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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:12, 23 February 2015

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

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

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result:Warned)

Page: Breda O'Brien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "per actual source - we would not wish to mislead readers, I trust" (repeats component of edit at 12:46)
12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ radio shows without transcripts do not meet WP:RS and the source you give says she supports civil unions - which should therefore be mentioned" (removes reference added earlier today by other editor, after it was restored by a third editor)
08:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "first source says civil partnerships are ok, second lacks a transcript so is not much use at all" (removes reference added earlier today by other editor)
05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ and your specific source other than the fact she generally supports that Church?" (reverts immediately preceding edit)
23:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ we already have supports church teachings - how many should we enumerate?" (reverts immediately preceding edit)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breda_O%27Brien#Radio_interview_reference (no participation from Collect)

Comments:

St. Peter's Basilica

Regarding another editor

[[1]] {{I am a good stewart of Wikipedia and ask anyone with influence to please stop the undoing of the edits I and countless others have made to St. Peter's Basilica [[2]] by Alessandro57 ==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you., an editor seems fit to start an edit and undo war with me for no reason. I have made efforts to add facts of the size, dimentions and add citations to the page, all of which were arbitrarily reversed by Alessandro57. Please intervene on my behalf. I am relativly new, but have a lot to offer to the Wikipedia family. It seems that no matter what I do, I am railroaded by this editor. He does not even wish to discuss or cooperate with others in forming a concensus. Please help. Thank you-}} Cpetty9979 Cpetty9979 (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? It seems that Collect is 100% correct in applying WP:BLP. Do I detect a WP:Boomerang headed somewhere else? W C M_email 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please -- no edit summary here tries to claim that there was a BLP violation that needed dealing with (thus reverts exempt from 3RR) -- and it's a good thing that no such claim was made, because there were no BLP violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Collect seems to have been correctly applying BLP policy and have come to consensus on the page. Removing an IP's innacurate material at a BLP does not constitute 3RR violation. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it's "inaccurate" that O'Brien opposes gay marriage? You're wrong about that -- see the article and the source it gives. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, not as simple as that. Collect removed the IP's comment about opposing same-sex marriage, but that was then restored and sourced by two other editors (including a checkuser and oversighter!). He then switched to accepting that comment (so the IP was right) and adding other material to tone down the part he had to accept [3]. Whilst I've no particular wish to see him blocked, this isn't a BLP issue in any shape or form. Black Kite (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- "unsourced" does not mean "well it was sourced later" -- WP:BLP requires removal of such unsourced material - and note that the actual claim substantiated by the source stated that she approves of civil partnerships. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying really, the first edit wasn't a problem but I think it's stretching BLP to say it's a requirement to add material to dampen a sourced criticism. But anyway, I don't think this is actionable on that basis. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this isn't actionable. Someone please sentence this. W C M_email 23:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last diff was a correction of a hit-and-run IP edit made to the lead with an unsourced claim. As such, it was removable. Same with the 15 Feb edit - [4] unsourced IP edit of a BLP. [5] made a specific claim which was unsourced. Again unsourced claims in a BLP are not protected last I looked.

Claims made in a BLP which are actually totally unsourced are removable, as the OP here knows. Bastun and I reached an accord on adding "and supports civil unions" as being what the source provided states. Which is how editing is supposed to occur on BLPs - not drive-by claims with not even a fig-leaf of a source provided.

Two of the edits were reverts or modifications of IP edits which were unsourced or poorly sourced. Three were in the proper goal of reaching proper claims properly supported. The OP did not post to my UT page until he made the complaint here, else I would have explained that WP:BLP requires removal of unsourced claims in the first place. Collect (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first edit removes something added by an IP (something which in any event was eminently verifiable, as per a source subsequently added). The others either remove a source (with a bogus rationale) or add your own material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the first was specifically required by policy. The last did not remove anything - it added what the source said - I find it amazing that you seem to appear on a great many articles I have edited. Failure to accurately use a source for a claim is, IMO, pernicious. [6] By the way, you appear to think a source which is a radio program sans transcript is a valid source for a contentious claim. I demur, and saying my position is "bogus" ill suits you here. Collect (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of these can be called BLP support in any conceivable way. The rest are adding uncited material or removing obviously reliable sources (the RTÉ interview is doubly reliable as it's an interview with the person used in their bio, from a source that's also reputable in itself). Collect has been told time and again that "BLP" is not a catch-all for any edit he wishes to make. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no transcript. It is a problematic source. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What policy says that? It's policy that reliable sources that not all users can access (eg. paywalled) are still reliable. If a user can't or doesn't want to listen to the interview, the source is not disqualified - and I say this as someone who hates using audio or video sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect acted appropriately. The problem is with the OP who has demonstrated an inability to fully grasp the meaning of strict adherence as it relates to WP:BLP. Atsme☯^Consult 01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if one discounts the first revert, there is still a violation of 3RR here. Removing a source is not correction of a BLP violation. Nor is adding the text (in reverts 4 and 5) correction of a BLP violation -- even if one considers inclusion of that text desirable, there was no need for Collect to edit-war it into the article. The correct action here was for Collect to make his case on the talk page and gain consensus from other editors. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no requirement for a transcript, Roscelese - what WP:RS actually states is: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

Nor does BLP arise here. What is contentious, in any way, about a well-known Roman Catholic columnist being opposed to same-sex marriage? Collect does not refer to BLP at all in the 2015 removals, and admits in edit summary: "we already have supports church teachings - how many should we enumerate?" It's actually quite ironic; O'Brien complains (in that radio interview and elsewhere) that being opposed to same-sex marriage is a perfectly reasonable view to hold and promote, but that anyone espousing that view is instead now branded as a homophobe; then Collect - who seems to feel the need to "defend" O'Brien's good name from what they're perceiving as an attack - removes the statement that O'Brien opposes same-sex marriage...

All of that said - minor 3RR violation, no longer ongoing. A warning would be sufficient. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not "defend" anything except WP:BLP and I suggest you look at my Johann Hari edits and try to reconcile that with your implicit accusation of bias on my part. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not familiar with that article, or the issue it addresses, and I fail to see how your editing of an entirely different article relates to this one. This is an entirely different topic, where you seem to be claiming that it is somehow a breach of BLP and/or contentious for an article on a noted Catholic columnist to state that she is opposed to same-sex marriage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit any BLP on the basis of any POV about who they are. Period. That you seem to wish to assert bias where none exists is very sad. O'Brien is on record as supporting civil partnerships - and why anyone would wish to elide that clear statement I find odd. What is odd also is that the following commenter is upset that I follow WP:BLP o on Sam Harris (author) who is an atheist! I guess I am a Popish atheist? BTW, read WP:OIECE please. Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is clear and not negotiable. I would draw everyone's attention to Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC where I suggest you are in the minority -- not even deigning to defend your edit which you sought so diligently to place in that BLP. If I am "wikilawyering" there, I have four accomplices including Xenophrenic! Collect (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again, BLP does not apply to this case. You seem to not be capable of recognising that, or even of admitting you might possibly have erred. Finding it harder to justify my comment that a warning is sufficient... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When did O'Brien die? That is the only basis on which the claim "'BLP does not apply" could make sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For BLP to be involved, something contentious or untrue needs to have been stated. Stop wikilawyering. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [Edit to add:] Also - you did not claim your recent edits were due to BLP, in any case. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually any claim not properly supported by the source used is against WP:BLP thus "She opposes same-sex marriage" where the source then specifically states "O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples" and the second half is elided, then the source has been misused. Misuse of any source is violative of many policies including WP:BLP. Cheers (unless you wish to assert the quote is not found in [7] in plain text? Collect (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to wikilawyer. It was back in August of last year that you removed the reference to SSM with the explicit (but still erroneous) claim that it was contentious. None of your edits in 2015 - which led to this report - refer at all to BLP. As it stands, leaving aside SSM issue, the first sentence to be referenced in that article to be referenced is one about getting a diploma from a video school in Texas. By your argument, all of the preceding sentences should be removed as BLP violations. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Collect maintains at the article and above that the subject of the article "supports civil partnership" and has added this to the article several times. In fact, the reference he is using for this says that she "does not oppose" civil partnership, and she has written to that effect in her Irish Times column, also. (Behind a paywall but quote available here. "Supporting" something is very different to "not opposing" something. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should be clear by now is that the edits by Collect were not corrections of BLP violations -- instead, this is a content dispute, and instead of edit-warring Collect should have been trying to gain consensus on the talk page. The posts by Collect above show that this lesson still has not been learned. Indeed, the reverts have now resumed on this article: [8], [9], with Collect still not using the talk page to discuss what he wants to add. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The time has come to end the bullshit. The body of the article had and to same-sex marriage, but supports civil partnership.[6][7] in it per the sources. This was then placed verbatim in the lead - which seems rather logical. Then an editor [10] changed the wording already used in the article to "does not now oppose civil partnership." I guess the editor figures inserting a double negative is a logical improvement -- but then, not satisfied with that change, the editor [11] decided that what was proper in the body should not even be mentioned in the lead at all. After apparently feeling that using double negatives did not fully convey disdain for O'Brien's presumably moderate stance. If a statement is made in the body of a BLP it is irrational to remove it from the lead of the same BLP. Sorry, Nomoskesticity -- you are incredibly far off-base if you find that a sentence already in the body of the article should have one half of the sentence removed when covered in the lead. The source supported the full sentence, and saying "I only will use the words I want in a claim and toss away the rest" violates WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV By the way, the source used states O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples and the last edit summary Reference for opposition to SSM (which, as Collect is now aware, does not also support the contention that she "supports civil partnership) is clearly grossly misleading. Collect (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This really does need to be closed. The OP actually implied, Even if one discounts the first revert... the other diffs should count. Really? When you look at the other diffs, there is clearly no basis for a 3RR. Where is the boomerang? Atsme☯^Consult 13:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's long response today reinforces the view that this is a content dispute. Collect thinks he's right. Great -- but so do the other editors. Again: go to the talk page and work it out. But instead what we see here is demonstration of Collect's view that he's exempt from that -- complete with resumption of reversions today. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Collect, please advise what is "grossly misleading" in what I wrote? You have been using a reference where O'Brien states she is "not opposed" to civil partnerships as support for the insertion of "supports civil partnership" into the article. These two statements are clearly not interchangeable and one does not imply the other. If "does not oppose", as a double negative, is causing trouble, blame O'Brien - it's her sourced, verifiable, wording: "'O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples" (She did oppose civil partnerships in the past, however).

You have still not demonstrated how this is a BLP issue. O'Brien herself would hardly regard it as contentious that she opposes same-sex marriage, full stop, no qualification needed. Alison, Nomoskedasticity, Calton and I all seem happy with that. You seem to be the only one who disagrees. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The somewhat backhanded attempt to assert priority of Jr. High grammar over the statements of a notable adult is, at best, a content dispute. The statement of the subject should not be subjected to a reductionistic application of grammar, which is probably a form of WP:OR. There is a substantial difference between "actively" supporting something or "passively" not opposing it. And trying to half-way apply BLP (for exemption) to that would be twisted logic, especially if it were seen to serve as the rationale for engaging in an edit war.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to let this one simply get archived. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warned In principle, I do not have to evaluate consensus here, since every administrator is authorised to take decisions at this board. However, I did read the discussion, and I think all relevant points have been made there. WP:3RR lists BLP violations as one of the exemptions, however, it also says that it is often not clear what is an unambiguous BLP violations and advises to user WP:BLPN to determine that (which I personally would not advise since that noticeboard is almost disfunctional, but this is irrelevant for the discussion here). I agree with the others that the first two reverts were clear reverts of BLP violations since at the time of the reverts the strong statements were not properly referenced. Concerning the other three reverts, it is less clear to me whether they were reverts of obvious (or at all) BLP violations. I see from the discussion that there is no consensus on this part: Some users think they were, and others think they were not, but in any case I believe these are not edits of the type listed in WP:3RR as exemptions. Collect did engage at the discussion at the talk page, and the reverts were not really necessary. It is also unfortunate that Collect later was engaged in an edit warring with Alison and Bastun over similar issues in the same article. My conclusion is thus that this is not a blockable offense, and Collect apparently acted in good faith. However, this instance of edit warring was still not necessary. Collect should have gone to the talk page instead of edit-warring after the third revert, and also it is very advisable to state in the edit summaries that they believe they revert blatant BLP violations; this has not been done for some of the reverts, and it would help other users to understand what is going on. I will now draw the attention of Collect at their talk page to this closure, which will serve as a formal warning. Please try to discuss more and revert less, certainly in the situations which are not black and white.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly note my talk page edits: [12] and my involvement in 2014 on basically the same type of issue. Pray tell -- what are the exact words in the radio programme which support the claims you wish to use it for? Collect (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive148#Pro-life_feminism where one of those now involved stated: I'm not involved on that article, but allow me to correct a misimpression: the source is not "unverifiable" (anyway it's content that has to be verifiable, not sources). Please have a look at WP:SOURCEACCESS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC) , Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive194#Irish_homophobia_controversy.2C_3_biographies_that_need_oversight with one person saying Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) I trust this goves some salient background about the source of the persistent OP here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rukn950 reported by User:Summichum (Result: Declined)

Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rukn950 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1. 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ repeatative"
2. 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ the reference given do not support the paragraph. the details are already given in the article - 53rd syedna succession controversy."
3. 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* See also */ repeated link is someone trying to prove something here?"
10:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 647763413 by Rukn950 (talk): Your reference is wrongly stated please talk before reverting. (TW)"
12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is removing well refrenced information along with citation , the user wants to remove well cited information that Burhanuddin did not declare any successor as late as 2011 which is clearly mentioned in the last line of the cited article:http://www.rediff.com/news/special/special-bohra-dissenters-challenge-oppressive-priesthood/20110304.htm , the user has a strong COI. The user was warned amply in the past and was blocked earlier for sockpuppetry and COI noticeboard. Summichum (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The time when he managed to block me for suckpuppet. he himself was engaging in sockpuppetry and was blocked. please take time to study this guys behavior before getting to any conclusion.
I have done no recent edit that shows any conflict of interest and POV which the Diff given by summichum is proof in itself. but That cannot be said about summichum.Rukn950 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have not done 3 revert as you can see.and my reverts I have explained. summichum is cherrypicking and misrepresenting facts to prove his POVRukn950 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
his argument for not appointing successor in 2011 is not relevant to this article and reference he is citing is overkill.Rukn950 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user is constantly on lookout to remove any information which goes against his view point , whereas I try to get all the points , this user as can be seen has removed cited content and notable references only because his POV is not satisfied.The user has indeed crossed 3RR rule and this user was blocked for real sock puppetry and got me blocked using sockpuppets , and I created a new account and stated upfront on user page that its my second account and was created to only reply for his sock investigation case.Summichum (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user summichum blames anyone but himself. your above statement proves you were indulged in sock puppet intentionally(sic).Rukn950 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Please use WP:DR instead. Also a quick reminder to everyone about WP:AGF; please do not accuse anyone if being a sock unless you can document it. summichum; not everyone disagreeing with you is a sock of Md iet, so please discuss changes instead of reverting at first sight. Bjelleklang - talk 15:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bjelleklang , I have not accused him of being a sock of md iet , I know they are not sock but meat , you can check his prior log, Md iet is another league of its own, anyways, user ruqn has clearly violated 3RR, so may I know why he was not blocked, I have waited for the 24 hr period and reverted his edit which had removed well cited content without giving any concrete relevant reason, I have explained this on talk page too. Hence I request to block this user for 3RR as per the case.Summichum (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking you were both past 3RR if I'm not much mistaken. I decided not to block either of you to give you a chance to resolve the issue. As I've also mentioned on the article talkpage, Rukn950 responded to your initial post three days ago, but you still have not responded to him. Please do so instead of reverting; reverting instead of discussing is usually looked upon as disruptive, so by doing so you risk being blocked. Bjelleklang - talk 10:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: declined)

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
1. 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ repeatative"
2. 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Succession controversy */ the reference given do not support the paragraph. the details are already given in the article - 53rd syedna succession controversy."
3. 21:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "/* See also */ repeated link is someone trying to prove something here?"
10:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 647763413 by Rukn950 (talk): Your reference is wrongly stated please talk before reverting. (TW)"
12:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647857524 by Summichum (talk)this article you are giving reference is dated March 05, 2011 11:13 IST which is 2 years before the demise of syedna mohammed burhanuddin."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Old case:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[16]

Warning:

User talk:Summichum# Mentioned

User talk:Summichum#POV

User talk:EdJohnston/Archive_35#Edit_war

Comments:

User user:Summichum has been persistent in establishing his POV,WP:POINT,reinserting with self publish report on personal website,where no press or media has reported it. Any attempt to reason with him has proved useless.

This user is blaming me for COI it when infact he is doing so himself,violating BLP. He is so hasty in bringing me to this edit war while I have been trying to resolve through talk page.[17]

The user was also blocked earlier for sockpuppetry and Editwar.Rukn950 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept my revert 647857524 because it explains the misrepresentation of summichum.

The diffs presented above are just copy pasted from my edit war application above , these diffs only prove that this user has gone beyond 3RR.This user is constantly on lookout to remove any information which goes against his view point , whereas I try to get all the points , this user as can be seen has removed cited content and notable references only because his POV is not satisfied.The user has indeed crossed 3RR rule and this user was blocked for real sock puppetry and got me blocked using sockpuppets , and I created a new account and stated upfront on user page that its my second account and was created to only reply for his sock investigation case.Summichum (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs are copypaste true. but that is because summichum doesnt seem to understand that the edits were not POV but were poorly sourced and not relevant to this article. cherry picking and misrepresenting has become habit of summichum.Also Blowing out of proportion any negative information regarding the Mufaddal Saifuddin and related to Dawoodi Bohra, and blaming others for POV(sic)Rukn950 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Summichum disruptive edits has been going on for too long and request editors to topic ban Summichum from all Dawoodi bohra Articles. I dont Mind if Admin Ban me too. At least the articles be neutral and other genuine editors would do justification.

This user have strong COI against the sect. Please ref his creation pages all are negative aimed at either deletion or complain. This fellow is in spree of removing historical information on the plea of third party sourcing. :This is not explainable why he chose DB article only amongst lacks of Wiki articles. Please analyze and desist this user using Wiki for partisan activities.

Rukn950(talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined See other report above, filed by summichum against Rukn950. Bjelleklang - talk 15:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redheylin reported by User:Roxy the dog (Result: Editor will leave the category alone )

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

The only other time I have initiated a report here, the reportee hadn't made 4 reverts, but I have hopefully learned to count since then. Redheylin is a very long term editor, with an excellent history (only one block) who should need no reminding not to edit war, but really needs an admonishment to stoppit. I shall now advise him of this on his Talk. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pre-emptive complaint following some rather bad behaviour. I looked at a page that I had edited some time ago and found it had been categorised as "pseudo-science" by another editor, who makes many similar edits, and was immediately reverted when I reomved it. I looked at the history and found the same editor had very recently reverted another editor. The editor's comments were rude. I pointed out there was one editor reverting and more than one who objected. The editor said the other editor was "misguided" and I was "raising a red herring".

He then posted an alert on the "Fringe" page, and this brought two like-minded editors with no previous knowledge of the page, one of whom immediately issued an edit war warning to me. These two then began to edit the page. I engaged them on the talk page and explained the issues, along with two other editors who thought their editing was controversial. As far as I know, I offered a full explanation of the subject and the situation, and pointed out that WP:CAT controversial categorisations are to be avoided, but the two editors continued to make edits and did not respond adequately to the matter. Today I found that the complainant had made a mocking answer to my last, full explanation of the matter, and concluded that these editors aimed to get their way by working in a pack disruptively, without any attempt to respond to matters of policy. Hence I returned the categorisation to its former state. And so, since the complainant has no consensus and no interest in policy guidelines or the actualities of the case, but appears only to be pushing this shared "pseudo-skeptical" point of view at any cost, he has lodged the present complaint. Redheylin (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit warring complaint is legitimate. Redheylin has claimed ownership as the one who created the article, even though other editors have significantly edited it. His ownership behavior has been noted. The PS category has been there for a very long time because content and RS justify it, so it belongs there. Redheylin continues to attack a straw man by claiming that the historical aspects of the subject are being labeled as pseudoscientific. No, they are categorized as Obsolete scientific theories. The PS category applies to the current uses of vitalism as the basis for various New Age and alternative medicine practices. Our sources are clear about that. Therefore we use both categories.

We use categories as an aid for readers, and this subject contains significant elements which are covered by several categories. The objections to the use of the label pseudoscience are nothing more than the allergic reactions of believers in pseudoscience who feel struck. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Redheylin's edit warring must stop. Both categories apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had not asked for a block above, but if Redheylin cannot see his own edit-warring behaviour, per his comments, then I may reconsider. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You both need something better to do. Redheylin (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this is Redheylin's second edit warring offence, I don't think a 24 hour block would be adequate in this case. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The four removals of the category by User:Redheylin since 18 February seem to meet the definition of edit warring, though others have not been blameless. In my opinion, the case can be closed with no block if Redheylin will agree to wait for a talk page consensus before removing the category again. Others have also joined in this war, so further admin action is not ruled out. It is in everyone's interest to resolve this through discussion on Talk:Vitalism. An RfC is one option to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that there seems no possibility of consensus. The only editor who has been watching the page in question is User:BullRangifer, and he has not participated in the discussion on the talk-page. Instead he reported the incident on the "Fringe theories" page and obtained two editors, including Roxy, who "tag-teamed" the page, and introduced misleading edits during the discussion. It is very common in these cases to use this "Fringe theories" page to canvas "pseudoscience" POV advocates with no previous connection with a given page, who open discussions on several fronts simultaneously and introduce contentious edits while the talk-page discussion is going on. I believe the discussion clearly shows an unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue and to reach consensus.

The removal is supported by myself, User:Solomonfromfinland and User:Maunus. WP:CAT clearly says that categorisation should not be controversial. There is no majority in favour of the continued addition of this category, flagrant misrepresentations of authors remain upon the page. Therefore I believe that Wikipedia policy in no way supports the continued addition of the category by User:Bullrangifer, and that his conduct intentionally provokes edit-war, ignoring consensus, the talk-page and Wikipedia policy. Redheylin (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask one more thing: the last revert was carried out by anonymous user 216.9.110.3 - I do not know if this is a proxy edit. Like many bona-fide Wikipedia editors I concentrate upon the constructive editing of articles, spending the minimum of time on administrative pages and talk pages. It just happens that, some years ago, I put a lot of time into articles on the history of developmental biology. I have been sad to see the damage that has been inflicted upon such articles by polemical editors. This is not the only source of contentious editing I have encountered - I have seen trouble from hard-line nationalist and sectarian editors too - but the "pseudoskeptical" cadre is a particularly egregious example who, in my opinion, set out to game the system and to work in packs to slant articles, on subjects in which they have little expertise, to a single issue dictated by a small number of "authoritative" canonical texts such as "The Skeptic' Dictionary". I work hard to produce neutral POVs but it seems to me that a few editors in this field work hard to damage articles, to make them appear incoherent and to apply undue weight to one side. The only good thing is that, knowing so little of the subject in hand, only a few key pages become battlegrounds. Since bona fide editors do not wish to engage in endless adminsitrative discussions, I think a great many experienced and dedicated editors simply give up and are lost to Wikipedia. This is my concern, and I am not sure what can be done about it. Therefore I have offered the above comments, not as an argument against the decision reached upon this page, but out of a long-standing and legitimate concern as to how to deal with this matter, and not to have hours of painstaking and fair-minded work ruined in minutes by gangs of POV-pushers and single-issue editors whose delight is not in the addition of relevant material but in its destruction, masked by endless, fruitless discussion, complaint and lawyering. Administrative suggestions on this will be welcome, please msg me on my page if possible. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redheylin:, I offered to close this with no block if you would agree not to remove the pseudoscience category again without prior talk page consensus. Will you agree to this? EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I haven't changed it have I? but I am asking how to achieve consensus when the reverter will not participate in the discussion. If you think the best way forward is to ignore WP:CAT policy, leave misrepresentative quotes on the page and reward canvassed POV-pushing, that's up to you, but the situation is not good, to me, it does not lead to a better Wikipedia as I say. As far as I am concerned, the breach is in the first place to ignore policy and the majority and the discussion and to keep reverting, that's the only reason we are all here, the only reason I have ever been suckered into any kind of altercation of this type in many years of service. I could contact all the editors who agree with me - but you're not supposed to, are you? So please advise.Redheylin (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: The complaint about Redheylin is closed with no block per his agreement to leave the pseudoscience category alone, until such time as a talk page consensus agrees to its removal. This action may or may not be enough to stop the war. If you notice others continuing to add or remove the category prior to consensus, you can bring new complaints to admins as needed. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I go to complain about the nonsense written by Redheylin? A tirade of personal attacks and IDHT and not even a hint of an apology for deliberate edit warring? Not particularly good behaviour. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:124.180.167.228 and User:Huldra reported by User:Brad Dyer (Result: IP blocked, no action against Huldra)

Page: Heredia, Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 124.180.167.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: IP reverting to [25], other user reverting to [26]

Diffs of the IP user's reverts:

Diffs of the Huldra's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35], [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

Comments:

As I was posting the 3RR notice on the users' talk pages, I noticed that (a) the IP was already warned by Huldra, and subsequently blocked, and that (b) Huldra waited until they were blocked and then proceeded to violate 3RR himself 2 minutes after the block, knowing they are now in a 'position to win' with their opponent blocked. To me, that's disgusting behavior that should not be condoned.

Comment by Huldra: I am pretty sure that (now blocked) IP was as I reported here, namely Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. His threath to me on his user-page sound very much like him: :Go fuck yourself you mother fucking cunt. == To Huldra == I sincerely hope you die. ~~I note that Brad Dyer apparently does not find anything objectionable with the IP`s edits.~~ Huldra (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I find his edits objectionable, I reported him here. But he's already been blocked, and you seem to be taking advantage of that to continue your little edit war, and broke 3RR in the process. Brad Dyer (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the edits of a vandal. So you object to that. Now I see you have reinstated the edit of the same vandal. Noted. And what you reinstated is factually wrong: Ariel (city) is not in Israel, not even the Israeli government claims that. It is on the occupied West Bank. Huldra (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was no vandalism there - there was a content dispute between you and an IP editor. You both violated 3RR, and you both should be sanctioned. Brad Dyer (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually claiming that Ariel (city) is in Israel? That is a position that not a single authority inside or outside Israel supports. So you (and the vandal) inserts something into the article that no authority agrees with you on....and then you claim it is "a content dispute"? Huldra (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Zero0000. Huldra was clearly doing her best to minimise the damage caused by this IP lunatic in multiple articles. The fact that the IP was up to no good and would soon be blocked was obvious from its first edit, and confirmed by its 6 reverts in a row at 2015 Chapel Hill shooting (starting Feb 16, 5:05). After that it seems to be following Huldra around, blindly reverting [38] [39] even on admin pages. I'm 99% sure that this is the same user (permanently blocked under many names) that sent vicious death-threats by email to both Huldra and myself. In that case it comes under the rule "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." Zero^talk 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: The IP has been blocked by another admin. No action against User:Huldra. As noted by User:Zero0000, reverts of edits by banned or blocked users are exempt from 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Mthomas12 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
Not 3RR, a slow-motion edit war. No reasons posted on the edits, no response to requests on user's talk page, article's talk page, and via edit summary. Warring at question is over the removal of the former name of the subject, which is vital to the article as all the references before her marriage are in her former name. Editor is an SPA, and the username suggests that editor may actually be the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Warned User:Mthomas12. Further reverts of this kind are risking an indefinite block from Wikipedia. See your user talk page for details. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:31.178.31.187 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Semi)

Page: Talk:MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.178.31.187 (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

00:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Talk:MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Comments by ATinySliver

My thanks to EoRdE6 for the report. This is one of several IP edits attempting to restore a redirected article to its talk page; if my understanding of policy is correct, this is less a WP:3RR issue than a WP:VANDAL and WP:POINT issue, so someone please clarify for me. Also, I have a request in to protect the page which, as I type this, has received no response. (Edit: now protected.) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 01:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected the talk page, to keep an IP editor from restoring the original article there, contrary to common sense (since it's a talk page, not an article) and contrary to the result of the AfD, which wanted MaxTV - Telling It Like It Is to be merged to Max Kolonko. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Both blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]—could instruction please be added to clarify what should be put here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Contentious editing of the lead

Comments:

This is a clear-cut case of POV-pushing. Andiar.rohnds has repeatedly added the Muslim ethnicity of a victim of the shooting to the lead of the article, despite the fact that nowhere in the article is this detail made a relevant fact. The user has a history of such contentious edits, at one point deleting almost the entire lead [52][53][54] with the edit comment "various minor corrections at lead section". Attempts to get him to find a consensus before making such efforts have resulted in comments such as this, laden with personal attacks such as "asinine", "vandalizing this article", "You actually have no clue", and implying I may be considering sockpuppeting/meatpuppeting. His comments and edit comments in general have been aggressive or condescending, and he doesn't appear to be interested in even making the attempt to find a consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Andiar.rohnds contentious edit has since been reverted by WWGB, which Andiar.rohnds has followed up with further unexplained reverts: [55][56][57] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further update

After going through the motions of using the talk page, where he failed to find any support for his changes, Andiar.rohnds has returned to [58] (reverting WWGB) [59] (reverting myself) to push his contentious edits. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – 72 hours. If either side was hoping to avoid sanctions, it wasn't smart to continue to revert while this report was open. Both editors have been previously blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22 reported by User:Personman (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: Original: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:

Personman (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personman is trying to WP:Game the system. Like I noted on the talk page, Personman was adding in content that is not supported by the WP:Reliable sources. I reverted Personman a third time to inform Personman of WP:Edit warring, and, while I was typing up a talk page rebuttal intending to address WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD, Personman was reporting me here. It is only after I pointed out Personman's WP:Edit warring that Personman brought the matter here to this noticeboard, obviously in an effort to stop the discussion and reinsert the unsupported edits. Personman did not give me a WP:Edit warring warning (and I would not have violated WP:3RR anyway); as noted, I gave Personman a WP:Edit warring warning via an edit summary. If I am WP:Edit warring, then so is Personman. I will not revert again, and I ask WP:Administrators to disregard this report and let the discussion run its course. WP:Blocks are meant to preventative, not punitive. Flyer22 (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to game the system, your edits are the ones unsupported by reliable sources, your "edit warring warning" was in the edit message of your third revert in 24 hours in blatant contravention of policy, and I was not edit warring - in fact, I responded to the criticism in your first revert and significantly improved the sentence as a result. In accordance with policy about disagreements I brought the discussion to the talk page, where you argued against some entirely unrelated assertion made by neither myself nor my edit, inserted a long and unrelated quotation, and failed to respond to my very specific and sourced criticisms of your preferred wording, instead choosing to just revert the page a third time. I think my report here is entirely and exactly justified by policy, though I welcome any suggestions by an administrator as to how I could have handled this better. Personman (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I consider bringing this matter straight to the WP:Edit warring noticeboard after I pointed out WP:Edit warring to you, and including a "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" link when you gave me no such warning, to indeed be WP:Gaming the system. Discussion was going on at the talk page, and you should not at all have been reverting to your unsourced, POV content. I am not some WP:Vandal or WP:Disruptive editor blindly reverting, nor am I an editor who crosses WP:3RR. I am an editor who was making a case based on what WP:Reliable sources in the article state; those sources, including the Julia Serano source, do not define the matter the way that you have defined it. I responded regarding your very specific criticisms and your preferred wording. This is a content dispute that you are looking to shut down by reporting me here. Your report here would only serve to get you WP:Blocked as well since we were reverting each other and neither of us crossed the WP:3RR line. There is nothing at all that makes your reverting better in this case. I stated that I will not revert again, however. If you will not revert again, you should go ahead and make that clear now. Flyer22 (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that my edit had an egregious typo in it - I had omitted the 'not'! I still can't make total sense out of your arguments, but if this is why you were reverting it, then of course I understand, and I'm really sorry for the confusion! I put it back in. Personman (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in this discussion show that you have a deeply flawed understanding of what WP:Edit warring is. This is not surprising since it seems that you do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and have not interacted much with editors via talk pages. To be clearer on WP:Edit warring, it does not mean reverting more than three times; you are confusing that with WP:3RR. You reverted yet again, after I stated that I would not revert again. That equals WP:Gaming the system. But I suppose that, with your level of inexperience with editing Wikipedia, I cannot blame you for not knowing that it is WP:Gaming the system. Your edit still has no WP:Reliable source supporting it in its entirety. I will soon be listing WP:Reliable sources at that talk page showing exactly what I mean since I am, so far, the only one going by them in that discussion. I will then seek wider input. You had better be ready to bring your WP:Reliable sources. Flyer22 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: No violation. Both parties have walked right up to the 3RR line. Any further reverts may put them over. It's good that Flyer22 opened an RfC. More reverts (before consensus is reached) will be risking a block. EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:83.23.202.187 reported by User:J.K Nakkila (Result: Page semied)

Previous version reverted to: [66] [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Comments:
Resolve attempt not by me but by User:Amakuha, who also undid number of IP's reverts. I did undo Ip's revert once. I don't actually know who's right there but the situation is worth looking at. J.K Nakkila (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected Bjelleklang - talk 18:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.111.174.103 reported by User:IPadPerson (Result: blocked)

Page: The Salute Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.111.174.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Consecutive edits made from 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
1. 16:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Supporting acts */"
2. 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Setlist */"
11:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647957432 by Morhange (talk) They also covered a Dodgy song on the tour."
14:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

12:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Salute Tour. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is edit warring on the article by repeatedly inserting incorrect information after being reverted constantly by myself and one other user. A warning was given despite this, but the user likely ignored it. IPadPerson (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Bjelleklang - talk 18:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchroCat reported by User:Unbuttered Parsnip (Result: declined)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[74] note that this editor had in place an {{under construction}} since 16:25, 17 February 2015 until 22:52, 19 February 2015. In that time he made approximately 64 revisions to the live page, even though I told him he should be using his sandbox.
[75] additions I made 07:34, 19 February 2015‎. Note I am in UTC+8, and I spent about 4 hours researching these changes. My edit summary was (correct errors (names, dates); futureproof inflation figures; improve (Hansard) cites; add {{convert}}s: ce (sp, grammar, general lexis))
[76] 1st reversion with edit summary (Partial rv. Numerous MoS errors sported (punct, non-standard formatting on inflation), correct Hansard cites (its not an encyclopaedia, and caps are a no-no). relinked useful links etc)
[77] my second attempt at 03:28, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary ((1) go read WP:OWNER, and WP:OVERLINK; (2) MOS doesn't talk about inflation; (3) of course Hansard is an encyclopedia – a collection of varied topics from many contributors, it certainly isn't a web, and capitals are theirs) NB this was quite a change from my first attempt, overcoming some of the earlier objections
[78] reversion by another editor Curly Turkey at 05:04, 20 February 2015 with edit comment (Undid revision 647984163 by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk) wow, that was horrible—and you don't just go around changing reference styles without consensus) NB sounds like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT
[79] Another attempt at 05:37, 20 February 2015 with edit summary (Undid revision 647993269 by Curly Turkey (talk) Horrible? How? - because it's not written by you? What reference style did I change? I corrected some, provided more info.)
[80] 2nd reversion by this editor at 06:37, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary (Reverted to revision 647969664 by Crisco 1492 (talk): Not an improveme. (TW))
[81] my final attempt, at 08:08, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary (Reverted 2 edits by SchroCat (talk): Go read WP:OWNER, and when you've read it, go read it again.)
[82] editor's 3rd reversion at 08:19, 20 February 2015‎ with edit summary (Undid revision 648009576 by Unbuttered Parsnip (talk)You are edit warring with two other editors, neither of whom claim ownership. You are also at 3RR. Time to use the talk page)

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

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

Comments:
Discussion on talk page was partly removed [84]

I also received quite a lot of abuse, on the Talk:Great Stink page as you can see, and also on my own talk page, both times from User:Curly Turkey

Oops, forgot to sign just now -- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 23:31, wikitime= 15:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief: an editor with something grudge because his largely poor edit was partially reverted? Life is too short for this. Are you complaining because you spent 4 hours researching some changes that you think lost, or because I made 64 revisions to a live page after you told me to use a sandbox (it's a flaming encyclopaedia: additions are supposed to be made in the article space!) you have made no effort to discuss the changes, despite me outlining where your edit breached various parts of the guidelines. Learn to use the talk page to discuss your changes and try and gain a consensus, rather than edit war against the MoS recommendations. I will only say that there is no breach of 3RR here, which is what this page is for, and if you had started using the talk page a lot earlier (as per WP:BRD you wouldn't have wasted so much time and patience for people having to explain where you are going wrong. You can count yourself lucky that neither Curly Turkey nor I dropped you into ANI for uncivil manner and accusations you have levelled against us. - SchroCat (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Unbuttered Parsnip please read the second section of WP:OWN. Bjelleklang - talk 20:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:184.153.132.54 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: IP blocked per another report)

Page: AA (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.153.132.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

18:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Please do not engage in edit wars and false accusations, and non productive threats. The talk page is encouraged for settling disputes. A claim has been filed against you."
18:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Again: Edit-warring disruption started right on schedule by user Dr.K who has continued to make disruptive and sloppy edits to the page, in addition to disruptive false accusations."
18:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Edit-warring disruption started right on schedule by user Dr.K who has continued to make disruptive and sloppy edits to the page, in addition to disruptive false accusations."
05:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Edit-warring disruption started right on schedule by user Dr.K who has continued to make disruptive and sloppy edits to the page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

06:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on AA (band). (TW ★TW)"
18:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW ★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring sock IP restoring unsourced BLP-violating members' birthday tables against consensus in a concerted and long-term effort with other edit-warring IPs to defeat established consensus after long talks between K-pop editors including Drmies, TerryAlex, Random86 and others. Please see this and this for related longterm IP disruption at the article. Disruptive editing leaving tit-for-tat warnings on my talk. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/108.183.129.131. Started edit-warring soon after article protection expired. Will not stop edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note See below. Bjelleklang - talk 20:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr.K. reported by User:184.153.132.54 (Result: Nominating editor blocked)

Page: AA (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[85] [86] [87] [88] [89]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[90]

Comments:

User has been edit warring against attempts at civil discussion in the talk page and instead resorting to false accusations of the use of socks. User has been making extremely hostile, threatening, and non productive edits to both the page on AA and my personal talk page. Started edit warring soon after article protection expired. Will not stop edit warring. 184.153.132.54 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be adding unsourced birthdays. Reverts are exempted from WP:3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours This has been going on for a while now, and while this is not the most serious WP:BLP violation, it still violates the policy by being completely uncited, and you edit-war in order to push your preferred version onto the page. I'm also a bit worried about your allegations that he is threatening you, without ever showing any evidence of a threat. Bjelleklang - talk 20:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AHLM13 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Warned)

Page: Abdul Qayum (imam) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AHLM13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

20:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC) ""
20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ravensfire (talk) to last revision by AHLM13. (TW)"
20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "he is it."
18:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "they are"
17:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "No reason for removing them. Those are good sources. Changed to "most i."."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "/* 3RR and talk page notice */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

20:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Poor sources (yet again) */ new section"

Comments:

AHLM13 and I are in an edit war on several page (see East London Mosque and London Central Mosque. The issue I'm having is AHLM13 is adding claims with poor or not sources and isn't willing to discuss on the article talk page or on their talk page. On their page, they have declared everything fine and haven't shown any willingness to address the issues being raised. I have breached 3RR on some of the articles and where AHLM13 hasn't reverted my last edit I have self-reverted. I won't be touching the articles again today, and probably not tomorrow but will participate in the talk page if AHLM13 is willing to revert to the original version and discuss their changes. I have asked AHLM13 on their talk page to self-revert and discuss but they declined. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: User:AHLM13 is warned that WP:Verifiability is a policy that all editors are expected to follow. Any further warring about 'citation needed' tags or any more criticism of people trying to draw that policy to his attention may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uniquark9 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Warned, article protected)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98],[99],[100],[101]

Comments:
This edit war has been on-going since Feb 12th. When anyone has reverted, then started a discussion, Uniquark9, IPs or Alicewond(1 edit) have arrived to revert back to Uniquarks version.

Uniquark9's snide remark after reverting me, "An edit war? Please, discuss". And yet, Uniquark9 has not engaged on the talk page, unless user:Khorichar is Uniquark9(sockpuppetry?), despite Richard Keatinge and Ergative rlt's attempt to start a discussion. Along with a block for edit warring(Uniquark9), the Xiongnu article needs to be protected and let a consensus on the talk page be established. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Article has been protected, please resolve issues on the talkpage and request edits to be made using the template {{Edit protected}}. Bjelleklang - talk 01:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that edit wars have been a pattern of behavior for Uniquark9. A complaint was recently lodged here, yet despite every editor who contributed to the discussion supporting sanction against him, no action was taken. No admin even engaged in the discussion, to my knowledge. So here one page is protected and he is free to carry on his disruption elsewhere. Filing a complaint is a long process -- I've twice reported him for socks, and participated in other complaints -- yet disregarding WP norms and guidelines and causing endless disruption means merely blanking one's talk page and continuing without so much as a response. How easy it is to frustrate the good faith efforts of editors working within the system. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that the continued actions by Uniquark9 would have given them enough rope to hang themselves - however, this doesn't seem to be the case. They so far have been able to continue to disrupt this project despite at least two previous reports. Even more frustrating, the protection of the Xiongnu article benefited Uniqark9, as they restored the contentious material shortly before the protection went up. So, basically, they've been warned about edit warring and disruption, but their action was allowed to stand and now can only be undone by an administrator. They've essentially "won" this war, and have received no sanctions for their continued disruption on this and other articles.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rswallis10 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Protected)

Page: House of Cards (season 3) (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

04:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648139822 by Favre1fan93 (talk) content DOES NOT fall under the reasonings of S/IMDB"
00:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648114362 by Drovethrughosts (talk) I do not believe this is a violation of WP:CITINGIMDB after reading the article. These titles are not user-generated"
00:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648113009 by Drovethrughosts (talk) show me an official Wikipedia document stating that IMDb is not a reliable sourc. Then I'll stop."
Consecutive edits made from 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) to 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1. 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648112676 by Drovethrughosts (talk) do you want an edit war? This is really STUPID!"
2. 23:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648112778 by Drovethrughosts (talk) please stop."
23:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648112492 by Drovethrughosts (talk see previous thought. This is borderline ridiculous. Find better things to do please. You're obviously bored."
23:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648112436 by Drovethrughosts (talk) There are people who cite using tweets from Twitter. Please stop with the bureaucracy."
23:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
Consecutive edits made from 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC) to 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
1. 23:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648108362 by Favre1fan93 (talk) it's not on Wikipedia's blacklist, so its ok. Edits shouldn't be undone just because of your personal opinion of whats reliable, and what's not"
2. 23:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on House of Cards (season 3). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is in blatant violation of 3RR and simply does not care. I fail to see how the editor is of any good to this encyclopedia, and believe all would benefit from Rswallis10's being banned or blocked. Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not as positive that a block is called for. I'd advise a closer look at the article's edit history; the reporter reverted thrice as well. Take special note of the utter lack of discussion by any of the participants of this lame revert war. If discussion had taken place in the article, then a 3RR report would have had some traction here. This seems retaliatory, especially since Favre1fan93 simply templated Rswallis10, and the latter went to Favre's user talk page to explain their actions. I am not saying Rswallis is right; I am suggesting that both of them handled this wrong. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected There appears to be three people edit warring. Protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:66.192.216.66 reported by User:K scheik (Result: Blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[102]

It was the above revert repeatedly undone and redone.

I attempted to reason with the editor, who has had her edits undone by two different editors, both times she undid the edits manually, to avoid notifying us that our edits had been undone. [103] Comments:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by K scheik (talk • contribs) 20:38, February 21, 2015‎

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 20:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:RobinHood70 (Result: Page protected )

Previous version reverted to: Age disparity in sexual relationships

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[104] February 21, 2015 (most recent reversion)
[105] February 21, 2015
[106] February 20, 2015
[107] January 5, 2015 (start of slow edit war)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Age disparity in sexual relationships#Sweeping, dusting, and weeding may be in order

Comments:

There has been a slow edit war occurring at the above-mentioned page since January 4. The image used as a lead image was objected to by an anonymous user. In discussion on the talk page, some people agreed, some did not, and there were numerous attempts to find a better replacement. Whenever any edits were made to the page (sometimes with an apparent consensus, sometimes not; sometimes to remove/alter the image, sometimes to reinstate it), each such attempt was reverted by one of three users. Behaviour by most involved has been less than exemplary, as noted by SebastianHelm in the "Sweeping, dusting, and weeding may be in order" section, and all three of those reverting in favour of one version or the other have been blocked for edit warring in the past.

Ultimately, a neutral admin was called in (same section as Sebastian's comment) and she made a ruling on the dispute, stating that there had been several good reasons for removal cited by several users, but no reasons other than "last stable version" cited by those in favour of keeping the image. Since no suitable replacement had been found, she proposed simple removal of the image. That proposal met with no objections. After the ruling, when there were no objections to the decision, I removed the image as decided. It was then reverted. Since then, each attempt to follow the neutral admin's ruling has been reverted by RAN.

I would like to see the image removed, per the discussion that took place, and either Richard should be blocked for edit warring, or the page should be fully protected. (Update: Per RAN's request at RfPP, the page has now been fully protected for three days. At this time, the image remains in place.) – Robin Hood ^(talk) 21:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not followed this, but Richard is making good contributions about polo players; it'd be a shame if he were blocked. Hope it's OK to butt in.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for RobinHood for stealing edits from the rich to give to the poor anonymous IPs. That anonymous IP has been blocked previously for editing the same article, and is most likely a sockpuppet evading sanctions by using a VPN in Amsterdam. 99.9% of their edits are to this single article. The IP wrote: "You can block me all you want. Game the system all you want, I will return. I can change my IP within 24 to 48 hours. Go take your prude conservative morals somewhere else. I will not let you kill free speech without a fight. ... 143.176.62.228." There has been a discussion about what images to use, paintings that depict fictional people, or real people which may violate their personality rights by implying they have a sexual relationship, when they may not have one. See Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Personality rights, for instance, the government image of two people at a table with one taking notes. See Talk:Age_disparity_in_sexual_relationships#Replacement where the art photos have a clear consensus. The only voice opposing the current two images was the IP wanting the painting of Nelson and his mistress, who were 7 years apart in age. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Richard's statement, there have been at least four people throughout the last month who have supported removal of the "Unequal Marriage" image: myself, the 146.* IP, a 161.* IP, and Anna Frodesiak as part of her ruling. The 146.* IP is not the only one. The IP may be evading a block, but has consistently used a 146.* IP address, so is reasonably recognizable. If there are any other addresses they've been using, I'm unaware of them. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 22:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the article for three days. In the meantime, perhaps someone could start an RfC to decide the issue. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah (SV): There have already been two RfCs with no resolution until Anna's decision. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusing "consensus" with "consensus + 1 opposing editor with admin rights". People with admin rights don't get super !votes. A third opinion is when only two people are locked in a dispute and are in opposition to each other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. There have been four people in support of removing the image and two opposed whose reasons have been deemed insufficient to warrant keeping it. There is absolutely no consensus in favour of keeping the image, despite your repeated assertions that there is. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 23:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of uninvolved editor: This article has been one of the longest standing issues on AN:RFC, which is how I became aware of it (now archived here). I made two attempts to close it out at § Summary of !votes and § Is an uninvolved editor needed to resolve this?; both were met only with uncooperative reactions. The problem in my view therefore is not one single user, but everyone who participated in the quarrel, and who refused to seek out or support cooperative solutions. — Sebastian 01:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with your "attempts to close it out" was that you didn't include the very image that was being discussed as a viable option, nor did you take into account the discussions regarding it on any of the other threads in that page - as I stated in my edit to your post. Don't think that I don't appreciate the effort, but it rather missed the point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EW in ARBPIA (1RR) (Result: Malformed)

Edit warring at Template:Largest cities of Israel(edit talk links history). Please restore pre-situation. Will notify. -DePiep (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reported this at WT:IPCOLL#Edit war at Template:Largest cities of Israel, which seems like the appropriate place for discussing this particular edit war. — Sebastian 04:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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..--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Roman army by Cplakidas (Result: Picture Master warned)

Edit warring at Roman army. User Cplakidas is removing images I added for the article Roman army. He says they are "worthless". I do not agree. Is he the ownert of the truth? Does he owns Wikipedia? I do not think so! Sorry for the bad English, but I'm brazilian. Best Reguards! Picture Master (talk)

Well, I guess Im not involved but I have the feeling that I will be soon. This user insert sketches to articles that serve no purpose. In Wikipedia, we add pics that are relevant. However in this edit 1, he added a sketch of the Temple of Bel although the article already have two real pics for that temple. and he added this pic at a section that is NOT about this temple. The result was bad for the style and the content.

When I reverted him, he accused me of Vandalism. and the article is nominated (by me) for a GA. I spent 40 days writing it and I know that when the time for the GA review will come, I would be asked to remove the pic that this user added. yet he doesn't care and reverted me and its really bad for the review to have Edit war in the article. We (editors) in Wikipedia don't expect a thank for our contributions, but its not fair for someone like me and Cplakidas to spend hours everyday and read hundreds of books in order to deliver a good information for the readers and then be accused of Vandalism.

A quick look at Cplakidas contributions will show you that he is no Vandal. However, this user contributions says other thing and he was already blocked before for edit warring cause he insists on adding sketches that serve no purpose to articles 2.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Picture Master: You are Warned that calling other editors' edits vandalism when they are clearly not vandalism but just a disagreement with your edits constitutes a personal attack. If you persist in attacking other editors or edit-warring over images you are promoting in multiple articles, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not know tha Cplakidas's personal opinions were the truht here in English Wikipedia. I did not know he owned the article about Roman army. I thought it was public, that anyone could colaborate. I added a picture of a Roman Soldier and of the Soldiers of Julius Caesar. I did not know that if user Cplakidas did not like the pictures he could remove them without asking the opinion of other people, as he is the owner of the truth. Picture Master (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:124.148.252.225 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Declined)

Page: Agnosticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.148.252.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

03:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Changed "does not believe that God exists" to "believes that God does not exist" for more accurate grammar. A Agnostic also does not believe that God exists offhand, but an atheist has made a firm decision that they believe in the non-existence of God."
05:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648279334 by Mann jess (talk) exactly, those two are NOT the same thing, and the distinction IS important."
05:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648284435 by Mann jess (talk) An Agnostic also does not believe that God exists offhand. The distinction is VERY important. reviewing your previous posts. This is an English site."
05:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Changed "does not believe that God exists" to "believes that God does not exist" for more accurate grammar. An Agnostic does not believe offhand that God exists, but an atheist has made a firm decision that they believe in the non-existence of God."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

05:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Agnosticism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

05:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Atheism includes more than "belief in no gods" */ new section"

Comments:

Cannot get the user to go to the talk page, or engage in any other behavior than reverting. — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. IP has not breached 3RR as two of the "reverts" you list are consecutive edits and count only as one. If the IP continues, please comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was no breach of 3rr, just general edit warring. In any case, I came back to retract the report, as the ip has now posted to the talk page. Thanks for your input. — Jess· Δ ♥ 07:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Railway56 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result:Blocked)

Page: Gatwick Airport railway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Railway56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

22:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Services */ better detail regarding Reading service"
23:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648249335 by Charlesdrakew (talk) I have seen detail like that on many station articles."
23:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648250690 by Redrose64 (talk) I feel this is information is valid due to the fact this station is a station for an Airport. I agree wiki is not a travel guide"
09:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648253242 by Charlesdrakew (talk) That information is not excessive"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[109]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was warned before the latest revert and has been similarly warned before. Charles (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:75.108.122.74 reported by User:MrX (Result: 48 hours)

Page: George Soros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.108.122.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

16:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
01:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added George Soros' 60 MInutes statement. Matter of public record."
13:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
14:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
15:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."
15:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Early life */ Re-added the statement made by George Soros on 60 MInutes. His statement is a matter of public record."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on George Soros. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

14:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* "Confiscate the valuables of the Jews" */ no, on further inspection, it was 5"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Obviously edit warring; was warned. Kuru (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elevatorrailfan reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [110]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [116]

Comments:
User involved in controversial editing in WP:ARBEE territory and most recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Poland (1944–1952), reverting long-established editors to keep his POV. Poeticbent talk 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Bjelleklang - talk 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:CSWP1 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

Page: Talk:Juliano Mer-Khamis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CSWP1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

01:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books: Removing the baseless accusations of a now-banned user"
13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC) "(Undid revision 644350594 by Nableezy (talk) bullys gonna bully)"
01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books: I'll leave Sean's comment. It seems you guys want it for weight. But his mudslinging has no place here, especially since he's been topic banned for exactly this kind of behavior"
05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647661917 by Nableezy (talk) His accusation is being taken out. He speaks it as if it is fact, when it is merely his mudslinging."
01:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Adam Schatz and the London Review of Books"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has repeatedly deleted another editor's talk page comments. Depite the editor's repeated claims, the editor whose comments s/he has been removing, who has retired from Wikipedia, is neither banned nor topic-banned. Editor has been warned about this several times, yet continues, and has again removed the comment since this investigation has opened. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn reported by User:Magnolia677 (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[118]
[119]

On other articles...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:

On the South Bound Brook, New Jersey article, I had made 4 distinct edits in a row. I provided edit summaries for each edit. Instead of picking those edits he disagreed with, he rolled back all 4 edits. I believe all of the edits I made were in keeping with policy, and no consensus has been reached in many discussions to the contrary. In particular, WP:USCITIES states : "if a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, if there is any, remove any existing article coordinate from this section. There should be only one coordinate relating to the article present." That's what I did at this edit. After rolling back all 4 edits--including that one--I reverted that edit and left the edit summary "please pay attention to what you revert; do you really want to add the geo-coordinates that are also in the infobox? Pay attention or go to bed friend." It was no use; he reverted all 4 edits again. I have had nothing but frustration with this editor while trying to make edits to New Jersey articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnolia677 is back to some sick, passive-aggressive "gotcha" game where he feels confident that he will drag me into some sort of punishment in revenge for some long lost crime perpetrated against him. Among many other manufactured battles, he challenged the use of a see also linking to a category more than two full months ago and was told here that "My independent input is that Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link. The complaint about the wrong articles being placed in categories is 1) not relevant here on the issue of where a category link should be placed, and 2) fixable by editing the improperly categorized articles." He started an RfC in the article in question and a review of the responses here demonstrates consensus rebutting his concerns and supporting the practice. In response, Magnolia677 refused to respect this consensus and started yet another one of his edit wars at [134], [135] and [136] in direct contravention of the results of the RfC he started. Simply put, anyone who is here to perpetually pick fights and manufacture provocations is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. No one should have to put up with this shameless abuse of process. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Magnolia677 seems to essentially concede your points in favor of including the cat link" I'm still trying to figure that one out, because I completely disagree with it. As for the RfC, I tried that in the hope of getting other opinions, but the only one who showed up to comment was another editor who edits in lockstep with Alansohn. This is all smoke and mirrors, and play the victim. This person is a relentless edit warrior, who seems to target me. He must have it his way at all costs. Again, thank you for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Koala15 reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result:Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:
A few months ago I redirected the article for Monkey Kingdom because the film had not yet released in theaters and it had yet to receive any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The majority of the coverage consisted of mentions that the film was going to release, but there wasn't anything that was ultimately more than an announcement of an eventual release and passing, trivial mentions. Recently Koala15 has been coming to the page and reverting the edits, stating that because the film will release it would pass notability guidelines. I've tried contacting her on the article talk page and she never responded in any way but to keep reverting my edits. I eventually tried contacting her on her talk page since she was not going to discuss this on the article talk page and I tried explaining that the film does not currently pass WP:NFILM or WP:NFF due to the lack of coverage. I've asked her to discuss this before reverting, but she insists that the film is already notable, despite a lack of reviews, news coverage, and the like. I'm open to the article getting un-redirected once the film receives more coverage and I don't want to nominate this for AfD just to make a WP:POINT (it'd almost certainly just get deleted and redirected). I tried going through 3O, but it was declined since Koala15 did not try to discuss things on the article talk page. I don't know if there's been enough reverts to take it here- there have been three already and I'm not sure if she's the IP that did the same thing back in January (which makes it four attempts to revert if it was), but there have been a number of attempts to re-create the article before notability was established. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, saying that there's a release date doesn't really mean anything since there have been cases where films - even big ticket films- have been held back at the last minute. Until the film releases and gets more coverage in reliable sources, saying that the film is notable in the here and now because of a release date violates WP:CRYSTAL. We can't guarantee notability until the subject (in this case a film) actually has the coverage to back this up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warned Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ashtul reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

Page: Community settlement (Israel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashtul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

11:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "/* History and today */ after new rewrite is redundant"
12:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) "/* History */ Passage I transferred earlier but seem redundant"

Previous block notice for 1RR violation: [143]

Comments:

Violation of 1RR on ARBPIA -- removes the same passage twice in less than 24 hours, the second time after it had been restored by a different editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtul respond

I suggest Nomoskedasticity will spend his time better editing then trying to eliminate other users whose edits he wp:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

The first sentence about Neve Monosson appears already at the very top and thus is redundant. The second repeats arguements the are already in the article which was recently had tons of material added and Beitar Illit isn't even a community settlement anymore. A massive revert of multiple changes from earlier eliminated this change. It has 0 significance. You can ask Nishidani and with all our disagreements, I'm certain he will agree.

It will be usefull if you were involved in the details before accusing me with such nonsense.

Nice try but move on. Ashtul (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed mistaken by the time at the gignature as the time as my computer was at 0GMT instead of +2GMT. I have change the settings in order to prevent this from happening in the future. Ashtul (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting until exactly 24 hours is still edit warring and gaming. Especially with no discussion on the talk page in the mean time. This seems like a clear 1RR violation to me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kraainem reported by User:ChamithN (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

09:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648433805 by Wuerzele (talk)What makes a source about business in general and market platforms in general an unreliable source. Please discuss on Talk Page and quote WP policy."
15:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648479663 by Aoidh (talk)Surely consensus is required to delete? All new edits only enter after previous consensus? Nothing (blank space) cannot be status quo."
16:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 648489411 by ChamithN (talk)You revert my reliable reference and then state I give no reference. Very strange. Plse dont remove referenced input."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

15:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources. (TW)"
15:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"
"Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bitcoin."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

@@ Line 970: / Line 970: @@
 Nice try but move on. [[User:Ashtul|Ashtul]] ([[User talk:Ashtul|talk]]) 12:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 : I was indeed mistaken by the time at the gignature as the time as my computer was at 0GMT instead of +2GMT. I have change the settings in order to prevent this from happening in the future. [[User:Ashtul|Ashtul]] ([[User talk:Ashtul|talk]]) 12:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
+::Waiting until exactly 24 hours is still edit warring and gaming. Especially with no discussion on the talk page in the mean time. This seems like a clear 1RR violation to me. [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] <small>Please &#123;&#123;[[Template:re|re]]&#125;&#125;</small> 18:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 == [[User:Kraainem]] reported by [[User:ChamithN]] (Result: ) ==

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