Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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

User:LawrencePrincipe reported by User:Chealer (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

[1]

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) "WP:Lede requires that only material in the main body of the article may be put in the Lead section.Please stop edit warring WP:EW & violating WP:3RR. Four editors have asked for your reasons on Talk. You have no support on Talk."
2. [2]
3. [3]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Warn"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[4]

Comments:

This can be considered as a continuation of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive252#User:LawrencePrincipe_reported_by_User:Chealer_.28Result:_No_action_.29 the August 1st report about the same user, which was handled by User:Tiptoety.

In the previous report, I asked for moderation, and the consequence was an imposed self-reversion. After the user suggested he was going to comply and made an edit with the appearance of the self-reversion imposed, the case was closed. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in the previous report, the edit turned out to be a hand-crafted revision which only reverted one part of the violating edit. After the intervention of a bot and myself to complete the reversion, the user reverted against the ruling, with no justification but one of the same arguments he had made then had refuted many times. At this point, I did not reopen the case right away, but rather reverted, which - perhaps unsurprisingly - proved useless. The user re-re-reverted, before I issued a final warning on the article's Talk, since the user had requested so. I'm opening this now that the user re-re-re-reverted invoking no argument which hasn't been refuted already, rather implying that I violated the 3RR and pretending that 4 editors have asked for my "reasons", without even specifying which. Moreover, in that last revert, depicted as a simple reversion of my previous edit, he also reverted a recent change without giving any justification.

Reviewing an edit from Folklore1 made me realize that the above statement is misleading. It remains true that the last revert was more than what the edit summary suggested, but the extra part was not what I initially read (a revert of one of my edits). Even though it technically does revert that, I failed to notice that it also removed the fragment ' "more than 50 official policies" ' LawrencePrincipe had added. This fixes an important problem. It constitutes a concession, and certainly was not a reversion of my edit in spirit.

I do not withdraw my complaint and recommendation for sanction, but the statement now italicized was a big mis-characterization, and I apologize for that. I should have praised that change, not blamed it. @LawrencePrincipe: I apologize to you in particular, although I recommend you avoid mixing such changes in a single edit in the future. If you choose to proceed in such a way anyway, make sure your edit summary reflects that.

Note to self: Keep assuming some good faith... --Chealer (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC), corrected 16:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must re-amend the above after giving a new look to the diff with a much-needed cooler head. I surely understand the analysis error I made now, but I probably understand LawrencePrincipe's error too. I now believe LawrencePrincipe's change to content of the lead's last paragraph was unintentional, which would mean that my original interpretation of the edit was basically correct; LawrencePrincipe intended to discreetly revert my change, but unintentionally removed his own addition while removing my request for clarification, which explains why the sentence was left broken.

If that was not case, then I maintain my apologies. --Chealer (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

While a week has gone between his last reverts, it should be noted that Wikipedia was locked for 1 week during that period, for reasons not unrelated to this user's behavior. (By the way, this case may be a good opportunity to review the page's protection status. It appears that setting full protection has ironically now brought the article back to No protection rather than the previous semi-protection which it seemed to have, which is bringing more problematic edits than anything else. I would recommend semi-protection or Pending changes.)

In the original report, I wrote I was "sure he [could] become/remain a useful contributor". I am sorry, but I hereby fully retract this statement. Although I will never deny that LawrencePrincipe has already contributed useful work and can continue to do so, his signal/noise ratio has exploded, now that he's opened an RFC and directly tried to get so many people involved. More importantly, his conduct is very mischievous. He repeatedly feigns ignorance and tries to change the subject. I consider several of his comments (such as the edit summary discussed above) as personal attacks. I can only hope that this will change, but have no evidence to that effect. I recommend a meaningful block.

I would probably take an extra day of redaction and an extra hour from your time if I tried to point each error and deceitful behavior I have seen from LawrencePrincipe. Instead of that, I am offering a single example. Unfortunately, although extreme, repeating an error for the nth time, while in the act of quoting me pointing out that n was already >= 10, is far from unrepresentative of the behavior LawrencePrincipe currently displays.

Less than 2 weeks have passed since this case was opened; LawrencePrincipe is surely and understandably not much more skilled with this Wikipedia's language and its conventions. However, these can't explain all the apparent confusion he has shown, and one can hardly use carelessness and inexperience as defense after having opened an RFPP and resorted to important canvassing. A large part of what looks like confusion/inexperience is intentional deception. I have never dealt with a contributor conducting himself so poorly/inconsistently, and I have probably been here for too long already. I honestly wonder who LawrencePrincipe is, and am still unsure at times about an apparent confusion's genuineness, but it is high time to put an end to this.

I realize the above contains lots of accusations and judgments which are not fully substantiated. This is not really intentional. If your review of the situation does not make the reasons behind a certain claim obvious, I am sorry and will be happy to elaborate. --Chealer (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I already reported both users to ANI for this issue a few hours ago. Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Prolonged_edit_warring_and_content_dispute_on_Wikipedia. Both users are edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Johnmoor reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:24, 15 August 2014
2. 19:52, 15 August 2014.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:26, 15 August 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Nofel_Izz#Puffery 16:13, 14 August 2014, 15:31, 15 August 2014

Comments:

Starting here at AN3, realizing that this will probably go to ANI.

This is an escalation of Johnmoor edit-warring over maintenance templates in the article [5][6] [7], though Johnmoor's edit-warring problems with this article go back to March 2012.

Basically, he's ignoring the content policy concerns, and was edit-warring over the tags until I simply started removing the poorly-sourced and unsourced material from the article. Now he's edit-warring to restore the material back into the article.

Background:

Johnmoor, while not admitted to any conflict of interest, appears to be a paid editor. He appeared to have retired from editing when confronted with evidence of a COI. Basically, he had in the past linked his user page to to webpages that clearly showed he was a paid editor. While someone has erased most of the evidence outside Wikipedia, we still have the images he obtained from the people he wrote articles for.

More importantly, he doesn't appear to understand our policies and guidelines related to types of references and their usage. He uses and argues for the use of self-published material, press releases, interviews, announcements in articles as if our policies on using such sources didn't exist. For a detailed example, see Talk:Grammarly beginning at Talk:Grammarly#Revisions. His most recent attempt at creating an article shows the same problems but in a BLP: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Randy_Gage.

His most recent edits relate to Nofel Izz, which included related or competing material in Telescopic Exo Shell, SpaceShaft, Space elevator, and Non-rocket spacelaunch. From what I understand of this discussion, Johnmoor is just one of multiple editors involved in writing about and promoting Izz.

Related discussions: User_talk:Johnmoor#Is_Nofel_Izz_or_his_representatives_paying_editors_to_change_articles_related_to_him.3F, User_talk:Johnmoor#Space_elevator, User_talk:Johnmoor#If_you_have_a_problem_with_my_editing.2C_bring_it_to_an_appropriate_forum --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Defence

Since my first encounter with User:Ronz on Grammarly—Talk:Grammarly#Primary sources, he has basically ignored WP:AGF, accusing me of being a paid editor—Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 68#Editor Johnmoor and has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING about all of my contributions since then. This incidence began soon after I found that some new contributions to the Nofel Izz—an article which I had previously contributed—were lacking citations and I decided to improve on it by adding citations, and in finding those citations I came across his new design of a space elevator which I found relevant for mention in the space elevator article; this led me to make other related contributions, some of which were challenged. As usual, Ronz (talk · contribs) was on my trail, but his contributions were challenged by other contributors, and characteristically—Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Problem on BLP noticeboard, he undid those who challenged him. User:Anupam tried working—Talk:Nofel Izz#Puffery with him to address his concerns, but when repeatedly asked to state specific sentences or list out sources that are of concern, he simply avoid to answer—WP:DONTGETIT; seeing that there was no longer a need for the tags on the article, I removed them, but he undid me replacing them with a different tag, which is just WP:POINTy, I warned him—Edit warring on Nofel Izz, but he ignored, and this resulted in the subsequent undoing of each other's contributions. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

So how do these misleading, when not outright false, allegations justify your edit-warring to restore poorly sourced and unsourced information where BLP applies? --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Kwikk35 and User:Truurbansoulja reported by User:Versace1608 (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Wale (rapper) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwikk35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Truurbansoulja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

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

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

Comments:
Greetings administrators. An IP user, who created two additional accounts, has made 6 disruptive edits to the Wale article in less than 24 hours. The user's revision has been reverted by three different users, excluding myself. The user keeps adding the same stuff over and over. I tried to reason with the user in this edit but to no avail. The user (using his/her other account) left this note on my talk page. The user left the same message on User:Jamie Tubers' talk page in this edit. The user needs to be blocked because he/she is socking and edit warring. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weldone for bringing this here. I posted my report, then I saw yours. Just to add; this user is also editwarring on Nipsey Hussle article. It can be seen here, here and here. I also tried to reason with this user here to no avail.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. There were so many things wrong with these two accounts it's hard to know where to begin. First, Kwikk35 made a clear legal threat. Second, both are probably sock puppets of each other. Third, the edits of both were WP:BLP violations. And, of course, there's also the edit warring. I have a feeling that semi-protection may be needed for both articles, but we'll see.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Nisanyan8 reported by User:Why should I have a User Name? (Result: Warned)

Page

Sevan Nişanyan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Nisanyan8 (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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

COI editor owning the article and adding unreferenced puffery, violating not only 3RR but also WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Why should I have a User Name?, you didn't file this report properly; diffs are required. And they would show that the user hasn't come close to breaching WP:3RR. In any event, edit warring isn't really the issue. His self-promotion (assuming he's the subject) is, and I've left a warning on his talk page about that. If he persists, I will consider blocking him.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: No action )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12] *added by DD2K
6. [13] *added by DD2K

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (User is ware of the 3RR rule)[14] And [15]

Comments:
CFredkin believes that the RfC I posted in talk page is not neutral, and keeps removing the RFC tag instead of commenting in the appropriate section. I have asked him to stop, but he does not. I have posted a notice of the RFC at BLP/N, as well as informed other participants about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin has made 2 other reverts on the page, without explaining the problems he seems to be having with the RFC. Which looks to me as if it conforms to the guidelines. The editor has already been warned and blocked for edit warring many times, and does not follow blocks or warnings. In fact, he completely ignores them and just edits under sock accounts while blocked. Dave Dial (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The explanation here appears to be "I edit-warred to remove an RfC I didn't like so that I could start a second RfC on my preferred terms." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the corresponding reversions by User:Cwobeel:

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

The RfC as written violates the guidelines for WP:RfC's by being blatantly non-neutral. It also completely mis-represents the dispute regarding one of the edits cited. I've offered to help with editing the RfC to address these issues. However Cwobeel has chosen to edit war instead.CFredkin (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Dave Dial's comment above is categorically false. We're talking about a Talk page here. Every one of the diffs above states my issues with the RfC construction. I also note that none of the other editors who've commented here have bothered to respond to my concerns in Talk. Their response has been to revert my edits where I'm stating the issue!

The 2 edits Cwobeel included in the original RfC should probably not have been included in the same RfC. The issues being raised for the edits are fundamentally different (as I stated in Talk). I finally created a separate RfC to deal with the edit I'm disputing. I don't want to create a second RfC for the remaining edit in dispute, because I'm not disputing it. And I still object to the original RfC, unless the edit I'm disputing (which I've now created a separate RfC for) is removed.CFredkin (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• CFredkin made six reverts, which is obviously more egregious than Cwobeel's four, but both of them broke WP:3RR. Rather than flinging symmetrical blocks around, I'm letting both of them off with a warning. Any more edit warring on this page from either of them and I'll block. Bishonen | talk 08:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

I just don't know what to do with this guy. I have had to disengage from multiple articles because his behavior, but in this case I will not give up. All I wanted was to attract additional eyeball to the dispute, per WP:DR. I will restart the RFC from scratch, and if he reverts gain I will report here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: page protected)

Page

Joni Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Agenda 21 */ Once again, Talk discussion is against including this content"
2. 06:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Agenda 21 */ Once again, article Talk does not support this content currently"
3. 06:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621452830 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) You've deleted reliably sourced content and the source with this edit"
4. 05:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Agenda 21 */ Article Talk consensus currently does not support this content"
5. 22:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Agenda 21 */ Edit based on Talk discussion"
6. 21:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Agenda 21 */ Update based on article Talk discussion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? */"
2. 05:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC: Can material that is critical to the subject be included in the article? */ NPOV and FRINGE demand that we call out fringe theories as what they are."

Comments:

6RR on effectively the same material. Noted in edit summaries that user was approaching 3RR. Already reported by another user for a similar issue on the talk page. Made tendentious accusation that a source was removed when the diff clearly shows that he is the user that removed a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't the previous discussion about this same user on exactly the same page? Anyhow, the fact that he has three (see further up) reports on ANEW over the past few days is hardly complimentary to him. I have tangled with this user several times before, and in my experience he is far too prone to edit-warring, as well as to citing the BLP exception to WP:3RR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of User:NorthBySouthBaranof's reverts of same content

Diff 1 Diff 2 Diff 3 Diff 4

A lengthy discussion of the content in question can be found starting here. The dispute followed the addition of content by one of the editors involved in the edit war. Essentially no consensus exists for addition of content in dispute. My understanding of WP:BRD is that once the content in question was reverted initially, further attempts to restore the content should be based on a Talk consensus supporting the addition. This is particularly true with WP:BLP's.

And speaking of tendentious editing.... In this series of edits, I address 3 discrete content issues separately: Edit 1 Edit 2 Edit 3

And here, NorthBySouth reverts the edits en masse, while addressing 1 of the issues: Edit 4

I then initiated yet another Talk discussion, which NorthBySouth declined to join. He instead continued the edit war.CFredkin (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

With regards to Vanamonde's comments above, I'll point out that the complaint filed immediately before this one is essentially the same dispute. Many of the diffs in this one are duplicates of the one's above.(I retract the previous sentence.)

Also, I'll point out that Vanamonde's comments are not accompanied by any diffs.CFredkin (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The first edit in your list is not a revert. I did not undo any editor's action - as a previously-uninvolved editor, I installed newly-rewritten content based on an interpretation of the source. You simply blindly reverted me just as you had reverted other editors.

Breaking up a revert into multiple edits does not make it less of a revert. Your "3 discrete content issues" combined to entirely revert my edits, which makes it a revert.

Absolutely none of the diffs in this report are duplicated. You edit-warred with Cwobeel on the article Talk page and you have edit-warred with Cwobeel and myself on the article page. Two separate violations. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, NBSB, maybe you didn't realize, but your first edit listed above reverted this, installing the same text, just lightly rearranged. So that's four reverts. I don't like to place symmetrical blocks here either, see previous section. Instead I've protected the page for a week so that hopefully things can be worked out on talk. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you for the intervention,. What do you suggest about how to reduce the persistent disputes with CFredkin? I have tried everything, including RFCs, but as you can see from the previous report, even that is a source of disruptive editing. I am at a loss, and would appreciate any actionable suggestions. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, I went to the page and looked, but had to conclude I just don't have the time to get sufficiently familiar with the subject. It's new to me. Sorry I can't be of any help. It does look like it has gone beyond RfC's, so I suggest you try WP:DRN. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC).

User:Whatzinaname reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)

Page

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "no demonstrable relevance to the shooting,"
2. 14:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "That's what's called OR and doesn't belong on wikipedia."
3. 18:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "" (This one is a partial revert)
4. 18:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "POV pushing garbage. I gave the full, accurate account as best we know it. Your account is purposely misleading and unacceptable"
5. 20:51, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Nice try."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shooting of Michael Brown. (TW)"
2. [16]
3. [17]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:02 am, Today (UTC−4)

Comments:

Plenty of discussion ongoing at talk. Last revert after an RFC was opened regarding the content removed.TMCk (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone ought to protect the article -- which is the logical course of action -- the "although" argumentation format does not belong in any article which must be compliant with WP:BLP and it is likely that the "KKK allegation" is quite contentious in nature, requiring substantially stronger sourcing that the SPLC blogs. I find it reprehensible to try using incidents of this nature to score "political points" of any sort at all, especially where the allegations are based on relatively weak sourcing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no major general edit warring there to warrant protection.
2. The KKK content has 2 sources, only 1 being the SPLC. More sources can be find at talk + it can be verified on the KKK's own website. It might be undue and that will be determined at the running RFC (and rather quickly I guess).
   ::Cheers, TMCk (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Collect: Thank you for your usual illuminating perspective, but the article is fine; it doesn't need protection. Almost all of the 150+ editors have edited remarkably reasonable, and then there's Whatzinaname. Note this tirade: Talk:Shooting of Michael Brown#this article is so laced with biased leftist invective it's a virtual propaganda piece. Apparently Whatzinaname had similar experience editing shooting of Trayvon Martin. - MrX 21:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Even without the reverts of the KKK material, the user breached WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Callum0000 reported by User:SnapSnap (Result: Indeffed)

Page

Amy Winehouse discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Callum0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

02:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
2. 20:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
3. 09:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
4. 01:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
5. 00:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
6. 00:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
7. 20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

User has been blocked three times after I reported him to WP:AIV. However, the fourth time I reported him, I was told I should consider taking this report to WP:AN/I instead. SN▲P • SN▲P 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Actually, the right place would have been WP:SPI. I indeffed Callum0000 as the suspected master and User:Crcrcrcrcr and User:RIca7 as suspected puppets.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Fcbelmontejr reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Iglesia ni Cristo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/*This is a presentation of INC stand regarding monetary offering as a part of worship service.*/"
2. 04:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621446539 by 111.68.38.92 (talk)"
3. 04:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 04:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Worship and prayer */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Iglesia ni Cristo. (TW)"
2. 06:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Iglesia ni Cristo. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is uncommunicative, does not use edit summaries or talk pages. Please note: user has switched to IPs to avoid warning/scrutiny. User also known as 217.115.65.17 and 217.115.65.15 Elizium23 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fcbelmontejr.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Mike_maroon reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

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

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

Comments:
User needs to learn to pay attention to messages from other users, will probably ask why he was blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Chbarts reported by User:Dusti (Result: Both blocked)

Page

Blink element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC) "rm potential seizure trigger"
2. 02:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Dusti (talk) to last revision by Chbarts. (TW)"
3. 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621560219 by Dusti (talk) remove potential source of seizures"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC) "/* August 2014 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has been to 3RR before. He's been blocked for edit warring in the past, so he's been through this before. He's under the impression that there's a trigger on the page from blinking text that will send someone into a seizure. I'm not a medical expert, but I disagree - and with that even put aside, it was briefly discussed and disagreed with on the talk page over a year ago. He's now back and removing the text again - despite warnings and being shown the consensus that was reached. Instead, he's ignoring the warnings and coming to his own conclusions. He was also warned over personal attacks but doesn't want to seem to drop that stick either. I'm out of ideas and options but to bring him here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Can we at least attempt to resolve this on the talk page before bringing it here? Also, the fact you're not a medical expert but still feel qualified to have an opinion on this is a big part of the problem.—chbarts (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked for 24 hours and 48 hours based on previous edit warring history. Fairly clear-cut case of three-revert rule violations. Dusti reverted citing a nearly year old consensus on the talk page. When Chbarts repeatedly tried to reignite the discussion Dusti ignored. Continuing to revert did not meet exemption to the three-revert rule in either case.

As for my opinion regarding the dispute – which played no role in my administrative decision – is that we should probably not worry about the blink example even working for most visitors. It's pretty old and poorly supported... so probably redundant to retain in whole or part. That be so, unless there's some guideline on in-article CSS usage I'm not aware of, it should conform to consensus, which apparently needs to be reexamined.

Advice for both parties: When in doubt, do not revert. Edit wars only fuel the tension and clutter the page history. Use the talk page, and don't ignore other users attempts to discuss valid concerns. If consensus is/was met, and the concerned edits are not obvious vandalism or other urgent matters, wait for preventive measures to be put in place. If on the other hand consensus cannot be met, seek dispute resolution. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Chelsea-fan1 reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: Blocked)

Page: Didier Drogba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelsea-fan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:43, 17 August 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:51, 17 August 2014
2. 16:31, 17 August 2014
3. 22:33, 17 August 2014
4. 22:47, 17 August 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:49, 17 August 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 19:49, 17 August 2014

Comments:
The article's been going through a peer review since 2 August (review here) and all this user's done is revert edits made as a result of this peer review (especially removing references in the Honours section). Tried to engage a conversation with him on his talk page and warned him about violating 3RR, told me not to "tell him what to do". Jaellee tried to solve it with a previous revert before that here, citing unexplained removal of references, but the user reverted that as well. (S)he's been blocked for edit warring before, and it needs to happen again. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 19:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The user Davykamanzi has made a total mess out of the honours section. He also made references in its Honours section, even tough they wouldn't be necessary since they'd already have been mentioned in the body or the respective articles. I changed the honours section because it looked all over the place. Now everybody can comfortable read the honours list. chelsea-fan1 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Chelsea-fan1: First of all, the honours have to be referenced. That's common sense. I can agree about it being a bit of a mess but instead of flat out removing the references add some prose to the section or something where you can put them. Second, you're flat out removing the Records section I added (with references), for NO reason WHATSOEVER, then you're leaving the Honours section with one empty "Individual" section, and you're telling me all of this is constructive? How any of this is constructive editing to you, I can't seem to get at all. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for information: Honours without inline references will be removed, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 86#Referencing honours, so they are necessary. This is currently discussed again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Vandalism, but for the moment, if you want to keep the honours' section, it has to be referenced, even if it already mentioned in the body.--Jaellee (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jaellee: THANK YOU. For God's sake man. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 20:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:88.104.24.7 (Result: Locked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]
6. [31]
7. [32]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] and in edit summaries.

Comments:User has been repeatedly removing sourced details from this article. Even after further sources were added, s/he still reverted it claiming all details were a BLP violation when they weren't. User has also made baseless accusations on my talk page and in their edit summaries on the article page of me being another user who was blocked, linking to another IP address which is not even the same ISP as mine and in a completely different location. In addition to edit warring, a clear breach of WP:NPA as seen in their insulting and offensive messages on my talk page, as well as persistent lack of WP:AGF. Also possible WP:OWN judging by how long this has been going on on this particular article, and possible WP:SOCK as another account conveniently took over for them on the article minutes later. Judging by the multitude of historical reports made by other users on the admin and 3RR noticeboards, there is clearly a tendency for this user to be troublesome. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am the account referred to as the possible sock. TheRedPenOfDoom and I have both been active in for years so we have crossed paths a few times, but in general we have little overlap. Suggesting we are socks simply because I happened to agree with TheRedPenOfDoom's undo of the IP's edit is a reach. I undid the IP's edit once here with a clear edit summary saying that the parts I checked had not been adequately supported by the refs, and I was undoing on BLP grounds. I issued the 3RR warning to the IP because it was the 4th time today that the IP had made that exact same undo and that it had been restored on BLP grounds.

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

I think there's a good case for a WP:boomerang here. I didn't issue a 3RR warning to TheRedPenOfDoom since I agreed that the material was a BLP violation. Meters (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that you still removed sourced details from the article that were clearly not a BLP violation, and trying to characterise it as such is wrong. These are the very same sourced details that TheRedPenOfDoom was repeatedly removing and the fact you did it only minutes after he had already breached 3RR smacks of WP:TAGTEAM. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 03:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've already stated that I have nothing to do with the other editor. It was my independent decision, not tag teaming. I saw an edit that was undone on BLP grounds but was restored by you claiming "blatant vandalism". As I said, I didn't check the entire edit. The parts I checked seemed to me to justify the description of it as having BLP issues, and did not justify your calling TheRedPenOfDoom's undo as vandalism. Some of your edit may well be acceptable, but the undo certainly wasn't blatant vandalism. This isn't the place for anything but a discussion of the edit war. You called for one, and I pointed out the evidence for a WP:boomerang. The edit contents should be discussed on the article's talk page, vandalism at WP:AIV,socking accusations at WP:SPI, and tag teaming at WP:ANI (I suppose). Meters (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And did you or TheRedPenOfDoom bother to discuss anything on the article talk page? No, you just simply did a blanket revert, removing perfectly sourced details in the process. Saying that you didn't bother checking the entire edit is no defense. In fact, it makes your actions even worse. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Going by this revert many of the TRPoD's edits seem valid, since the claims in most cases are either unsourced or go beyond what the source says. For instance, you claim that Donovan and Minogue were "romantically involved" during their collaboration on "Especially for You" but the source simply states they had "briefly dated" and is not specific about the time period. You claim that Donovan "dyed his hair for the role", but that is unsourced; it could have been a wig, or he could have dyed it for another reason. I could go on but you get the idea. I think maybe after the third or fourth revert this could have been taken to the talk page but policy does support TRPod's actions in this instance. Your time would be better served by i) sourcing what clearly isn't sourced ii) starting a discussion to address the remaining issues. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not support removal of perfectly sourced material. If TRPOD had a genuine concern about some of the details being unsourced, then those details and only those details can either be removed or (ideally) have a cite needed tag placed after them. As it stands, TRPOD removed perfectly sourced material and continued to edit war to keep it that way. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• If anybody's a sock here, it's 88.104.24.7 . For editing for only a few hours, he sure learned what WP:OWN was pretty darn quick. pbp 04:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

At no point have I ever said I've only edited for a few hours. I've been editing Wikipedia for over a year, thank you. I'm not breaking any rules if I choose not to have an account. And if you have any evidence that I am a sock then please share it with us before you start throwing mud. Especially when you have no less than 170 intersecting edits with TheRedPenOfDoom in your edit history. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Without making any judgement here, this content dispute has been going on for five days with zero discussion on talk. Even when we believe another user is violating policy, this discussion more properly belongs on talkspace. Everyone should be hashing this out on talk, not going straight to 3RR or BLP/N. Both the reporter and the reportee have an obligation to discuss differences on talk, if only to document the dispute. BusterD (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that in that five days, I have gone to great effort to add additional, perfectly good sources to improve the article only to have them continually removed by TheRedPenOfDoom. The only time s/he has engaged in discussion was to insult me on my talk page. Please note s/he hasn't even bothered to come to this page despite being notified hours ago. 88.104.24.7 (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:CFredkin (Result: Full protection)

Page: Alison Lundergan Grimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:

Diffs of User:CFredkin's reverts of same content:

1. 1 - reverts my entire series of edits.
2. 2 - reverts my entire series of edits.
3. 3 - reverts in his preferred version of the Affordable Care Act section and his disputed accounting of her Iron Dome statements.
4. 4 - reverts in the disputed opinion statements by a Politico writer.
5. 5 - reverts my insertion of two sourced position statements.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Mutual combat, if anything. CFredkin is engaged in a wide-ranging campaign to insert partisan slant into a wide variety of political biographies, and this must be challenged to maintain Wikipedia's mission of NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The diffs listed by Barnaof aren't all reverts and they aren't all the same content. I've tried to amend my edits to address Baranof's concerns where possible (and where they make sense). However editor appears intent on blocking any edits which might reflect poorly on the subject of the article.CFredkin (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are all reverts, and it doesn't matter whether they're each the exact same content. Four reverts of any content on the same page constitutes a violation. The editor appears intent on deleting criticism from Republican biographies and inserting criticism into Democratic biographies, regardless of due weight and neutrality concerns in either direction. Any criticism of a Democrat must be inserted no matter how trivial, any criticism of a Republican must be removed no matter how well-sourced. Candidates' biographies should not be a battleground for opposing forces to try and win an election through Wikipedia content. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? All the diffs are on Alison Lundergan Grimes.CFredkin (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not really difficult to look at your edit history and draw conclusions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, the same accusations can be thrown at you. I think the subject of this dispute is edits on Alison Lundergan Grimes, and I think the edit history on this article speaks for itself.CFredkin (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oddly enough, no they can't - I have a wide-ranging edit history with large numbers of edits that have nothing to do with partisan politics. I can't find a single article-space edit in your last 1,000 that doesn't have something to do with attacking a Democrat or defending a Republican. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Despite your attempts to muddy the water here, this complaint is about activity on a specific article.CFredkin (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

You are comprehensively blocking any negative content from being added to this article.CFredkin (talk) 06:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not. There's a significant amount of "negative" content that I have not so much as commented on - for example, the ethics complaint and the "underwhelming" campaign opener opinion by the Washington Post. You, on the other hand, have done literally nothing to this biography except add content with a negative slant. This presents a significant undue weight and NPOV problem - Grimes' biography is not a political battleground to list every single bit of campaign minutia for or against her. That is something Wikipedia is not for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Conversely, the same can be said of your edits to the article. Your statement completely applies to you in reverse.CFredkin (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

And by the way, the little notes ("deletes my entire series of edits") you've added next to your diffs are completely bogus. A close examination of the edit history of this article shows that in almost every instance, I've left your edits or only modified them to conform to the sources. However, you've systematically removed almost all my edits in their entirety.CFredkin (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, no. As I noted, you reverted back in the entire Politico section, you reverted back your preferred version of the ACA statement, you reverted the Iron Dome statements back to a version you preferred, you entirely removed the quote relative to her abortion positions, etc. Each of those edits represents you replacing my preferred version with your preferred version - that is a revert. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The Politico content was removed by you in its entirety, and it had been there for some time. You changed the Iron Dome and abortion statements that I added so that they don't even accurately reflect the sources.CFredkin (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The reporting user just reverted me again, less than 10 minutes ago, while simultaneously complaining on this noticeboard about my reverts. WP:BOOMERANG would seem to apply here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am in concurrence with NorthBySouthBaranof's description of CFredkin's M.O. with regards to articles. CFredkin has been acting as a protector of one party's subjects and a critic of another party's subjects, seemingly thinking it's all right to bring his heavy bias to a site where we're supposed to try to present subjects neutrally. This has included a previous baseless accusation against myself in the Mitch McConnell article, and double-teaming with another user who went around putting warnings/cautions on my and another's talk pages. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected One week. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by [[59.97.32.195 (talk)]] (Result: Full protection)

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First
2. Second
3. Third
4. Fourth
5. Fifth
6. Sixth

This user has had umpteen 3RR warnings and ANEW reports before, including several in the last few days; examples here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
Over the past few days, this user has been revert warring over a variety of pages; I chose Alison Lundergan for the report, because that was the most blatant 3RR violation. Other pages include Bruce Braley (1, 2, 3)

Mitch McConnell (1, 2)

All of these are within the last 24 hours, and are not very different of CFredkin's historical behavior. 59.97.32.195 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor's complaint is so poorly constructed that I'm not going to bother to respond to the accusations. However, I will point out that it appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to disputing my edits. And it's not the only one.CFredkin (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected One week. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Full protection)

Page

Alison Grimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ These statements don't accurately reflect the sources provided."
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) to 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Edit to conform to sources as described in Talk"
   2. 05:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Conform to source as described in Talk"
   3. 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ No coal there"
3. 04:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Restore content with attribution of statement."
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) to 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621720506 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Restore content per Talk"
   2. 03:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621720446 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Restore content per Talk"
   3. 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621720372 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Restore content per Talk"
   4. 03:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621720268 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Rm content not supported by source"
5. Consecutive edits made from 01:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) to 02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Once again, there's a difference between commentary on an issue, and commentary on a politician's stance on an issue."
   2. 02:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Rm peacock quote"
   3. 02:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Conform to source"
   4. 02:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Conform to source"
   5. 02:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Conform to source"
   6. 02:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Political positions */ Conform to sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
2. 04:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alison Lundergan Grimes. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor continues to revert-war, even after reporting me to the 3RRNB for edit-warring. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected One week. Three sections for one article! CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 07:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Bongey reported by User:Dyrnych (Result: )

Page: Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bongey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46]
2. [47]
3. [48]
4. [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] (although Bongey deleted it almost as soon as I placed it on his/her talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:

Bongey is one of about three users who is currently edit warring to place original research (in which the users attempt to establish in Wikipedia's voice which of several witness reports are reliable) on the page above. Other editors have at least engaged in some discussion, but Bongey has not even attempted discussion. He/she is just reinstating his/her preferred edits although at least three different users have undone those edits citing the same concerns. The diffs above are just the full reverts; there are a number of intermediate reverts as well in which Bongey reinstated other material that violates WP policies. Again, at least 4 reverts + no discussion whatsoever.

Also, I should point out that all of these reverts occurred in about the last three hours. Dyrnych (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: )

Page

Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ The opening sentence should present it objectively what is said to be their motive, not an opinion piece from a self-published journal in Wikipedia voice. It can me mentioned with attribution in the body."
2. 10:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621752693 by Vanamonde93 (talk) Take it to WP:RSN if you want to claim not RS in the context. I will put back BISS if I can find it in the reference... within ten minutes."
3. 10:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* top */ Organiser (newspaper) is not by VHP."
4. 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Put back perfectly fine three references. The stated mission of an organization is taken from their mission statement not from some other person's opinion in an article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC) ""

Comments:

The first edit, and all the subsequent ones provided here, removed a journal source published by the University of Florence see here, which is what is being dismissed as "somebody's opinion in an SPS. Vanamonde93 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement of AmritasyaPutra

1. I never removed any reference. Period. I said that the opening statement of an article about an organisation states the objective of the organisation in the same way its mission presents not an unattributed opinion of another person in Wikipedia voice. I used perfectly fine three references.
2. Here are five diff where vanamonde93 has reverted me five times within last 1h. He put a warning on my talk page after my fourth revert: [52], [53], [54], [55] ,[56]. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Diffs only count as reverts is they are non-consecutive. In addition, I edit-conflicted at some point thanks to my slow connection, making an edit that should have been consecutive look like two. I am still on three; and I would point out that I gave the other user a chance to self-revert before coming here. If they had, I would not have. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Two minutes? I can very well open a 3RR too but that would be so stupid. Vanamonde93, I would humbly suggest we discuss the disputed content, I did kickstart the article talk page where you admitted you had made a mistake. This is a different dispute now, which we have not yet discussed on article talk page at all. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 11:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• So, how do you both feel about WP:BRD? Ever heard of it? Ever heard that edit-warring doesn't ever need to reach 3 reverts? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Am aware of both, for all my editing today shows to the contrary; doesn't BRD require the reverter (in this case, not me) to discuss? Also, I do know that they have one more revert than I do. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion happening now on the talk page of the article; a third user stepped in. The edit war is over, at least for the next 24 hours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, so you do admit now that you did not discuss. Just pinching. Reddy reverted at your request so you are satisfied now, that is it nothing more. I do not see sincere listening -- my observation, you may differ. The Hindu reference, all three of us agree to it but have not added it yet. There is absolutely no hurry, but I will add it later. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The first revert was yours, per BRD you should have discussed then. You have also reverted more times, and are the one claiming a scholarly source to be an SPS, and claiming a self-admittedly RSS newspaper is something else altogether. I suggest you leave off the snide remarks, and stick to the discussion there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me. Read again what I wrote. I wrote about one of the two source, you can check. You know you edit warr`ed without discussion. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra✍ 14:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:Lukejordan02 (Result: No action)

Page: Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrzejbanas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses): Revision history

Comments:4 Reverts on the 18th, because he removed a genre that was unsourced and I said to start a discussion before blanking it and giving no one a chance to reference it.

Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I've told the user that the article in question is a featured article and should have sources. Unsourced material should be removed rather than left alone to keep it's high quality. I've also been accused of not taking it to the talk page. (Which I have as seen here). I also assumed the user was either new or a vandal due to edit comments such as these here. Please note the user has not left a comment on my page nor have they went to my talk page discussion, which I think is required by WP:3RR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This is a war over music genres. Lukejordan02 exceeded 3RR on August 18 but it seems that both parties are edit warring. Lack of sources does not grant an exemption to 3RR. Blocks may not be needed since a thread at User talk:Lukejordan02 shows an effort to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:220.245.146.235 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: )

Page

Into the Dalek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621766366 by G S Palmer (talk) Thanks for the link! "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name". I'm using the source."
2. 12:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621765751 by G S Palmer (talk) Title sequence does not use caps, and the title sequence for this episode has not been publicly released, so cannot use it for motives."
3. 12:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 621765207 by G S Palmer (talk) Sources come from the BBC, not from a personal sense of grammar."
4. 12:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "BBC Listing Exact"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Please stop */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Warned. User directed to MOS:TITLE#Capitalization. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D reported by User:Comitus (Result: )

Page: Deutschlandlied (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:2600:1006:b11f:9e14:b945:d20a:9451:85d (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st
2. 2nd
3. 3rd
4. 4th

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

I've recently added new text including references to the article but this user keeps reverting/removing the information and refuses to present his objections on the talk page. If a moderator could either temporarily lock the page on the version with the (sourced) material added forcing the user to use the talk page to discuss this or to instruct the user to use the talk page instead of reverting (my preffered option). Thank you. Comitus (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:T.C. Ataturkiye reported by User:Maurice Flesier (Result: )

Page: Turkish presidential election, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: T.C. Ataturkiye (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
2. 17:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
3. 17:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
4. 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
5. 19:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
6. 19:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
7. 19:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 11:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC) See: Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu's colour

Comments:
User continues to edit war about candidate İhsanoğlu's hex color code as persistent and stable. I warned him/her many times but i didn't get any results in this conflict. Also, user likewise continue war on the map in commons – Maurice Flesier (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish reported by User:Collect (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61] 20:24 18 Aug
2. [62] 19:14 18 Aug
3. [63] 18:50 18 Aug (largest revert in a sequence)
4. [64] 23:38 17 Aug (end of extensive sequence of reverts)
5. [65] 19:23 17 Aug (under 25 hours)

followed after EW warning with this "technical self-revert" [66] which capitalized one letter as a "self-revert" Note that absolutely none of the revert edit summaries referred to WP:BLP whatsoever

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Creation_Museum#RfC_A._A._Gill et seq

Comments:
Tryptofish at no point invoked WP:BLP,nor do I think using a word found in the source proffered for the article in quotes is violative of WP:BLP. I found the claim that capitalizing a single letter was a "technical self-revert" was a risible move. The editor than says that they are no longer in violation of the bright-line 3RR rule (5RR in 25 hours seems a violation to me). Collect (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: I asked four times for a self-revert from Tryptofish as I dislike having to post on the noticeboards. The case is, alas, IMHO, blatant. If capitalizing one letter qualifies as a "self-revert" then I am a trifle amused. Collect (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Taking Collect's diffs one-by-one:

1. Whether Collect agrees with me or not, it is a BLP issue, and I cited BLP in my edit summary: [68].
2. A very minor edit, unrelated to the rest, and I have now self-reverted it.
3. This was to some extent a revert on my part, but it also involved some rewriting of the text by me from what had been the version of my previous edit to the page, and reflected discussion amongst editors at the article talk page, and at WP:NPOVN.
4. Not a revert at all (except to the extent that I was changing something that I, myself, had previously written)! I previously used one word, got feedback from other editors that it was a poor word choice, and I changed it myself.
5. Yes, that was a direct revert.

I've stated clearly on my talk page that I do not intend to make any further reverts [69], so there is nothing to prevent here. I'm an experienced editor, and I think you can trust me when I say that.

Collect is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct growing out of a content dispute. See not only Talk:Creation Museum, but Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Creation Museum and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Creation Museum. In fact, a serious reading of the talk page discussions will show that I have repeatedly tried to bring the discussion away from battling and towards improving the page, whereas Collect repeatedly tries to "win" the argument. This complaint appears to be an attempt to gain the upper hand. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Vexatious litigation, no action. I agree that Tryptofish's "technical self-revert" was risible. Collect's calling Tryptofish's original edit, listed as revert n:o 2 above, a "revert" at all would be even more risible if it wasn't so battleground-y. If de-capitalizing one letter qualifies as a "revert", but changing it back doesn't qualify as a self-revert, then I'd be more than a trifle amused, if it didn't make me so depressed. If you insist on being technical about it, Collect, note also that there has by no stretch of the imagination been any revert from Tryptofish after you left the warning. (I've moved one post so as to make the above discussion chronological.) Bishonen | talk 22:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC).