article. It looks like it was written by an expert like Ersnt himself. No random person can write such an encyclopedic article. If it weren't for me you probably could do whatever you wanted with the article. Other editors saw I objected to your changes and then they pitched in. It seems like you want me gone so you can rewrite the article. Isn't that correct? Isn't that what this is about? You already got guidance but you have not agreed to stick with WP:SECONDARY sources or WP:MEDRS sources. QuackGuru (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Jayaguru-Shishya, why did you remove a link in my comment? QuackGuru (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to have a productive discussion when you use straw men and misrepresent other people's viewpoint. Secondary sources are preferred but in some instances, primary sources will suffice. Since you're now claiming you've shaped the article from top to bottom WP:OWN is in play. The other editors aren't even close to being regulars on the page, that just seem to fly by. Regarding sources, I explained to you on the talk page about using them out of context in some instances and poor paraphrasing as well as cherry picking a sentence out of a source that is out of context and has nothing to do with the conclusions of the paper. But that's beyond the scope of this investigation. NPOV states we write from a neutral POV and the reason why your article(s) keep articles keep on getting flagged. I don't want you gone, I want to work with you, but in order to do so, we need to have be willing to meet in the middle. And that means any stance that suggests that manipulative therapy for MSK is pseudoscientific is a non-starter. If we can agree that manipulative therapies for MSK issues isn't controversial, that would be a great start. What do you think? DVMt (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand your difficulties now DVMt, if you want to write about real interventions, you need to be editing the Physiotherapy article. This one is for Chiropractic, the pseudoscience. Do you see what I'm getting at? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 15:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

But Roxy, manipulative therapies are used by a wide variety of professionals for MSK issues, chiros, physios, osteos, vets (pets with MSK issues). Undoubtedly, chiros provide the majority of manipulations for MSK conditions. So, a blanket statement that says chiropractic approach to MSK health is pseudoscientific is problematic, because if that is true that so is the same approach of other professions that practice manipulation. So while this issue is more germane to the chiropractic profession (i.e. validity of manipulative therapies for MSK conditions) it still carries over to others. There needs to be some internal cohesion on the topic and I'm trying to foster a discussion around that topic. DVMt (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. This is "The Edit Warring Noticeboard." It is here for discussion, and possible sanctions regarding Edit Warring. You need Talk:Chiropractic‎ where content is discussed for Chiropractic. HTH. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 18:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on the above evidence I recommend actions be taken against Jayaguru-Shishya and DVMt. They are both nonconstructive editors and are repeatedly making unfounded accusations. QuackGuru (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't say anything about what's going on at the chiropractic article, but QG's editing at the TCM/acupuncture articles has been... difficult. We had to go into DR recently about the question of which exact wording should be used to include the term "pseudoscience" into the article's lede. The DR was successfully seen through by Bejnar and Richard Keatinge; however, QG seemed to have troubles to participate constructively. The DR thread can be found here, the related talk page discussion here, and a separate discussion of QG with DRN volunteer Bejnar here. The consensus wording was implemented on 05-May [186]

• QG tagged the DR consensus as OR on 13-May [187].
• The material which was subject of the DR had been copy-pasted to the acupuncture article by QG on 28-April [188]. After the consensus found at TCM regarding this material was implemented at acupuncture as well [189], QG reverted it on 09-May. Accordingly, DRN volunteer Bejnar had to recommend to start another DR thread for the acupuncture article [190].
• QG deleted reliably sourced material about the proto-scientific nature of TCM, which was based on a standard history book (Needham's Science and Civilisation in China) on 14-May [191]. After the material was reinstated by another editor, he tagged it as a "biased source" [192].
• He reacts with bizarre tagging to material or wording he doesn't like: 13-May, 15-May. --Mallexikon (talk) 04:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is against you on this. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840#Mallexikon.

There is support for some type of editing restrictions for Mallexikon. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive840#Proposal.

Many editors disagree with the current wording or never agreed to the current wording at TCM regarding the sentence for pseudoscience. See the list of editors below. You can ask them yourself what wording they think is best.

User:Dominus Vobisdu

User:Jim1138

User:Adam Cuerden

User:76.107.171.90

User:Alexbrn

User:JzG

User:Bobrayner

User:BatteryIncluded

User:Roxy the dog

The proto-scientific claim is based on a reference that is over 30 years old that is outdated and irrelevant to TCM today. "TCM has been described as a protoscience[33]" should be deleted but it is still in the article. See Traditional Chinese medicine#Model of the body. How could TCM be proto-scientific when there is wording in the lede that says TCM is pseudoscience?

According to Mallexikon's statement above, he thinks it is bizarre because I tagged the OR or text that failed verification. The evidence shows Mallexikon is uncooperative and is not interested in helping to remove the OR I tagged. The text can be improved without OR or misleading claims. Rather than focusing on me it would help if editors tried to improve the article and move on. But Mallexikon does not think my edits are improvements. He thinks the text is OR but the text is sourced. We can take this to arbitration and have this matter resolved and/or bring in more uninvolved editors to help improve the article and remove the OR from the TCM article. So far Mallexikon has not explained why he objects so strongly when I have been the main editor improving the article. Is it because he is a True Believer? Guy suggested a better outcome for Mallexikon is a 1RR restriction rather than a topic ban. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know why we're even still discussing this. The content is well sourced, and aside form a couple of acupuncturists nobody much seems to have a problem with it. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The back and forth is on multiple pages now. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:56, 17 May 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:24, 17 May 2014
2. 19:57, 17 May 2014
3. 13:43, 17 May 2014
4. 12:50, 17 May 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:53, 17 May 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:12, 17 May 2014

Comments:
Even though that it now seems that the editor in this report is now attempting to take steps in participating in a discussion to create consensus for their edits, I feel as though this still needs to be reported. Unscintillating has been reverting undos of a bold edit that they performed on Wikipedia:Drafts that essentially stated that pages in the draft namespace should have a requirement, in one way or another, that states that a discussion should happen on the talk page of the draft to form consensus to take a draft to WP:MFD; I disagreed with that since those instructions seemingly have no consensus to be supported. After trying to explain my reasons behind reverting these bold edits with edit notices on my reverts, and the continuous reverts of my reverted reverts to their reverts, I realized that since edit notices seemed to not assist in providing understanding to this editor to the purpose of my reverts, I started the above-referenced RFC (attempted to resolve the issue on the article talk page). The editor then seemingly ignores the RFC, and created a new section, question my reverts (thus, why I stated that it seems that the editor is now attempting to take steps to resolve the dispute). At this point, an attempt has been made to start conversation to resolve the dispute, so I'm assuming that the editor is doing this in good faith, but I believe that this report is still necessary for "the books". Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain why admins shouldn't block both of you for 3RR violation? Steel1943 gets credit for opening the RfC, but that doesn't entitle you to keep reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I second Ed's question. It is somewhat amazing that Steel1943 filed this report only 10 minutes after breaking 3RR on the same page. Zero^talk 06:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought I was going to get a WP:BOOMERANG for this. I was trying to keep the text where it was before, then realized what I did. If I get blocked, the administrator has my permission to make it an indef. I never wanted to let any user get the best of me, and I have. If I have one block on my record, I don't want to come back to Wikipedia ever again. My real life is more important than having to deal with this crap. Steel1943 (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors are reminded that an WP:RFC is in progress. Anyone who reverts the text again without waiting for the verdict of the talk page is risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• I have provided a detailed report at [193].  Unscintillating (talk) 20:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Page: Genevieve Cortese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Mypageone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I politely advised editor Mypageone not to insert information regarding minor children (per BLP) on the above article. He/she ignored the hidden comment specifically regarding this issue in the first place after similar edits were removed, and has now, without comment or explanation, simply restored the edits I removed. I do not intend to get into an edit war with an occasional or one-topic editor or be goaded into violating 3RR, but if this editor is going to edit in bad faith then something needs to be done. Please see [194], [195]. Editor notified on talk page but apparently can't be bothered to respond. Thanks, Quis separabit? 00:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of Digimon Fusion characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael Demiurgos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [196]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [197]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, but after coming straight off a block for edit-warring went and reinstated the exact same edit. The case is detailed in full further up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Michael Demiurgos reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 24 hours) Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours the panda ₯’ 10:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Australian House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Andreas11213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 609206328 by (talk) If you constantly have time to revert most changes I make, then I'm quite sure you have time to go to the talk page where I have asked for consensus but have been ignored"
2. 07:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 12:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "As requested, the svg is updated, see talk page"
4. 05:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 609052913 by Timeshift9 (talk) You see talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [200], [201], [202]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Picture */ +2 cents"

Comments:

Andreas11213 continues to edit war on articles, this time in particular the Australian House of Representatives article. They've been warned previously not to edit war (having been blocked previously for edit warring, they should have a good idea as to what it is). In this instance, the editor has been asked by multiple users to discuss their edits on the talk page to establish consensus for their change - however, they discuss and continuously revert (despite multiple warnings not to). —MelbourneStar☆^talk 08:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week Given the previous block in the same topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)