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:Soffredo reported by User:RGloucester (Result: 1 week)

Page

2014 insurgency in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618741031 by RGloucester (talk) Why not use short names? For the "War of Transnistria" infobox, we list it as Transnistria despite not controlling all claimed territory."
2. 23:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "But he's not representing Russia, which is also involved."
3. 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 21:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Flags in the Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts */ notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• This user doesn't seem to "hear" what other people are saying. He repeatedly reinserts edits that multiple people revert, without ever trying to engage in a frank discussion. This is not the first time he has done this. I warned him of discretionary sanctions related to Eastern Europe-related articles, and yet he kept on reverting. I don't know that he needs a block, but I do know that someone needs to explain to him that it doesn't accomplish anything to revert without discussion, especially when multiple editors are saying that one's edit isn't appropriate. RGloucester — ☎ 01:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask, is there a particular reason this "case" hasn't been either responded to or dealt with? RGloucester — ☎ 01:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Your report is well-formed and the violation is clear, so I am not sure why it got skipped. Sorry about that. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Continued edit warring today, definite problems with edit warring and collegiality in the past. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Zaca4 reported by User:Damián80 (Result: bb)

Page: What Life Stole from Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zaca4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• It is is my issue, where you've left an edit summary
• It is is editing

Comments:
The user Zaca4, appears to be a puppet Sky0000 (I have requested a verification of accounts). You have started an edit war in the article mentioned only to add information without references and irrelevant. A month ago to explain it in a thousand ways and not seem to mind, I think the user Sky0000 has returned with a new puppet.--Damián (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me talk too. I haven't done more than 3 edits there, but he is. I asked from him information , what I do wrong and how I go against rules. He didn't even answer me. Understand, please my edits are necessary, and he hasn't explained me, what I do wrong. I'm very sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I notice that Damián80 was recently reported for edit warring on another telenovella page here, after three reversions. I think both parties need to review WP:BRD here. Neither party is even using edit summaries. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@0x0077BE:, That has to do with this?, Is that case is trying to support the other user?. First I need not explain anything to this person, as it is a puppet of another user who was blocked for a month for this reason. Add death of each character is irrelevant, if wikipedia is to be placed everything that happened in each chapter in a soap opera?. To entertain that come here. For to this you should not come to any consensus. If someone has to know how to die urgency of each character in a soap opera, as you see it, that's why it was created!. Always have placed the characters and the actors. This information that the user attempts to add is irrelevant. So I ask you, if you agree that this information will be added, he believes that wikipedia will become?.--Damián (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The mention of the previous incident shows that you're aware of the policies on edit warring, and have a tendency to ignore WP:BRD. Regarding the content, that's not an issue for this page. Read WP:BRD. You need to at least try to work it out on the talk page before running for administrative action. You aren't explaining it just to Zaca4, you're explaining it to everyone else who is trying to figure out why editorial decisions were made. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I say you , too Damian, what that Sky0000 user thing has to do with this problem. I don't know that person. Also if watcher didn't see a few episodes, and he doesn't have chance to watch episodes again, person comes to Wikipedia. Also Damian has deleted united states broadcast from many articles without no reason. Why it disturbed you now? Before it you took all information from cast and then broadcast disturbed you. Please, understand, that person thinks that Wikipedia's for him, but it's for everyone. I just want to help other people. Also I viewed his talk page archive too, he's been in a lot of edit-wars before also. Also I did also my own article about cast in Corazon Valiente, and he even does not let me refer to it, he says it is poorly written, but maybe for other people it is not. Understand, that person just wants to have fun in wikipedia and wants to look articles like he wants and when someone is trying to hinder him, he comes here and says bad about others. Also I looked to internet, I didn't find such a good programming guides as they were in wikipedia. Please I'm not trying to slander him but I tell how things really look like. Also I'm very sorry for my behavior but with that person is impossible to talk. I hope you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

No need to add this type of information, this user a month ago did the same article, and I'm sorry, but I will not be trying all the time to reach a conseso so unnecessary to add information to each art.

A month ago this person did this:

• La impostora June 24, 2014
• June 25, 2014
• Sky0000 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,506 bytes) (+1,125)‎ . . (Adding necessary section)

Is it that these edits are correct? and should discuss this in all pages of discussion?.--Damián (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Second Comment: As of this point, Damian is at 5 reverts (1 2 3 4 5) and Zaca4 is now at 3 (1 2 3). Damian is in clear violation of 3RR. Zaca4 is probably guilty of edit warring as well, given the notice. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

It's like you two want, and leave the article as it was before, and mine are not 5 reversals learn to look good. I'm tired of this and this user, all here everyone does what he wants..--Damián (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Already Placed the article "Corazón valiente" as I was before, as presumably are very important items were.e. I tired to continue wasting time user you do what you want.--Damián (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: After Damian self-reverted and decided to "give up", I, explaining my reasoning, restored the page to the version before Zaca4's version, as that was the stable version and didn't have the style and grammar issues, and requested that Zaca4 please justify any further edits in the talk page. Zaca4 then performed his 4th revert on the page, with the "explanation" on the talk page given being: "Can you let me keep that information, here okay?". I do suspect he may be doing some editing as IP, but it doesn't seem to be to create a false consensus or avoid 3RR. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 20:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The user Zaca4 has not reached a consensus on the article where the edit war began, and started again.

1. La Tempestad
2. La impostora
3. Amores verdaderos]

Has not yet reached an agreement to add this type of irrelevant information. And the user wants to start more wars editions.--Damián (talk) 06:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I add this other article that has already started another edit war Part of Me (telenovela): Revision history.--Damián (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start a war, I just made some changes. I am a victim of Damian. Look at all pages, when someone wants to change something always Damian undoes it without no reason. That person harms Wikipedia and makes false accusations. I am sorry for all, I maybe will not continue, but I'm not only one, who is guilty, Damian is too. He thinks some pathetic justifications to explain his reverts. Please do something with him, I am really sorry for all but this person thinks that I am again a user, who doesn't let him have fun in Wikipedia and who he has to remove with some false accusations. I don't want to start a war but that is not fair that one person does here what he wants and nobody stops him. Also he said me do what you want and now he comes here and says that I am here to start a war. I hope that you understand me. Zaca4 (talk) 07:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Verification of accounts that have asked tell the truth, you are a puppet Sky0000, edited in the same way. A month ago I explained on your issues and you do not seem to mind. Also on July 25 just blocking.--Damián (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I may admit yes Sky0000 and Zaca4 have same IP, but I don't confirm, that behind them is same person. I am sorry for my behaviour, I promise, I will not touch telenovelas again and please I don't want another month or more, forgive me. That's your decision you punish Damian or me or no. But I say I am not and I won't be first or last person , who has problems with Damian. I hope you understand and you let other better people make changes in telenobela pages. I refuse to do it, I do not want any more problems. Really sorry. Zaca4 (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked Both were clearly edit warring and not doing much to build consensus. I have also semi-protected the article. The sock puppetry report is still open, so no action there. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:FelixRosch reported by User:Moxy (Result: No action)

Page: Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FelixRosch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

1. [1] - July 24, 2014 - (about Chronological sequence)
2. [2] - July 24, 2014
3. [3] - July 24, 2014
4. [4] - July 25, 2014
5. [5] - July 25, 2014
6. [6] - July 26, 2014
7. [7] - July 26, 2014
8. [8] - July 28, 2014

Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9] was warned months ago that this behavior is not the norm here. As seen on the users talk page - many concerns have been raised over a period of time.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: FelixRosch has been involved in some talk page discussions but seem not to be willing to listen to others or perhaps simply does not understand. -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• The editor is also involved in other edit wars on multiple pages as seen by the Ukraine: Revision history and Romeo and Juliet: Revision history. We have unacceptable, disruptive, tendentious and dishonest behavior..that could all just be a competence problem as recently pointed out here. Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Criticize the play before it was written again? and Talk:Ukraine#Declarations of War and Casualty/Death toll statistics are not censored by Wikipedia policy demonstrates his lack of understand of whats going on pretty well. -- Moxy (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Since I made the competence remark I want to add it did not come out of the blue, but rather was the result of seeing many head-scratching remarks from this editor. He finally seemed to get BRD (perhaps) but adds this. I didn't know Andrew Lih (who has no connection to the discussions whatsoever) holds such an exalted position here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Only involved on the Ukraine talk page, but user does have some issues understanding policy such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. In general, editing is becoming tendentious on Ukraine. Similar experience a few months ago on Russia, which I have since stopped following to preserve my mental health. While I cannot fully comment on edit warring accusations, there's certainly a lot of WP:IDHT and general tendentiousness. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Like EvergreenFir, my only interaction with the editor has been through the Ukraine article and the Russia article (see identical editing practices in April) where s/he avoided discussion on the talk page and persevered with adding content contravening UNDUE, NOTNEWS and WP:BALASPS despite lengthy discussions on the talk page demonstrating consensus that these policies and guidelines were of primary concern, particularly in the context of the articles. Once forced into discussions, judging by the lack of comprehension of policies and thrust of the discussions, as already noted by Moxy and NeilN, I've also found myself wondering as to the competence of this user. It's difficult to ascertain whether this is a case of IDHT or truly IDONTUNDERSTANDIT. Either way, it amounts to ongoing disruptive editing. As an addendum, further to the question of competence, I've yet to work out where "... the normal time frame of 48-72 hours should be allowed for the discussion comments to be collected of all editors involved." Where did the user find this timeframe for BRD processes? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There might be a problem with the edits of User:FelixRosch but this report doesn't make the problem clear enough to do anything. It is hard to know which of the supplied diffs are actually reverts. Even if they are reverts, the complete list of edits doesn't add up to a timely report of 3RR violation. At most we have an editor who may be confused about policy and sometimes rambles in discussions. Consider WP:RFC/U if you have a concern about this editor that can't be expressed briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting was not aware that the editor in-question filed the report linked above. Perhaps if I was notified we could have had this resolved then..O-well ...if there is still a problem in the near future will fill at WP:RFC/U as per EdJohnston suggestion. Its a bit concerning 4 editors see a problem and there is no action taken at all - a warning by an admin would have been a good idea I think. -- Moxy (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Gibson Flying V reported by User:Bagumba (Result: semi)

Page

Rugby league (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) to last revision by Gibson Flying V. (TW)"
2. 03:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk) to last revision by Gibson Flying V. (TW)"
3. 03:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618910916 by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk)"
4. 11:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 618663075 by 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rugby league. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Longtime editor of over 7 years is expected to know better. Has been blocked three times before for edit warring/disruptive editing, and has an active topic ban for disruptive editing in another sport area, association football. Editor is also attempting to bully the other editor by giving inappropriate vandalism warnings when IP's edit summary provided an explanation. This is a content dispute and not vandalism. —Bagumba (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Similar edits from 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F being reverted by two other users previously: 1 2 The most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate. They had also been discussed on my talk page. Therefore consistently undoing their reversion is quite clearly disruptive. User:Bagumba has a habit of involving him/herself with my edits. Not sure why. Probably due to previous content disputes between us. Stalking?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

"habit of involving him/herself with my edits": I consider it an occupational hazard of keeping this a civil place. The revert you showed by the other editor gave the reason "No reason to delete a referenced entry". The IP subsequently provided a reason, and nobody but yourself has reverted since, nor edit warred with the IP except for yourself. WP:VANDNOT policy is quite clear: "Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism." Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "the most cursory look at the edits in question reveals that they are inappropriate." Cheers.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile, since being warned I have stopped editing the article, whereas the intended target of this report has not, and their disruption has now been reverted by a 3rd editor.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

And now a 4th.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. Note #4 on the list is two days before the other three. Gibson appears to be within the bright line.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And this from last month.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The user of that obviously throw-away account is still asking for a block and has been for quite some time now. Would someone (perhaps User:Bagumba as a sign of maturity and good faith) kindly oblige them and then close this hastily opened report?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected independently by Keith D. That looks like enough to take care of the immediate issue, though we could do with more collegiality and less sniping at each other. Gibson Flying V, please read WP:NOTVAND - vandalism is fairly narrowly defined. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Keith D protected the page (after becoming the 5th editor to revert 2001:8003:440F:9B01:223:32FF:FE9E:4B9F's disruption), citing "persistent vandalism" (and I have to say I agree with him). How this should not result in an apology from User:Bagumba, whose main concern is supposedly civility, is the real question here.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

We generally decline to try to force an apology out of any editor as it tends to end poorly. Gibson Flying V, issuing several blocks was definitely on the table as a potential solution to ongoing disruption, though the more conservative approach seems to be working for now. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course a forced apology is worthless, and I was by no means implying otherwise. It is up to each individual editor what impression they choose to give of their good faith/civility (or lack thereof).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:111.68.38.116 reported by User:K6ka (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

Philippine Arena (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619157975 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
2. 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619156752 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
3. 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619146811 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
4. 15:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619145992 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"
5. 14:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619141777 by 49.144.202.50 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Philippine Arena. (TW)"
2. 16:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Philippine Arena. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

49.144.202.50 is also involved in this. Both have received two edit warring notices, issued by me, on their user talk page. Both have ignored and continued to revert. User:ForwardGWR is also involved, though from what I see they have not violated 3RR. I'm remaining mostly uninvolved, and have not edited the article at all. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for 72 hours. This is a long-running edit war that may involve more than these two IPs. Semi-protection appears the best fix. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:DieSwartzPunkt (Result: prot)

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Wtshymanski's addition of Original research [11] The edit summary makes it clear that all of this has been derived from his observations of the stock in 'any' emporium. This is original research.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert re adding Original research[12]. He claims a 'Swart' reference, but nothing added is referenced.
2. Second revert adding OR [13]. Again he claims it is referenced but once again nothing he has added is referenced.
3. Third revert adding OR [14]. Now asking anyone to see the cite which has not been provided.

He then belatedly adds two references but only for two minor points that were already in the article before he added the original research. [15].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]. This receives the standard Wtshymanski response [17].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]. This is replied by an invitation to review the references that have not be provided [19].

Comments:

This has not made 4RR. but this page is about Edit Warring and 3RR violations. An editor continually attempting to add original research is by definition edit warring

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Edit warring is certainly occurring and 3RR is a sufficient but necessary bright line, but I think working it out on talk would be a better idea here. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Refugez1 reported by User:Oosh (Result: Blocked)

Page: Destiny (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Refugez1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
User even reverted my attempts to engage them in discussion! [28] [29] [30]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. The new user's edit pattern was borderline vandalism, and that's pretty much all they did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but a new user account, User:Whyhate1, has now popped up continuing the behaviour... -Oosh (talk) 06:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:Bilby (Result: Blocked)

Page: Occupational health psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrm7171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]; [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]
5. [37]
6. [38]
7. [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational health psychology#Nature of the re-writing

Comments:

Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This heated discussion very much involves editor Bilby long term also who appears very much onside with iss246 & psyc12. Recently discussion has involved Bilby, psyc12, and recently a new independent editor inediblehulk. My reverts have been in response to iss246 reverting independent editor's good faith contributions and everyone else's contributions for the past couple of days back to HIS version against all consensus!Mrm7171 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note. @Bilby: you mentioned both participants, but you reported only one. When I look at the recent history of the article, what stands out is that two editors are edit-warring. Why did you not report the other user?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I did - the second editor was reported separately just below. - Bilby (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that after I left the note and started scrolling down. I attempted to self-revert my note, but you beat me to it. It really would have been better to report them in one section.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The format seemed to better suit two reports, and I wasn't expecting someone to sneak in between. :) Next time I'll make sure to treat it as one report, and I'm happy to merge if it will assist. - Bilby (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Must apologize today for losing my cool with iss246 deleting every other editor's work back to HIS version. But I was standing up for another good faith editor, inediblehulk, that Iss246 kept deleting for no apparent reason. I guess it was my protective nature and the fact that editor Bilby also an administrator did not stop iss246 from deleting this editor's good faith additions. In fact, again Bilby has completely ignore iss246 deleting this editor's work.

Editor inediblehulk also tried reverting back the changes he made, only to have iss246 delete them again, for no reason. In past disputes Bilby has been very much on the side of psyc12 & iss246 in this extremely controversial article. Please also see my discussion here with inediblehulk on his talk page.

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

I admit I also 'stand up to' bullies in real life too! Again, today's reverts were a combination of administrator Bilby taking no steps toward cooling things down and me standing up for editor inediblehulk's and other editors being continually deleted by iss246.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The other day, for instance, Bilby was part of the discussion, and clearly saw iss246 breach the 3revert rule. Bilby chose to completely ignore it? I had thought perhaps, as an administrator, Bily may have reported iss246 here at that that point? I will collate the diffs and add these to support my claims.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see this diff relating to the multiple reverts iss246 made the other day. [44] Bilby was involved then and again, did nothing.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

When first occurred, comments on the talk page led me to believe that you were each stepping back, so I chose not to report it then. When the issue reoccured over the last day or so I felt that it needed to be raised, as it was clear that it was (once more) an ongoing problem. Hence my decision to bring both editors here for independent review. - Bilby (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, why did you not take steps earlier and stopped iss246 from deleting editor inediblehulk's good faith contributions? It would have helped. Why did you also not inform me of this post here, as required, but sat their collecting all the diffs and then reporting here, without notifying me?Mrm7171 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but given you have always been involved in this controversial article Bilby, you too appear very much involved in edit warring, like everyone else. Bit rich, to be standing back and pointing the finger? My only crime was standing up for inediblehulk's contributions. Which, as i said, if you were in fact neutral, in any way, and as an admin you should have stopped. I thought, wow, Bilby the admin, sits here and sees iss246 delete/blank everyone else's work and does nothing. But behind the scenes is cxollecting diffs and then pointing fingers! Wow. No, you seem heavily involved, as much involved if not more than everyone else. Espoecially given your rights and responsibilities as an admin!Mrm7171 (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of six months.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:SimMoonXP reported by User:Contributor321 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Palomar College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SimMoonXP (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]

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

Comments:
Also, SimMoonXP deleted 3RR warning from their Talk page [52], deleted the Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion from their Talk page [53], and additionally deleted the discussion of the subject on the article talk page [54].

Contributor321 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Iss246 reported by User:Bilby (Result: Blocked)

Page: Occupational health psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iss246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [55]; [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]
5. [61]
6. [62]
7. [63]
8. [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Occupational health psychology#Nature of the re-writing

Comments:

Slow moving edit war over the last few days, mostly over tagging, that has come to a more dramatic head in the past 24 hours. It is a continuation of pervious edit warring over the article that dates back some months - a voluntary topic ban for the last four months kept things quiet, but that recently ended. Both participants are well aware of 3RR. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

On this noticeboard on March 25, in the aftermath of his inserting of a long series of disruptive edits, an administrator asked Mrm7171 to desist from editing the occupational health psychology (OHP) entry in lieu of being banned from participating in Wikipedia. He agreed not to edit the OHP entry. He recently returned to again launch a series of off-beat edits (e.g., claiming that the OHP article is US-centric). His editing of the OHP entry should stop. Iss246 (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

First, it would be nice if you provided a diff or link to that discussion. Second, your edit warring in return is not the right way to handle this.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Finally found the damned thing. It's not this noticeboard. It was at WP:ANI here. Although the outcome of that discussion clearly was unfavorable to Mrm7171, I still don't see how it entitles you to "enforce" it by edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Elizium23 reported by User:129.133.125.225 (Result: Malformed)

Page: Eastern Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Elizium23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts: See history page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:

There is a clear problem with the Eastern Orthodox Church article. One or a handful of editors thinks that the Eastern Orthodox Church has an official name of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Since there is no sole head of the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is impossible that there could be an official anything. This small group of editors haunts this page and revert edits anyone who dares change the article. There is a long record of them edit warring over this. One editor Not only revert edited me, he also went and revert edited another edit I made to an unrelated article out of hostility. And he apparently also immediately summoned a friend admin to threaten me as well. Jim1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This gang mentality on Wikipedia has to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.125.225 (talk • contribs)

I have made four reverts in four days. The dispute has been hashed and rehashed and re-re-rehashed on the Talk page and many pixels spilled can be found in the archive regarding this exact point of contention in the article. The accuser here is unwilling to abide by overwhelming consensus. Now the question remains whether he is a new editor here or if the previous reverts belong to him as well. At any rate, at this point in time, there is really no edit warring to address here and this is WP:FORUMSHOP at its finest. I trust that Jim1138 (talk · contribs)'s attention will bear good fruit and this dispute will be resolved peacefully. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. I can't believe you responded to this unholy mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In case this dispute comes back again, I fixed some of the problems so the report is less malformed. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Whyhate1 reported by User:Oosh (Result: semi)

User:Whyhate1 appears to be continuing the fight resolved above, i.e. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Refugez1_reported_by_User:Oosh_.28Result:_Blocked.29, under a new account. Apologies if this isn't how you report an incident like this but going thru the 3RR stuff again seemed superfluous. -Oosh (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked as an obvious sock puppet and semi-protected the article. For such a simple case, this is fine, though generally the full report makes reviewing a case easier. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Abu reiss reported by User:Rameshnta909 (Result: prot)

Page

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

User being reported

Abu reiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Reverting Vandalism Undid revision 619194889 by Rameshnta909 (talk)"
2. 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Stop pushing a term thats not even in the source Undid revision 619171409 by Rameshnta909 (talk)"
3. 18:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619136226 by Rameshnta909 (talk)"
4. 20:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Practice */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Mawlid. (TW)"
2. 18:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Mawlid. (TW)"
3. 21:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Mawlid. (TW)"
4. 10:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "/* Mawlid */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user id is just created to push the term wahabbi. No efforts to improve the article. I think he feels that it is a derogatory term for salafists and just want to put it there. Not trying to engage in any discussion. Rameshnta909 (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Edit-protected for one week. You are both edit warring. Neither term seems to this outside observer to be derogatory, but I could easily be missing some nuance. Abu reiss, please read WP:NOTVAND - Rameshnta909 is editing in good faith. Please work this out on the talkpage before protection expires. If agreement is reached, unprotection may be requested at WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73] [74] [75]

Comments:

This report is specifically for edit warring behavior, not violating 3RR. Ring Cinema recently came off of a month-long block for edit warring (see here [76]) and took up with the same behavior at the article in question since last week. His history of edit warring and block for same is long (see here [77]). In this particular case, User:Disc Wheel has been more than patient in trying to work and reason with Ring Cinema over content disputes. Others - including myself - have attempted to step in with editing the article in a productive manner based on consensus on the talk page and the content Disc Wheel has added to the article. Ring Cinema continues to attempt to block everything Disc Wheel adds and edits along with returning the article to the version he prefers, even while discussion is still proceeding on the article talk page. This is an ongoing and continuing issue, which is why I provided three diffs to discussions at the article talk page. He was already warned a few days ago by User:DangerousPanda that a block for edit warring behavior would be forthcoming if things didn't change. They haven't changed, they've just been delayed with the behavior starting up again yesterday. I did undo Ring's revert because of continuing discussion and dispute resolution in process. That reversion was undone by another editor. This issue just continues to go around in circles with nothing productive accomplished because of lack of cooperation and the continued edit warring behavior by the editor being reported. At the very least, having the article preventively locked to stop the edit warring would be nice. What would be even nicer is if Ring Cinema would understand that edit warring behavior, his tendency to article ownership, and his continual filibustering and wiki-lawyering is harmful and just needs to stop. Permanently. So far, he doesn't seem to understand this or care to understand this. As a result, editing articles he lays claim to is a nightmare experience. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There was also this lengthy discussion at WP:ANI from only last week about the same issue. If you look back at the edit history on The Godfather you'll see multiple reverts by RC for edits made by Disc Wheel and Corvoe too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Kind of a bogus report. Corvoe later admitted he was in the wrong and apologized. Disc Wheel's complaints have turned out to be groundless, since his only extant complaint about my edits turned out to involve something we had discussed and agreed on. Is this kind of inaccurate reporting okay, Lugnuts, or would you like to correct the record here? --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not inaccurate, as you're continued edit warring and block log shows. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the facts you stated are wrong. You were wrong when you said I was warring with Disc Wheel last week. You were wrong when you said I was warring with Corvoe. You were wrong when you said it was the same issue. You're wrong when you say I'm warring. Now I expect an apology for repeating your lies about me. Take care of that by the end of the day. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi's ad hominem attacks continue, something he had been remonstrated for in the past. His previous accusations about warring on this page have been shown to be without merit. I would simply point out that, in a content dispute, I am offering different solutions trying to find a mutually satisfactory solution. Winkelvi, on the other hand, is reverting me, two or three times now. Since both Winkelvi and the other editor involved (Disc Wheel) have a history of inserting material that is factually incorrect, they must be monitored closely. I am attempting to keep this article devoid of errors while accommodating their views, as the record shows. Perhaps instead of warring with me, they will accept one of my compromises. That is my preference. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

These statements are rife with error and misrepresentation as well as ad hominem. Above, Ring Cinema points fingers and attacks while building up himself in a very dishonest manner. My original report stands: edit warring and article ownership behavior that prevents others from editing productively and article from evolving in a positive manner. Same as every other time he has been blocked. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you care to specify an error? I see none. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the 5 diffs:

1. the first edit was one I reverted myself a half hour later. Obviously not warring and I have to question Winkelvi's good faith in mentioning it.
2. removing a factual error -- this is under discussion
3. reverting myself from edit 1 (the only two edits that you can call a revert are this one and the first, which cancel each other)
4. removing dubious material, as my edit summary says
5. correcting other material while retaining the other editor's material

What do you think of the fact that the third diff offered is me reverting myself? Is Winkelvi so confused that he didn't realize I restored his edits with that change? Or is he trying to harass me? The edits involved don't even involve the same sentence or facts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi, can you explain the appearance of falsification in your five diffs and the accusation of edit warring? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, I refuse to be sucked into an argument with you, regardless of your accusations, aggressive tone, and attempt at bullying. My report stands. If administrators (who are already familiar with your recent block and others) viewing this report don't see your continuation of edit-warring behavior and article ownership behavior with the evidence provided alongside with your history at this article and your history of blocks for the same, then so be it. I'm looking for prevention of disruptive behavior, not punishment. I don't play that game. I'm hoping to see and experience a status-quo of collegial, cooperative, productive editing at the article, nothing more. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but your five diffs have nothing to do with edit warring. Are you saying that you are so careless in your accusations that you pay no attention to their accuracy? I would like to point out that the reason that I have to keep such a careful eye on you and Disc Wheel is that you have both contributed inaccuracies to articles I've edited. Then, you provide this rather striking example of inaccuracy, attempting to accuse me of edit warring by using two examples that amount to no change and three others that correct errors in the article. Either you made this mistake on purpose or by accident, leaving the options that either you intentionally misled or unintentionally confirmed my criticism of your inattention to the facts. Which is it? --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:JHUbal27 reported by User:Carnildo (Result: Blocked)

Page: Frankie Grande (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JHUbal27 (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. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]
4. [81]
5. [82]
6. plus three reverts by IP addresses that are probably the same user

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnildo (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. This dispute was also reported at WP:ANI#Inappropriate tagging; edit warring; uncivil behavior. Since it's a classic violation of 3RR we might as well take action here. EdJohnston (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Pyxon reported by User:Versace1608 (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

Comments:
I am reporting User:Pyxon because he is violating Wikipedia's BLP policy by adding inaccurate information about the subject. I explained the meaning of the word origin (as it pertains to Template:Infobox musical artist) to this user, but he refuses to reason with me. The subject of this discussion, Patoranking, has said in many interviews that he started his musical career in Ebute Metta. There are no references online that disproves this information. User:Pyxon keeps changing the origin parameter from Ebute Metta to Ebonyi State, the birthplace of the subject's parents. He believes that this is the norm in Nigeria. Per Template:Infobox musical artist, origin means The town, city etc., from which the group or musician originated (that is, the place where the group was founded, or where individual performer started their career, should it not match the location of their birth). If the place is not known, specify at least the country. Do not add a flag icon. Omit the country if it does not differ from that specified at the field "birth_place". I tried telling User:Pyxon that as volunteers and editors of Wikipedia, we must adhere to the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. He has refused to reason with me and went as far as violating WP:NPA in this edit. I don't believe that my report falls in the content dispute category because the information User:Pyxon keeps adding is not factual whatsoever. How can someone who's being in Lagos all his life started his musical career in Ebonyi state? This just don't make sense. Versace1608 (Talk) 02:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Pyxon Patoranking is a Nigerian Musician. Here is the List of Nigerian musicians page.

Here are pages of Nigerian musicians picked at random from the above page. Please note the difference (or similarity) between their Origin and places their music careers started.

• King Sunny Adé : His Origin is stated as Osun but under the Background subtopic of his article it states thus "There, in Lagos, his mercurial musical career started. Let me say clearly that Lagos and Osun are 2 distinct administrative states, or State of Origin in Nigeria. Osun is the artiste ancestral home. He is an indigene of Osun. His parents are from Osun and so were his grandparents and his children that will come after him.

• Chidinma : 3 days ago, the user who reported me edited the origin of the focus of this article. Imo was previously written by another user(not me). Also in the article under the sub topic : Early life, educational pursuits, and public image 2nd paragraph, it states "Both her parents are from Imo". This corresponds with what was initially written by the 3rd user and what he perceived to be the right response.

In Nigeria and Africa as a whole, origin is distinguished as the ancestral home of forefathers.

Pyxon (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 23:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619280007 by Chealer (talk)Duplication not identified. This is a new reference from the WSJ previously unmentioned in this section."
2. 13:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Removal of citation template. The url for this is already there and has been posted for several days. If the link is not working on your machine then put it on Talk page here."
3. 22:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619285577 by Bigbaby23This is a consensus edit between 3 editors on Talk page. Please stop edit warring WP:EW and your next revert puts you over WP:3RR. You have no support on Talk."
4. 02:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619366908 by Bigbaby23 (talk)Repair and restore previous version after block on previous editor. Please discuss further edits on Talk."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user seems to lack care, often missing obvious problems even when reverting changes from others. More problematically, he often ignores WP:ROWN, sometimes uses condescension and poor justification rather than trying to understand the edits he does not approve or understand. After being warned yesterday following multiple 3RR violations, the user has combined 2 reversions in the latest one, portraying it as a mere reversion of a controversial edit, which arguably would not have caused a new violation.

While bending the rules cannot be tolerated, I appreciate some of his work (including part of 2 of the very edits I'm reporting) and am sure he can become/remain a useful contributor. He is clearly a genuine newcomer and equally clearly not a native English speaker, something to take into account when determining the consequences, which I hope will be moderate. Chealer (talk) 04:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Chealer appears to have confused the editing described above with an edit block which has just been made against User:BigBaby earlier today by User:EdJohnston for edit warring. Also, User:Chealer has been asked to respond on the Talk page at the Wikipedia page concerning his/her own edits, and has not yet answered there. Following his/her lack of responses to Talk, an WP:EW message was placed on his Talk page as well for his/her multiple reverts without engaging on Talk. Since User:Chealer is an experienced editor his/her not using Talk and making multiple reverts may require some further inestigation. I have already opened this issue on the Wikipedia Talk page. If a history of the reverts of User:Chealer are needed then they can also be compiled and submitted. It is hoped that now that the block has been issued against User:BigBaby for the edit warring described, that User:Chealer will start to make more use of the Talk page when requested during editing. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence, just because another editor that you are in disagreement with has been blocked does not mean it gives you the right to immediately revert their edit in violation of the edit warring policy. Actually, it is quite the contrary, where doing so appears to game the system and looks as if you are using the block for personal gain in the edit war. That said, the conversation at Talk:Wikipedia appears to support your version of the article, and I would argue with a few more users commenting might even establish consensus. Because of this, I am hesitant to block you. For the time being, please self-revert, continue to discuss on the talk page, and request an appropriate edit be made based on the consensus reached there. If you fail to self-revert, you will be blocked for the edit warring violation that you have already committed. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 14:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Tiptoety, Yes, the edit is to be restored exactly by your indications, with no personal gain of any kind intended. If I understand correctly, the Lead section is to be restored to the first version of User:Chealer available prior to the disruptive edits by User:BigBaby, which I identify here as that made by the Chealer version 22:24 of 27 July 2014, which is to remain until Talk page consensus is established. If for any reason this is not the choice of revert which you prefer, I accept any change to it which you would prefer to post there as the preferred version. Your preferred version is not to be changed until consensus on Talk page is reached as you indicate above. If there are further instructions for conducting the Talk page discussion there, please let me know so that I can follow them as well. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. Tiptoety ^talk 21:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:178.79.149.253 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 24 hours)

Page

List of current pretenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC) to 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "/* European */"
   2. 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Corrected references."
2. 21:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619328462 by FactStraight (talk) By the same token as Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc."
3. 01:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619361031 by Yopie (talk) As a lawyer to a lawyer: this is a legal matter not historic one. Anyone can advance a claim, and all that's required is their personal action."
4. 03:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619374813 by Edward321 (talk) In this case wiki is at www.royalfamily.ba, which means the wiki is a primary source for the claim having been made."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on List of current pretenders. (TW)"
2. 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same editor as 178.79.138.190 Yopie (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Same editor as below. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:178.79.138.190 reported by User:Yopie (Result: 31 hours )

Page

List of current pretenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619382205 by Edward321 (talk) In this case wiki is at www.royalfamily.ba, which means the wiki is a most reliable source for the claim having been made."
2. 10:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619407290 by Yopie (talk) Can you prove it's a hoax? No references? Sorry. A claim needs only its originator. I doubt you're a lawyer. Or perhaps law in Czech Republic is different."
3. 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619431401 by Yopie (talk) As a lawyer to a lawyer: this is a legal matter not historic one. Anyone can advance a claim, and all that's required is their personal action."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Creating hoaxes on List of current pretenders. (TW)"
2. 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same editor as 178.79.149.253‎ Yopie (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Response: not an edit war, just adding useful new information on Bosnian royalty using same standards as for Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc. Strange that someone would object to adding a perfectly legit claim by Bosnian royalty while seeing no problems with Ukrainian info as such an obvious hoax. This is a legal matter not historic one. Anyone can advance a claim, and their personal action is all that's required. Their own press office is sufficient, just as in case of Bulgarian royalty. As to the hoax allegation: feel free to provide references that say this is a hoax. Again, they seem perfectly legit according to the same standards we have for Bulgaria, Ukraine and so on royalty. 178.79.138.190 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 15:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Califate123! reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

Califate123! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619433036 by Dr.K. (talk) No personal attacks, just trying to build a credible encyclopaedia. Given recent events, the content of the article must change."
2. 15:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619432124 by Polugap (talk) Reverting for obvious reasons. This is an encyclopaedia, not the dream world some nationals of a country want to believe. Wikipedia is based on facts."
3. 11:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 619411426 by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk)do not revert substantiated facts"
4. 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "update - changes in the last years"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Greece. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring, adding WP:UNDUE original research at the lead of the article. Also erasing the fact, and its source, that Greece is a democratic country. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Our edits are totally justifiable (I'm sorry I deleted the "democratic country" reference, it was a mistake). The world has changed and the introduction of the article is ludicrous. One would think Greece is totally fine, with "high living standards", a paradise on Earth, overlooking the fact its GDP per capita has fallen by about 6,000$, the average salary has decreased and its unemployment rate, especially among the youth, has skyrocketed. If you're going to state that the World Bank (still) considers Greece an "advanced economy", you must also present conflicting points of view. They didn't exist until 2013, but now they're here and very visible. At least 3 agencies have downgraded Greece from a "developed market" to an "emerging" one. It's a fact, pure an simple. Wikipedia is about facts, truth, knowledge, and not nationalism or delusional realities. It's not very surprising to find that the ones reverting my and the other user's edits don't provide any justification and their usernames are written in the Greek alphabet (wonder why). Califate123! (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not very surprising to find that the ones reverting my and the other user's edits don't provide any justification and their usernames are written in the Greek alphabet (wonder why). Before you attempt again to cast aspersions based on the origin of other editors, read again my comments here and on the article talk. This is recentist, WP:UNDUE stuff that does not need to be advertised at the lead of the article. In any case, edit-warring is not the answer as you seem to think. Plus this content discussion does not belong here but at the article talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Galatz reported by User:Huldra (Result: )

Page: 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Galatz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st revert 14:27, 1 August 2014 mv from Israel raids on UNRWA schools to 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents, thereby removing the name "Israeli raids" from the title.
2. 2nd revert 14:46, 1 August 2014 mv from Israel raids on UNRWA schools to 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents, thereby removing the name "Israeli raids" from the title.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [84]

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

This article is under ARBIA discretionary sanctions, ie 1RR. The editor has twice today moved the article, from Israel raids on UNRWA schools to 2014 UNRWA Facility Incidents, thereby removing the name "Israeli raids" from the title.

The first RR mentioned is because my NPOV on the title of the article was removed because any of the issues were addressed.

Second RR was because I was attempting to fix the NPOV issues with the article especially the title. The title having "Israeli Raids" is extremely NPOV. This is a two sided war and both views need to be shown. My move was to a NPOV title that shows that there were incidents, not a one sided attack. As you can see from the article there was return of fire, returning fire is not a raid. - Galatz (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Galatz unilaterally moved an article name twice today, refusing to get consensus on the talk-page, dismissing everyones views as "POV", elevating his/her own view to "NPOV". Cheers, Huldra (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Untrue I mentioned it yesterday on the talk page and no one objected to my move, only some comments on my other concerns - Galatz (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh and also the rule quoted above was changed, and this article is not under the sections mentioned on the new rule - Galatz (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This article was under ARBIA sanctions from the second it was created. Wether or not there is a notification on the talk-page is irrelevant. And the talk-page shows that no-one agreed with you on the article-name move. Huldra (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, as I stated above no one objected to my page move, only to my other NPOV issues. Meaning I brought it up, and after 1 day of no objections I moved it. - Galatz (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Because we were too occupied with answering all your other objections? And clearly, when someone undid your move: someone disagreed with you. In spite of this, you repeated the move. If you had only moved it *once* you would not have been reported here. You edit-warred, to get your preferred title, end of story. Huldra (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe mentioning 3 issues with an article is too many. - Galatz (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. In my view, there has been a significant amount of disruptive editing by more than one editor at this article. I've formally alerted the two users in this report to the discretionary sanctions. One of the other editors was already notified. I'm not inclined to take any action here, but that doesn't preclude another administrator from doing so, although I believe more than one block would probably be needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to see the diffs please, for what you call "significant amount of disruptive editing" from other editors, thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I assume you mean only you, and if you want me to make a case for blocking you for violating WP:1RR, fine. Here you reverted the article move, and here you altered material in the article, also a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
      • That second is a self-revert, (I and linked a name, not noticing that it already was linked) and adding a cn tag, (which Galatz agreed with.) Are you telling me that "adding" the word "vacant" to a sentence is a revert? In that case, is it possible to edit an article more than once a day *without* breaking 1RR? Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Arguably, adding the word "vacant" was a revert because it changed the sense of the material. However, because you did not add, change, or subtract any words, I wouldn't count it. Nor was it the addition of the fact tag. It was changing "one of their schools" to "another of their vacant schools" that was a revert. Putting aside the addition again of the word "vacant", it wasn't just a minor change because by changing the word you changed the meaning of whoever wrote it in the first instance. Was that a self-revert? If so, please point me to the diff in which you changed it and were in this edit changing it back.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
• I see a move and a revert and assorted impassioned-but-not-really-blockable editing. What am I missing here? - 2/0 (cont.) 00:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• If you're speaking generally, there have been multiple move reverts and multiple other reverts. The article is subject to ArbCom sanctions and a WP:1RR restriction.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

User:97.127.71.178 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Gravity Falls (season 1) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 15:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gravity Falls (season 1). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No talk page discussion because information is blatantly false. Episode could not air 2.5 months after ratings for it were posted (see refs). Further, I know user did not violate 3RR, but user is edit warring and disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Actually, the IP did violate 3RR as their first edit at 17:45 changed material and was therefore a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Factchecker atyourservice reported by User:Dyrnych (Result: )

Page: List of incidents of misuse of the Internal Revenue Service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:

User:Factchecker atyourservice has made several edits to the page in question, many of which are controversial. I objected to the edits on several policy grounds and attempted to come to some kind of consensus, per BRD. To be fair, FCAYS has revised some of the edits in response to my objections, but other edits to which I've raised policy objections remain with those objections unaddressed. Specifically, the construction "The agency has maintained that low-level employees took it upon themselves to do this, but Lois Lerner, who at the time was Director of the IRS's Exempt Organizations Unit, refused to testify before Congress, twice citing her Constitutional right against self-incrimination, and was subsequently held in contempt of Congress" remains. I have noted my objection to this as SYNTH and received no real response (in Diff 2's edit summary FCAYS ignores the fact that this objection has even occurred). In fact, after some discussion, FCAYS informed me that several of my objections were "surreal nonsense" and explicitly declined to discuss the edits further. Following this, I reverted the page to the previous stable version, citing lack of consensus and asking FCAYS to wait for other editors to weigh in. The page remained unchanged for two days, which I later found out is likely because FCAYS was blocked for edit warring on a different page. Soon after the block was lifted, FCAYS reinstated the changes that he'd made, in slightly different form (Diff 1) as a "neutral summary of main article." I reverted this change, citing the lack of consensus; FCAYS reverted back (Diff 2). The ensuing conversation has descended into accusations that I may be a liar and that I want "a free hand to unilaterally write WP articles from a biased left-wing perspective".

Because it's a lightly-traveled page, only FCAYS and I have as yet commented on FCAYS's edits. I think that it's appropriate for more discussion to transpire before a consensus is reached, with possible content dispute resolution required. I don't really care if my preferred version remains as long as we get some other editors weighing in so that this isn't another instance of FCAYS and I yelling at each other (which we've done fruitlessly and at length in the past).

As I've noted above, FCAYS has just been blocked for edit warring at a different page. This seems to be a pattern with him: because the version of a particular article is his preferred version, it should (1) remain despite any controversy with that particular version among other editors or (2) be removed because that particular version is controversial based on his views. On a related page (the page that FCAYS is purportedly summarizing in this context), FCAYS has justified his reversion of edits I've made in part for precisely the same reason that I believe requires him to gain consensus for his controversial changes. This leads me to believe that consistency is unimportant for FCAYS, and that he will continue to edit war either to preserve material that he has added (nothwithstanding a lack of consensus) or to remove material that he does not want in the article (citing lack of consensus as a reason for the removal). I am also convinced based on our history that FCAYS will tendentiously revert any changes that I make to the page, restoring his preferred version and providing an arbitrary justification for reverting my edit.

I realize that my behavior towards FCAYS hasn't been the most collegial in the past (and that I've likely edit warred with him myself), so I understand if my behavior is in question as well. I also realize that this is not a 3RR situation, but I am attempting to avoid edit warring myself and am not reverting FCAYS's edit for a second time, meaning that FCAYS has no incentive to continue reverting (despite my belief that he would continue to do so if either I or another editor reinstated a previous version). I think that at least in this instance, I've tried to do things in an appropriate fashion. Dyrnych (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a beautiful Friday evening, so for now I will limit myself to linking to diff showing the material I'm accused of wrongfully editing, allegedly against consensus, and the allegedly controversial material I added which is said to be rejected by consensus.

Which of these do you think reflects a failure of NPOV?

In my opinion, my version is well-supported by recent pieces summarizing the controversy, such as ones found in the New York Daily News and the Wall Street Journal, and I attempted to track those sources via paraphrase.

Anyway, I'll return later this weekend to engage this discussion more fully, but for now I'll say I believe the OP has mischaracterized our discussions to date — rather extensively. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Mussobrennon (Result: )

Page:  
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97] [98] [99]

Comments:

I'm concered that this user seems to be basing his edits on pure speculation that her sales are inflated, but there's no sources to indicate that, and could that be original research? Mussobrennon (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)