text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive271

User:Visite fortuitement prolongée reported by User:Brianhe (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Full comparison diffs provided below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 2015-02-02 22:22 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=645367043&oldid=645366533 1RR] reverts [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645068115]
 * 2) 2015-02-02 22:23 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=645367074&oldid=645367043 2RR] reverts [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=643767493&oldid=643767138]
 * 3) 2015-02-02 22:49 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645370628 3RR] reverts [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=645496321&oldid=645452409]
 * 4) 2015-02-03 21:24 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=next&oldid=645503783 4RR] reverts [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=645452409&oldid=645370628]

In addition to the clear-cut 3RR above, he has reverted in the same article here.
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=next&oldid=644017607] 22:16, 24 January 2015
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=next&oldid=644316927] 22:29, 26 January 2015
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=next&oldid=644469192] 22:32, 27 January 2015
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=next&oldid=644788030] 22:09, 30 January 2015
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=645664453&oldid=645664358] 22:14, 4 February 2015
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645957803] 22:52, 6 February 2015

The straw that broke the camel's back is this invitation that resulted in another editor's reversion of the same material. This invitation and resulting change was made without consultation to the ongoing talkpage discussion, obviously exacerbating an edit-war, thus compromis(ing) the normal consensus decision-making process.
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephan_Schulz&diff=645367160&oldid=638793613] 22:23, 2 February 2015 (VFP)
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645512455] 22:08, 3 February 2015 (3rd party revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Visite_fortuitement_prolong%C3%A9e&diff=prev&oldid=645551097] 03:35, 4 February 2015
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Visite_fortuitement_prolong%C3%A9e&diff=645679671&oldid=645551097] 00:23, 5 February 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) 22:09, 31 January 2015. His only reply, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=645371832&oldid=645366791 a snarky two-word comment]
 * 2) 03:09, 3 February 2015

Comments:

I really didn't want to bring this to admins, but I have tried to negotiate in good faith with this person (I will abbreviate his username to VFP) through the talkpage, and to ask outside users for input in an RfC opened 27 January. I've invited VFP and other "anti"s to comment on sources before inclusion starting on 26 January here.

This is a contentious issue with passionate and ongoing arguments over sources. There have been many changes made, some of which are reversions, but only one of the editors has crossed the 3RR line. Other editors have started to engage productively on the talkpage, mostly since the beginning of February and an outline for making progress together was proposed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=645918112&oldid=645912228] just final to VFP's 6 February reversion.

VFP is apparently unable to work constructively with others and has continually reverted constructive, sourced changes as described in depth [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=645052941&oldid=644904070 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645400366 here]. He has responded to another editor who has tried to set boundaries of cordial debate and de-escalate with him in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=644600643&oldid=644600349 this cynical retort]. VFP's WP:OWNish behavior is repeated at other articles like Former Muslims United, Charlie Hebdo shooting, Islam in France, Eurabia, and Counterjihad where sourced material is unilaterally deleted, frequently without so much as an edit summary for justification. He did not respond to my pointing out his WP:ADVOCACY, WP:OWN and WP:SPA behavior on 31 January, and has continued on the same path. After the reversions noted above, VFP canvassed another editor (who is an admin but not involved as an admin) on 2 February [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephan_Schulz&diff=645367160&oldid=638793613], who subsequently reverted exactly the same material as VFP had been doing[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645512455].

Finally, VFP is repeatedly accusing good-faith contributors to the talkpage of racism and using this as a pretext for pushing them off the talkpage[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=644164824&oldid=644164581][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=644904070&oldid=644791707], and, bizzarely, is accusing one or more of plagiarism for so much as citing sources he doesn't like[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:No-go_area&diff=prev&oldid=645515892].

Please note this editor has been involved in prior 3RR incidents on English Wikipedia, and has been given multiple lengthy blocks on French Wikipedia. In an arbitration case there it was found "De manière générale, VFP a donc un problème a collaborer avec les autres utilisateurs" ("In general, VFP therefore has a problem working with other users.").

Disclosure: I have reverted on No-go area [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=643886961&oldid=643876063 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=644020144&oldid=644019108 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=644284264&oldid=644163826 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=644438251&oldid=644323948 here], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=644787851&oldid=644470642 here] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=No-go_area&diff=645614919&oldid=645512455 here] (one self-reverted change not shown), always in good faith, explaining my reasons and inviting discussion on the talkpage. There is one pair of edits within 24 hours of each other. — Brianhe (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't know that the three-revert rule apply to "the same or different material each time". My bad. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

When Brianhe after 2015-02-02 and after 2015-02-03, was it advice or blackmail? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe's avoid answering to my comment it follow, and its wording suggest that reply by me are unwanted. I did not reply to 645052941 by "a snarky two-word comment". I did not reply to 645052941 at all. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe are you saying that on Islam in France is a mistake? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianhe do you want to expose the material similarity case here? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the recent reverts I have protected the article. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:User931 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646090477 by ViperSnake151 (talk) What you are writing is history of W10, not development, therefore two paragraphs. Also you are deleting information."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646087552 by ViperSnake151. WHY are you deleting development paragraph? Why are you rephrasing the whole version history table? The explanation for universal is found under development which you deleted. Changed Youtube to MS official video"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646054425 by ViperSnake151 (talk) Of course it's a reliable reference when it's the Official Windows 10 event. Why have you rephrased the whole table?"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring. */"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

This is only the tip of the iceberg of issues we've had on this article, please note.

User insists on restoring information sourced solely to primary sources, and requiring the inclusion of a paragraph written with buzzwords that contains no sourcing at all, and a continued insistence that references to Windows 10's "universal apps" must state "all Windows 10 devices" (treating Windows 10 for phone and Windows 10 for PC as the same product, which has been another disputed subject), as opposed to "unified with their PC equivalents". ViperSnake151  Talk  21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bjelleklang -  talk 22:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:M60a3tts reported by User:Al Khazar (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

This

Diffs of the user's reverts: Take a look at the page history. I don't need any evidence beyond that and sock puppetry is involved in this.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is already banned. His mutiple IP addresses are not.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not possible with multiple IPs.

Comments:

Khazar (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User already blocked, article semiprotected. Bjelleklang -  talk 22:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Al Khazar reported by User:M60a3tts (Result: Blocked filer and IP)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-90&diff=645788441&oldid=645763181]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-90&diff=645595743&oldid=645578975]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-90&diff=645849433&oldid=645849212]

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

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

Comments:

The user is trying to neglect the source which I stated on the page, "Soviet/Russian Armor and Artillery design practices:1945 to Present, which is written by military experts, for example, Steven J. Zaloga. And he is also removing the source and keep editing the protection value of the T-90 MBT. I gave him the photos I took from the book, to prove that my reference is credible, but his attitude does not change.

↓ These is a proof for his unchanging attitude.

I am sick of re-editing the T-90 page. Khazar don't you think this is reliable enough?M60a3tts (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. You've already been blocked before. If you continue this, you will be blocked again. Learn to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Khazar (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This book is written by Andrew W. Hull, David R. Markov and Steven J. Zaloga, and they are all experts in this field. This was even adviced by Marine Corps Intelligence Activity and Christopher F. Foss, who is the editor of IHS Jane's. You are the one who believes that internet shit is much more credible than specialty publication.<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Khazar http://gall.dcinside.com/board/view/?id=arm&no=375286&page=1 These photos are all taken from the book I mentioned before. Yes, I was banned before, but does that doesn't matter at all. You are the one who doesn't know how to differentiate between a reliable source and an unreliable source. Learn to read English, and use your eyes.M60a3tts (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed something very interesting about this user. That IP address not only shares the same style of incivility with the vandal above, but both appear to be from the same region. Khazar (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * M60a3tts and his IP sidekick for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User indeffed after a string of personal attacks and various disruptive edit summaries from IPs at the same article. Bjelleklang -  talk 22:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Truthisnotrelativeyep reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Referenced random anti religious book."
 * 2)  "Atheist troll posted hateful and pointless thing.  Please stop!"
 * 3)  "Citing random book claiming their myths.  No reason for this."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 646108741 by Mann jess (talk)"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Talk pages"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adam. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Talk pages"
 * 2)  "Removing "atheist" content:  new section"

User is (so far) an SPA. As soon as he hit 4 reverts and this report was filed, another brand new user popped up to revert in his place here. Temporary semi protection may be helpful. Thanks. — Jess · Δ♥ 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I have blocked the other account, Johhnywashburn, as an obvious sock/meatpuppet. I was going to let Truthisnotrelativeyep off with a warning, being so new, but I see User:Elockid has already blocked them. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC).
 * Oh, and I see Elockid had already blocked the sock before I got there, too. I guess I took too long writing the block notice. Bishonen | talk 00:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC).

User:BecciBexi reported by User:Random86 (Result: 48 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "back to the old format"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Warned by, but continued to revert after warning. Random86 (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I added revert number 5. This edit-warring account is most probably a throw-away sock account, an all too common fact in the K-pop area. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bishonen | talk 01:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hand snoojy reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added new sub-section"
 * 2)  "Added news, facts and some other content"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant */"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

This article is on WP:1RR as prominently displayed on talk page. "New" editor is adding in content of a blocked sock. Neil N  talk to me 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: 48 hours for 1RR violation on an article subject to WP:GS/SCW. The material that Hand snoojy was restoring was previously added to the article by User:Malam kanam 2003 on 25 January. That editor is now indef blocked per Sockpuppet investigations/Absolution provider 1999. On 29 January Hand snoojy quickly made ten trivial edits to their own sandbox, presumably to get autoconfirmed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK of the other sock puppets. Same insertions, same whining on talk pages, same English language errors as the other versions of this editor. Legacypac (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Hand snoojy is back editing Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. He has made a series of edits that restore some of the same content (Special:Diff/645878331/645908644). EastTN (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

See my new report below. Legacypac (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Degen Earthfast reported by User:Amortias (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646101365 by Bellerophon (talk) The MoD Police are a Security Police force as opposed to a regular police as stated in the article. Their authority is generally limited to MoD"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646111989 by Bellerophon (talk)Still not a normal police force per the Special Police Act"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646117233 by Rob984 (talk)Still a Security Police force as it's primary duty is to Guard and Protect Mod Estates. Sheesh"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646117233 by Rob984 (talk)Still a Security Police force as it's primary duty is to Guard and Protect Mod Estates. Sheesh"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:
 * 1) Moved from WP:ANI. Amortias (T)(C) 02:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I considered the ANI page and almost left a response before noting that you'd come here. I don't think a block appropriate at the moment: after checking his contributions, I believe that he generally doesn't edit except around midnight UTC and early afternoon.  Given the fact that his userpage mentions travelling in various parts of the USA, I suppose he's in that country, and asleep by now; as such, the edit war's definitely not happening at the moment, and it might not continue.  However, should he return and immediately start reverting, a single such revert should bring an immediate unwarned block.  Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * John (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Germanobb reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: blocked 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646105079 by Orduin (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646116055 by Germanobb (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 4)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 646101233 by Orduin (talk)"
 * 6)  "Those are not major reliable sources, you are disturbing the page. Look at any other major artist's album page, they aren't there. You're making it look like a 10 year-old edited this."
 * 7)  "/* Weekly charts */"
 * 8)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 9)  "/* Commercial performance */"
 * 10)  "/* Commercial performance */"
 * 1)  "/* Critical reception */"
 * 2)  "/* Commercial performance */"
 * 3)  "/* Commercial performance */"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) My warning to them
 * 2) Orduin's warning of them

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) Orduin's attempt to discuss on article's talkpage with user

 * Comments:

User continues to edit-war continuously over the past week's time, multiple times with other editors. One editor Orduin attempted to not only talk to them on their talk page, but also on the talk page of the page in question (Reflection); both requests for comment were blatantly ignored for their own preference.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 14:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The user isn't seeming to give any input on this report along with their personal attack(s) and unexplained removal(s). So I think an indefinite block for Germanobbcould work. IPadPerson (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * seicer |  talk  |  contribs  15:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And to Livelikemusic, if the edits become disruptive, just flag it on here instead of revert warring. This is just a warning but be careful. Cheers. seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  15:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Hand snoojy reported by User:Legacypac (Result: indef. blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The material added is not copyrighted it is rather a summary of justifications given for  sexual slavery by ISIL based on the koran.I don't think the koran is copyrighted"
 * 1)  "The material added is not copyrighted it is rather a summary of justifications given for  sexual slavery by ISIL based on the koran.I don't think the koran is copyrighted"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Continued insertion and reinsertion of rejected POV content. See multiple discussions on Talk page about this issue. Breached 1RR (at 2 or 3RR today). See also. DUCK of two banned SOCK Masters (who I believe are the same person). Previously blocked for edit warring over same terrorist POV pushing material. See also EdJohnson's and other comments on the last 3RR report on this user top of the page. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * You accused me of posting copyright material is false. The content is taken from This. The website is not copyright protected. All the other sources specified are to support the claim, the content is not derived from any of the other sources other than the ones provided. If you still wanna argue, the claims are repeated and echoed in all the sources, many of them aren't even copyright protected. Might wanna check all sources before reverting..Hand snoojy (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * One more revert. And all material you find on the Internet written during the past several decades is copyrighted unless there's an explicit disclaimer stating otherwise. --Neil N  talk to me 14:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Reverts relevant to the 1RR
 * 15:25 6 February (mentioned on User_talk:PBS, not trying to forum shop)
 * 02:30 7 February (mentioned on User_talk:PBS, not trying to forum shop)
 * 11:14 8 Feb as mentioned above
 * 11:41 8 Feb as mentioned above
 * 14:20 8 Feb 1
 * We're all very sure this is a clear DUCK sock, and have been for a week now. Can we please do something? John Smith the Gamer (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hand snoojy has just reverted again here. Mostly likely a sock. Mbcap (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * seicer |  talk  |  contribs  15:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Vaselineeeeeeee reported by User:IJBall (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Diff1
 * 2) Diff2
 * 3) Diff3
 * 4) Diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link (subsequently deleted by user)

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

Comments:

Please note that this editor was previously blocked on January 23 diff for similar behavior, and does not seem to have learned from the experience, as editor is still engaged in edit warring, and has contentious discussions going with several other editors on several topics on their Talk page. --IJBall (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * With this flag situation, there has been a proposal issued for a request to clarify the MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. As it stands presently, it states "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not." This means on a page like Kitchener, there is no set rule where flags are not allowed, as we still need to hear from the result of the proposal. After the fourth edit I realized I was being stupid and should stop, which is why I have not added the flags back after they were most recently taken down. I really am sorry. I do not want to get a lengthy ban, I just got caught up in the moment. Thank you for your time. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * This isn't the only instance of this user edit warring today. Take a look at Jordan Bachynski, where the user was warring over a WP:OVERLINK dispute with me. Rikster2 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

^This is irrelevant. I agreed with him and we came to terms to leave Calgary linked separately with Alberta not linked as it is a major geographic area and should not be linked. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) it isn't irrelevant as it shows a pattern of this sort of behavior, and 2) don't confuse just getting tired of arguing with "coming to terms" Rikster2 (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not confusing it. We came to terms, as my last edit was left current on that page as you obviously felt that it was a reasonable edit to leave it the way I put it, which is coming to terms. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I just wasn't going to engage in edit warring with you on this. It was fine how it was originally.  But I'll let the admins decide about you.  Obviously there is a pattern here.  Good night. Rikster2 (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Rikster2 went on to say how "no body cares about Alberta" (WP:IDL) and claimed ownership of this article because he created it so he decides what gets to be on it, this is a community, not just his article (WP:OWN) if you check my talk page. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comment Admins will decide about Vaseline's inappropriate edit warring, but for the record parsing a city wikilink into individual city and province/state wikilinks is not OVERLINK. In my lengthy time on here, I have never seen anyone claim that. I have only seen it claimed at the national level (removing links to countries). Rikster2 should be mindful about WP:BOOMERANG. Hwy43 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ive been around a long time too, and it is certainly an interpretation of OVERLINK and one that's been followed pretty consistently with basketball articles in my 7-8 years on WP. If you feel like you've got some grounds to bring me up on some WP charges, then please go ahead and do it.  I've got a fine track record on this site, but by all means do what you need to do. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rikster2, no need for me to bring you up on charges. I've only witnessed one transgression and I AGF not only that this is a momentary lapse of emotions getting the better of you, but that you are also a solid editor. Is there a documented discussion somewhere in the basketball WP that confirms its overlink interpretation consensus? If so it would be helpful to point Vaseline to that. I edit mostly within the community, geography and hockey wikiprojects and have never witnessed such an overlink interpretation, but of course other wikiprojects may have different interpretations. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

multiple EC
 * . They have already been blocked twice before. Even though they did reach an agreement on the one page, and Rikster2 appears to exhibit some ownership, they were edit warring. I'll unprotect the two pages. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Should be noted the editor has been to the "Incident Board" before on the same type of problem(s) IncidentArchive872-Two concerns about User:Vaselineeeeeeee.  -- Moxy (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Yossimgim reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 19:07, 8 February 2015
 * 2) Revision as of 19:42, 8 February 2015

Comments:

Israel is placed under an absolute 1RR rule. A big warning sign is shown when editing the article, and the arbitration clearly states "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense". By reverting twice in less than an hour, Yossimgim violates the 1RR, and the warning in place when editing is sufficient, as per the arbitration decision. (His offensive remarks directed at me in the edit summary aren't inspiring good faith either.)Jeppiz (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have dated the edits to help make it clear. The User also claims that the image took place in Tel Aviv when doesn't even mention anything other than her name. AcidSnow (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I notified User:Yossimgim that he/she had violated 1RR and asked him/her to self-revert. Instead, Yossimgim has continued to make other changes to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is frankly a silly thing to get blocked for, and as it's not related to the conflict the 1RR is in place for, I've made it a short block. Bjelleklang -  talk 20:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:YMB29 (Result: blocked for other EW)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Not in 24 hour period, but very close.

 * 1)  (19:35, 1 February 2015) - A series of edits that removed text, re-added links that were removed per WP:REDNOT, and re-added the revisionist label that violates WP:BLP.
 * 2)  (08:01, 2 February 2015) - Removal of text, claiming OR unless I provide a translation.
 * 3)  (15:07, 2 February 2015) - Removed the same text, and made other reverts that were not stated in the edit summary.
 * 4)  (19:54, 2 February 2015) - Same as above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps removing text (which has been in the article for a long time), claiming that I need to provide a translation of the original text from the source first. This is by itself disruptive, since a simple quotation tag, instead of a revert, would have been enough. I spend time on the translation and posted it on the talk page. However, he then claims that I need to provide a translation done by a reliable source, which goes against WP:NOENG. He also constantly added text that violated WP:BLP, and made off-topic, heated and combative talk page comments. His comments, especially the last two diffs, show that he is concerned with combating the "Russian POV" in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict articles and is bringing this fight to this article. Also, over a month ago there was another user edit warring in the same article. The article was later protected. -YMB29 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that this user could do with a topic ban under WP:ARBEE (he is aware). Repeatedly edit-warring in EE articles over the course of a long period time (see block log) indicates that this user is not capable of handling the topic area. Blocking him again is not going to solve the problem. A topic ban is the solution. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Sayerslle made only two obvious reverts during last 24 hours. YMB29 also made at least two reverts. This is a complicated issue. If anyone wants this be considered at AE, that's fine. Please submit an official WP:AE request. My very best wishes (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between two reverts and four in almost a 24 hour period. Some reverting is allowed under WP:BRD. My last revert was to undo the previous revert by Sayerslle after I provided what he asked for in his revert summary. I thought that would settle it, but it did not... -YMB29 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * this is 'stale' in sense that I have become so revolted by YMB29's TE that I have told him I  don't want anything further to do with the main article page. he didn't provide what I asked for - the original text, on the article page,('in articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - he says, that doesn't mean on the article page, but it says what it says) -he studiously ignores everyone he disagrees with,  -he  kept removing RSourced material from the lead for no reason apparent to me, kept twisting the text in his favourite section,  and so on. as for RGloucester's remarks i think that would be an over-reaction and  I also notice that  though I have edit-warred over  6 or 7 years, it is rare in the context of my overall editing (  this is an editor who put the MH-17 Malaysia airlines article up for deletion - he has his personal agenda and does things like that for a laugh apparently - and yet presumes to teach others about how to respect the encyclopedia ffs )-- i shant edit the article any more- do admins ever look at the substance of disputes btw - the lead  was virtually 'these rapes, they've been nailed as part of an effort to portray Germans as victims, especially in the West -' - it was tendentious, it was odd,  - and then YMB29 wants the views of marginal extreme Russian nationalist propagandists - everywhere, but if you try and  add that a historian has been identified with  a certain attitude to the history of Russia - and source it to the BBC - look out, you'll get called a violator of BLP, ( if you believe that take it to the appropriate venue -  see what others think, that would be good), -  you'll get your edits trashed - and then after the  editor involved has edit warred with you, and others, but plays the game apparently against those who just care about the integrity of the text,  well - he'll try and get those he basically hates politically taken out.   Sayerslle (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * This is just to clarify what is happening (in chronological order):
 * 1) YMB29 is engaged in sustained slow-motion edit war on this page ,,,,
 * 2) EdJohnston blocked another user (and rightly so) for edit warring, protected this page for one month, and issued YM29 an EE warning, with a reference specifically to this page
 * 3) YMB29 asks to revert protected page to "his" version. Others object
 * 4) YMB29 resumes edit war immediately after expiration of protection
 * 5) He now reports yet another user for edit warring. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not defend YMB29's behaviour. However, Sayerslle has a long history in this ARBEE topic area, and of being in similar disputes. By now, it should be come apparent to him that his style of editing has not led to a productive result in this topic area. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I don't want to turn this into a big threaded argument, but I just want to note that user "My very best wishes" is not a neutral observer here. He has been engaged in edit warring and harassment in the EE topic area for a long time. He also has a long history with me, including recent examples of clear wiki stalking. I can provide all the required diffs, but this is not the right place I think.
 * The user also commonly makes claims that are simply not true. This is not an EE warning, as it clearly says This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. And I did not edit war after the protection expired, as there was an agreement to re-add back some text. -YMB29 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You tell that you did not edit war after expiration of protection. How come? Here are last 50 edits on this page. They are made during last 48 hours. I can see three reverts made by Sayerslle and three reverts made by you (in addition to my diff above). In addition, it was you who brought this request here, asking to deal with an edit war between Sayerslle and who? My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You claimed that this is edit warring, which is false.
 * You also never explained your sneaky revert to remove text without consensus. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * there is no consensus as far as I can tell to add all the stuff you want to from dyukov and senyevskaya, two fringe historians, - you just ignore others -and if you think the 'revisionist 'tag is unjustified   why not take it to a venue where that could be looked at - its you that just edit wars  - Sayerslle (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no consensus, changes have to be restored to the previous state, per WP:NOCONSENSUS.
 * If this basic wiki principal was followed the first time, before the page protection, we would not be having this problem again now. -YMB29 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant there was no consensus for your massive  verbiage of  extreme  fringe pov historians to be quoted - it was only you  fighting for all that pov verbiage as far as I could see- you writing 'this problem again' - what, you mean this has  been a problem before? why do you think that is ? because its problematic ? ever thought of that? - and it was you that repeatedly removed sourced material for 'revisionist' - you that disruptively edited ad infinitum over that - why wont you take that source to a RFC or something - you prefer to edit war don't you, that's what you're like Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant that you are not the first one to edit war against consensus in the article. -YMB29 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * you are the principal edit warrior  at this article . full stop. you are the principal pov pusher. you ignore consensus and other editors opinions. I see at rootless cosmopolitanism you leave edit summaries like - ' It is a valid source. Your opinion does not matter here' - and impose your (invaraibly Stalinist/Putinist/extreme Russian Nationalist/xenophobic pov writer of choice . I like the way some opinions don't matter to you. your opinion matters to you, thats all. disgusting. why don't you take your challenge  of 'revisionist' to a forum of some kind? why do you just edit war over that? -yu say I violated BLP and you kept edit warring - ask for another opinion. go on.  Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BLP violations are usually removed right away. I was actually going to go to the BLP noticeboard about this, but then I saw that you keep reverting other parts of the article too. -YMB29 (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * no, not 'other parts of the article' - just your verbiage  from fringe historians for which you have no consensus whatever - you  edit war over 'revisionist' and don't take it  to a noticeboard becase you like to see people you disagree just blocked or tpic banned rather than have your edits scrupulously looked at no doubt - at 'rootless cosmopolitanism' one sees again the nature of your 'work' and editing 'style'  ,-  diverse, well sourced material is removed and huge blocs of text, the work of your favoured Stalinist/Russian nationalist/xenpophobic writers are put in their place - you denigrate other editors , 'your opinion doesn't matter' - you edit war - you accuse people of BLP violations but don't take it to a noticeboard, just edit war -  awful. a menace. Sayerslle (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 * @RGloucester. Yes, Sayerslle has a short temper, just like you. However, I have seen him contributing positively on a number of pages - just like you. YMB29 is very different. I believe he is simply a POV-pushing SPA contributor with nationalistic agenda, someone described in the essay by Moreschi. I think he does not contribute positively at all, but engaged in WP:TE editing and slow-motion edit wars on multiple pages, just as on this page, and this is something I tried to tell with supporting diffs here. My very best wishes (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your last link is to an old version of the page that does not include my response.
 * You are just throwing baseless accusations. So I am a nationalistic SPA... Is that why you are keeping an eye on me and following me around?
 * I can understand why you are defending Sayerslle; you are both pushing the same POV together in many articles (like ). Given your history, I would not be surprised if you canvassed him to this article; he never edited the article until last Friday, which was when you complained about me "edit warring" but said that you don't want to get involved yourself. -YMB29 (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @YMB 29 - that is not AGF. What I have a habit of doing  YMB29 is  sometimes clicking on the contribution histories  of contributors  that I have encountered, that is all, and that is why I looked at this article , and rootless cosmopolitanism. Sayerslle (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For the rootless cosmopolitan article, he openly canvassed you. -YMB29 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * that looks like open talk page conversation to me - is that what made me look at that article  -anyhow I do look at  contribution histories and that is what ,as I recall anyhow, brought me to this page about  1945 - I don't know what shared 'pov' you think we might be pushing anyhow -  evryones pov is shaped by a multitude of  things really - the thing is , is to be self aware  when editing Wikipedia, to be aware of any bias and always seek to edit for the best of the encyclopedia - you just use wp as a place to pursue your nationalist pov - that's my opinion. and its shaped by my reading of Orwell's Notes on Nationalism - the tell-tale signs of that kind of mind - my personal opinion, not the result of a canvassed campaign against your (pov) edits  Sayerslle (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what your accusations are based on exactly, but a simple look at your user page will show that it is you who has an agenda here. -YMB29 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * a simple look at my user page reveals an open ness - a simple look at your user page - reveals - nothing.  which in its way is revealing  also. My user page reveals I am not a nihilistSayerslle (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile the reverting continues. -YMB29 (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * good faith editing continues. i'm editing the discourse section, is that all right with the FSB?  and your edit to the lead was POINT-y and pointless - you  present a source  and then challenge it yourself - twittish disruptive idiotic edits. and you whine about others canvassing and stalking you ffs, yet you carry on here a pathetic campaign monitoring others good faith edits - nauseating. - another editor observed of you 'you are doing almost nothing but reverts in a single article for the entire month'  what are you here for  really - you don't contribute to the encyclopedia  except for a few articles where you edit war-  hypocrite, you are  16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)Sayerslle (talk)

It looks like the disruption is carrying over to other articles. -YMB29 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * its called editing - are you going to label 'disruption' any edit that doesn't endorse your world view.   totally ridiculous. why do you keep running here with your whines anyhow ?  why are you not discussing on the talk page differences of opinion?  - you are just seeking to get  people who don't  agree with your pov blocked really on spurious grounds. I am editing  - that is the whole bloody point of this place.  - dégueulasse.  Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You never edited the article until today. Again, you are there only to support "My very best wishes," who followed me there today to revert my old edit.
 * Plus comments like "she is Fringe ffs - its fucking obvious" don't belong on wiki. -YMB29 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * is it no swearing ever as well now, prig-ish nonsense, - one doesn't wish to swear but sometimes one is so exasperated by the kind of nonsense one encounters dontcha know -  and is one not allowed to   edit an article  that  YMB29 hasn't explicitly said one can edit? if you don't want your precious edits ever changed in any way  you are told not to edit wp because that's exactly how it is  on wp.Sayerslle (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I've looked over the article history, and there really only seems to be one long term edit warrior:
 * removes the text.
 * reverts
 * removes the text.

 * reverts
 * removes the text.

 * reverts
 * removes the text.
 * reverts
 * removes the text.
 * reverts
 * removes text.
 * reverts
 * removes the text.
 * Page protected.
 * reverts
 * a series of minor edits
 * removes the text.
 * reverts
 * removes the text.
 * reverts
 * removes the text.
 * reverts
 * and remove the text.

 * So by the looks of it, YMB29 has reverted no less than 6 editors. Note, I've only looked at the edits with >500 bytes changed, and haven't read the contents of the material added/removed. Stickee (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

 * So what is your point? This is since October. I undid removals of text that were done without any sort of consensus.
 * MiGR25 was a "new" user whose sole purpose was to revert; he was blocked for edit warring on this page. Most of the other users have a history of edit warring in the EE topic area and harassing others. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely true that YMB29 has been engaged in a slow motion edit war and regularly ignores input from others if they don't match their own POV. Sometimes s/he'll wait for a day or two, to avoid crossing 3RR, but they ALWAYS come back and revert. There's a good bit of stubbornness and, well, dedication here. Just not sure it's being used for good, rather than ye ol' regular POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not even come across you much. You are just repeating the same thing "My very best wishes" said. If I remember correctly you two were members of the WP:EEML (under your old names) that targeted and harassed users... -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you're resorting to making false accusations. I've never "targeted" nor "harassed" anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that you were not a member of that list? Anyway, your edits in the article and comments here were not exactly neutral. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am saying what I just said. I've never "targeted" nor "harassed" anyone. Please stop, or better yet strike, your false accusations. And no, my edits in the article were perfectly neutral. Yours on the other hand... Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Was the linking of other users an attempt by you to canvass them into coming here and saying how bad of an editor I am? Also, you have to look at the reverts closely: So simply saying that I reverted six users in a 3-4 month period does not mean much without examining in detail what went on. -YMB29 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For this revert - A whole paragraph was removed on the pretext that RT is not a reliable source, but the main citation was actually to a different source (RT was only cited to show that the person was a historian). I simply removed the RT citation and re-added the text.
 * - Three whole paragraphs were removed on the pretext of "coat racking" criticism of Antony Beevor, when in reality, as I later demonstrated, only part of the text mentioned Beevor.
 * - Sayerslle reverted text, demanding that I provide a translated quote, for which the translation is done by a RS. He does not trust my translation. This goes against what is said in WP:NOENG, where translations by wiki users are allowed.
 * - It was agreed on the talk page that this should be put back, as it did not have anything to do with coat racking.

Stickee, I am also curious why you skipped over in your summary this attempt by CurtisNaito to restore legitimate text and then the revert again by MiGR25? -YMB29 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOENG 'In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians' - and you said this didn't mean 'in articles' - but it does say 'in articles' - and on such a controversial topic its important to be as open as possible with the sources and what one is doing with them- you asked 'why would they clutter the page?' or something, in response - well, how would I know I didn't write the rules, I was just saying what the rule  suggests as good practice - so it wasn't me going against what NOENG says , it was you Sayerslle (talk)
 * No, posting the translation and original text on the talk page is allowed. I provided both, but you still remove the text, which shows that this was only a pretext for you to remove it. -YMB29 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize that all these comments make it hard for the admins to read this report, so here is a summary of the facts: -YMB29 (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle was just short of breaching 3RR, by less than 20 minutes.
 * He never edited the article until 30 January, which is when user "My very best wishes" complained about me "edit warring" there and said that he does not want to get involved himself.
 * Sayerslle repeatedly removed text without consensus.
 * He made edits that violated WP:BLP.
 * He and "My very best wishes" have made reverts after this report was opened.
 * As RGloucester pointed out, Sayerslle received lengthy blocks relatively recently for edit warring in the EE topic area.
 * Sayerslle has made inappropriate comments here and on talk pages, such as calling my edits "twittish disruptive idiotic," calling me a hypocrite and a menace, using the F word, and complaining about Stalinist/Putinist/Russian nationalist POV, the FSB and NKVD...
 * yes I do think your edits are disruptive - and your charge sheet against me is hypocritical, you are an edit warrior who has edit warred at the page over time -- you compile great vindictive dossiers but don't edit articles of the encyclopedia much except your hobby-horses. 'posting the translation and original text on the talk page is allowed' you say  -yet the rule is clear that if a wikipedian  is translating, the translation should be together with the original, - you just ignore that don't you -  Sayerslle (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sayerslle repeatedly removed text without consensus.": Mate, 6 other editors removed text, and you reverted of them. Looks like there was a consensus for his edits, not yours. Stickee (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, six editors in over 3-4 months. Consensus is not built by reverting, especially by users who never or barely edited the article before and suddenly "became" interested. -YMB29 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have only just noticed this report. In fact, there is also a slow-motion edit war going on with article Lewis Carroll which Sayerslle is involved in (see edit history). This prompted me a few hours ago to fully protect the article for one week and inform people on the talk page that they should resolve the issues or go to dispute resolution. If not, I mentioned action that probably would be taken. I just add this for further information. DDStretch   (talk)  09:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never edited that article in my life til I saw a BBc documentary last week and added one bloody sentence. That sentence was removed yesterday, and would have stayed removed. Consensus, however wrongheaded over the BBC, saying it was not respectable or some tosh,  was clear, and I was not intending to edit that artcile again. I may say the admins decision to totally protect the article is  absurd imo , over the top -  I really am beginning to despise certain administrators who  detect a 'pattern' of edits when what they see are  brief moments in a contribution history  that they are primed to seek out and destroy -you're discouraged DDStretch? well you are spreading discouragement also imo, - I edit articles o.k. - I added one sodding sentence at the lewis carroll article -it was not a big deal at all -  -in the meantime perhaps this appeal of YMB29 for me to be blocked could be decided ? Sayerslle (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A clear look at the revision history shows that you are not telling the truth in what you write above: you have done far more than just add one sentence. You have removed material. Additionally, replying in the manner you have is something you have history at, and which has had action taken against you in the past. I recommend an uninvolved admin take the appropriate action now.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I added one sentence to the lewis carroll article and deleted nothing . - I added one sentence from a BBc documentary - what material did I remove? vindictive admins! Sayerslle (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * My apologies, you did not remove information, but you did repeatedly add the same infoermation. The personal attack on me is noted. Here are the editing events where you sometimes added the same material despite it being removed by others and subject to discussion on the talk page: Note all of them are much longer than the "one sentence" claimed.

 * 2015-02-02

 * 2015-02-04 added again with extra deleted information being re-added

 * 2015-02-05 re-added

 * 2015-02-06 re-added again

 * To summarize: I apologize, you did not remove material. However, you added far more than the "one sentence" you claimed, on 4 occasions, making that 3 re-addings. You also made a personal attack against me. I draw your attention to the relevant bit in the information about WP:3RR : "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.". You have history of engaging in edit-warring and in the case of Lewis Carroll the question about whether that material should be included or not was already being discussed on the talk page, -and you took part in it, and yet you still engaged in the slow-motion edit-war, pacing the re-additions to avoid more than one in a 24 hour period. When this is pointed out, you do not tell the truth, but repeatedly say it was only one sentence, and then you accuse me of being vindictive for taking action to stop this disruption, though I do understand that you may have been slightly annoyed by my (now retracted) accusation that you had removed material. However, the fact remains that you have by-passed the 3RR rules and done so while you knew the dispute was being actively discussed. You should know better than this, given the block log that shows a number of blocks in the past for edit-warring.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The personal attack on me is noted. Please, you just falsely accused the user of doing something they didn't do How about you quit whining about "personal attacks" when someone rightly calls you on your bullshit? God, how Wikipedia-typical. It's ok to lie about someone, but not ok to call that lie out, cuz that's a "personal attack".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you cared to read the complete reply, you would see that I withdrew and apologixed for that, but there was still a personal attack. I apologized, but no reciprocal apology has been issued, and I note that you call my comment "bullshit", which it certainly is not.  DDStretch    (talk)  18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What you *should* have done is just said "I'm sorry, I was wrong". Instead you put in a "yes, but" and started accusing the user of "personal attacks" and threw a lot of "however"s in there. In other words, covering up your own mistake by attacking the user some more. If this was an apology it was a pretty damn insincere one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I am sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. One should simply quickly look and decide if a 3RR violation took place on one particular page. If in doubt, pleas close this thread without action. If anyone has other issues with other articles, please report them on other appropriate noticeboards, or make a new thread here about an alleged 3RR violation on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, MVBW. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There is no paperwork to file, no departments to be shuffled between. If there is an issue, it can be dealt with on the spot. This is especially true when discretionary sanctions are in effect (WP:ARBEE). RGloucester  — ☎ 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not bureaucracy, but efficiency. One should deal with only one specific question at a time. No one wants to read TL:DR walls of text, such as that one. That's why we have a number of different noticeboards for different purposes. Let's use them properly. In addition, a discussion by several admins on WP:AE (if there is a reason for such discussion - I am not sure) helps to find the best possible solution. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is not only about 3RR violations, but edit warring in general. I don't see why the fact that Sayerslle has a history of edit warring, and is still edit warring while this report is open, should not be brought up. -YMB29 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ....or the fact that you've been edit warring for six months against multiple users? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * how am I edit warring now, YMB29? - do you mean editing ? what are you on about? please, an admin, could a decision be reached soon about this as I feel like YMB 29 is just baiting me now really. Sayerslle (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See here and Ddstretch's comments above. -YMB29 (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * oh right - - I've ruined both them articles for ever really -   to the gulag  then Sayerslle (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * YMB29, will you please STOP linking to some innocent edits or comments and pretending that they are some nefarious instances of disruption? You've been trying the same little ploy over at EdJohnston's page and it's transparently dishonest there too. What you seem to have the problem with is that Sayerslle is editing Wikipedia at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Continuing to revert while this report is still open is innocent editing? Your accusations against me here and the fact that you attacked an admin above (for reporting more edit warring by Sayerslle) leads one to think that your only purpose here is to defend Sayerslle no matter what he does. -YMB29 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Back to the heart of this report, I'm going to call a spade a spade: YMB29 is a disruptive, WP:TE editor who's brought Sayerslle this board because the latter has been the biggest thorn in his/her side in bringing WP:FRINGE theories by POV sources into the Rape during the occupation of Germany article. Even bringing the matter to this board is, by design, a disruptive, tendentious and cynical piece of "One who accuses others of malice". Reading through the talk page of the article is like a Wikipedia tutorial on textbook behaviour for an exercise in WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:REHASH by YMB29. Other than one editor who latched onto this because s/he wants to point out that Sayerslle is naughty, the other editors commenting here have had extensive interactions with him and, yes, Sayerslle is a bold editor who can get a little overenthusiastic but, no, by no means is he anything other than WP:HERE, and that's not to say that he and I haven't had disagreements regarding content. I'm embarrassed that an agenda-driven editor like YMB29 has managed to have their POINTy attempt at getting rid of editors standing in their way entertained on this board. Even if Sayerslle were guilty of edit warring, that does automatically mean that YMB29 is a good editor in any sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This post is a good example that the EEML tactics of sticking up for like-minded editors (no matter what they have done) and harassing others are still at work here. -YMB29 (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy has really contributed nothing to the article except making endless accusations against me (similar to those above) on the talk page and also on my talk page.
 * When asked to contribute something constructive, she said that she does not have time and disappeared for over a month. -YMB29 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon? 'Like-minded' editors? If I deemed it worth entertaining your WP:ASPERSIONS, I could pull up numerous instances of hearty disagreements over various articles between myself and Sayerslle and with My very best wishes alone. As for 'disappearing' for a month, I was caught up elsewhere and am under no obligation to work on the article because you've adopted it as one of your pet projects. I was, however, fully aware that the dispute was still going a month later and (as it is on my watchlist) interceded on behalf of ongoing consensus over your sourcing blatantly fringe historians... and the fact that you refuse to drop the stick. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those "fringe" historians are recognized in reliable sources, but that does not matter to you, as you continue with your accusations and blind support for other users whose POV is close to yours.
 * So you had time to make reverts and personal attacks against me, but no time to contribute anything of value? -YMB29 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sources have been discussed ad nauseum for months: Coat racking, Sources discussion, Senyavskaya in English. In fact, you've modified 'reliable source' to being 'recognised in reliable sources' because all you can find is a few tiny, attributed allusions to her, but within the context of other opinions or, in the only serious RS (being Geoffrey Roberts - her phrase the 'front-line generation') in the context of the Battle of Stalingrad. I don't like treating this as the RSN, but we've all grown weary of your cherry picking in order to insinuate someone who has been accused of forgery (Stalin's non-existant document)... but that's all on the talk page. Now, as wearing down the opponent hasn't worked, all you can come up with is trying to get rid of the opponent/s. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This page is not about content dispute, but... You mean falsely accused of forgery by someone in a blog. And you are the one complaining about cherry picking... Sources recognized and cited in reliable sources means that they are reliable. I think you need to review WP:RS.
 * Creating a report here is "trying to get rid" of someone? The "opponent" is edit warring across multiple pages and openly insults others, while you are supporting him here and accusing me. -YMB29 (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Sigh, YMB29 was recently warned that the article under dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions, yet he continues his disruptive edits even though a half a dozen editors continue to oppose them. --Nug (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You got the same "warning", which was not actually a warning, but a notification.
 * And yes, I do realize that it is me vs. a group of like-minded editors, who are "coordinating in order to protect each other and their point of view in articles..." You should be able to recognize this text... -YMB29 (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Resorting to WP:PERSONAL attacks now. Nobody is coordinating anything, it is just that you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT that there is no consensus for your tendentious edits. --Nug (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you explain your presence here, and your presence at the last report I opened, where you were also accusing me and defending a user who obviously was edit warring. -YMB29 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a script set up that notifies me if I am ever mentioned on any notice board. --Nug (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I did not mention you here and this is not about you, but you still came here to accuse me, just like last time. -YMB29 (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Stickee mentioned me above. --Nug (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@YMB29. Will you stop edit warring on multiple pages when this thread is closed? My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Evidence shows that it is Sayerslle who is edit warring, and you as well. -YMB29 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Stickee has presented evidence that you have been edit warring against the consensus of six editors. Looks like WP:BOOMERANG applies here. --Nug (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You said the same thing last time in December when, as I mentioned above, you were defending another disruptive user. That is not really evidence when one looks at it in detail, as I explained above. -YMB29 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well of course you would only see everyone else as being disruptive, not yourself, but the common denominator is you. You have clashed with multiple unrelated editors over the same tendentious edits, but you only seem to see some kind of conspiracy against you. If you continue this behaviour you will likely be topic banned. --Nug (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes really unrelated... The common denominator is you and a few other users, who have a common history of edit warring and harassing other users together, coming here to accuse me and defend Sayerslle, who obvious is disruptive (and this is not only according to me, but others, including an admin, presented evidence above). -YMB29 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So Sayerslle, Iryna Harpy, MiGR25, My very best wishes and everyone else are conspiring against you? Nobody is harassing you, the issue has always been your inability to compromise and work with others to build consensus. Rape during the occupation of Germany was page locked just over a month ago during an earlier content dispute involving you and you were warned that the page is under discretionary sanction. No sooner had the page protection expired you are embroiled in another dispute with yet another editor over the exact same text . You accuse Sayerslle of reverting you, but you have alse been reverting Sayerslle. Your hands are not clean. --Nug (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have bad memory? You yourself agreed that the text should be put back...
 * If you along with others were not harassing me, you would not be making comments like that, or even showing up here, as well as at the other report in December. -YMB29 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile Sayerslle is continuing to edit war in another EE topic area article:               That is 14 reverts in just over two hours... I don't know what else is needed to prove that he is very disruptive. -YMB29 (talk) 20:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * already stale ymb 29 - the spa wore me out and I gave up trying to defend RS there against pov pushers - I've moved on pal - why don't you  stop harassing me and  stalking my edits - what a pathetic yawp you set up that you are being stalked by others but you are  un self critical to a ludicrous degree - contemptible. Sayerslle (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BLPs are exempted from 3RR per WP:3RRBLP. --Nug (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sayerslle was the one adding text... You should understand what is going on before rushing in to advocate for him. -YMB29 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

 * User was blocked for another EW. If anyone has any EW-related complaints against the users participating in this discussion, please file a new report and stick to the point. This one was overflowing of various accusations, RS discussions and generally completely off track. Bjelleklang  -  talk 21:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Mrjulesd (Result: declined, leaving up to WP:ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

 * 1)   s1

 * 1) s2

 * 1) s3

 * 1) s4

 * 1) s5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

At Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party, same discussion

Comments: See [21 User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=645747606#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22] for ANI reports at various articles, all removing references to socialist libertarianism, and edit warring to get their way at numerous articles. Obvious POV push. All listed at ANI.

--Mrjulesd (talk)  14:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Earlier diffs showing same behaviour  again removing info box description and refs to article. --Mrjulesd  (talk)  14:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. [The claimed attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page, is merely a demand that he/she stop edit warring.

Of the five claimed reverts by Darkstar1st, only four of them were reverts. S2 was not a revert. Comment: Darkstar1st's demand for English sources only is against Wikipedia policy.
 * 1) Genuine revert 22:53, 3 February 2015 Undid revision 645438023 by Finx (talk)English sources only plz.
 * 2) Not a revert 22:46, 4 February 2015
 * 3) Genuine revert 01:29, 5 February 2015 Undid revision 645681542 by Mrjulesd (talk)plz discuss before removing tag. Libertarian Socialism is not mentioned in the source.
 * 4) Genuine revert 01:29, 5 February 2015 Undid revision 645681542 by Mrjulesd (talk)plz discuss before removing tag. Libertarian Socialism is not mentioned in the source.
 * 5) Genuine revert 06:20, 5 February 2015 Undid revision 645692112 by Mrjulesd (talk)i read and translated the ref, libertarian socialism in not mentioned . plz provide quote

Reverts by User:Finx
 * 1) 10:58, 3 February 2015
 * 2) 14:59, 7 February 2015

Revert by User:Mrjulesd
 * 1) 00:38, 5 February 2015
 * 2) 01:48, 5 February 2015
 * 3) 02:17, 5 February 2015

Users Darkstar1st, Mrjulesd, and Finx have all been edit warring on this page, though none of them have broken the three revert-rule. None of them have made an effort to discuss the issues on this article's talk page.

Recommend that the article is protected for a month, with admin-only edits allowed, so that these people have to use the article talk page. If my suggestion is adopted, I recommend that Darkstar1st's quotation requested tag is restored. It will give them something to discuss on the talk page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Are you honestly saying there has been no discussion? There is a huge discussion at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents that you have completely ignored. What about the discussion at Talk:Freedom and Solidarity Party over exactly the same issue? There has been no end to discussions about his edit warring and POV pushing on numerous articles. Same behaviour at Solidarity (UK), Concentration for the Liberation of Aruba, Equality and Democracy Party, Kurdistan Workers' Party, Freedom and Solidarity Party, Socialist Party (Netherlands, interbellum). POV ON A MASSIVE SCALE! ALL REMOVING REFS TO SOCIALIST LIBERTARIANISM! Why do you completely ignore all this? --Mrjulesd (talk)  18:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You posted a link purporting to be a discussion on this article's talk page, and there was no discussion there. It would have been better if you or Finx had started a discussion on the article talk page when you placed an edit-warring notice on User talk:Darkstar1st. The discussion should have addressed the issues.  If he/she had refused to participate in the discussion this would have been clear evidence of edit-warring by him/her.

 * As for "massive POV", there are faults on both sides. In some articles he/she has wrongly deleted citations.  In at least one article you restored a citation that did not support the statement it was provided for.  In at least one other article, his/her actions have caused collaboration on the talk page between you, Finx and I to improve the citations; this is what the talk page is for, and is an excellent example of you and Finx doing good work.--  Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * There is no discussion there because guess what! He hasn't answered my note, but is continuing his edit warring and pov pushing. I'm waiting for a discussion on any of the talk pages, but no answer to my queries anywhere. How do you have a one-sided conversation? He writes "plz discuss" edit summaries but he doesn't bother.

 * I made no restorations I didn't check first. For example at Equality Party (Chile) the reference clearly states at on the above it clearly says "movimientos sociales chilenos" and "libertario". But I really don't think he cares, because he has ignored numerous other pieces of evidence. --<span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:blue;">Mrjulesd  <span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:orange;">(talk)  20:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff for EvergreenFir reverting your restoration of a citation that EvergreenFir said did not explicitly support the statement.  See also EvergreenFir's posting at 01:38, 4 February 2015 on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents--  Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * The accusation that Darkstar1st has not engaged in talk pages about these issues is not true, as highlighted by Rich Farmbrough's posting at 18:54, 4 February 2015 on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And I explained it here Talk:Kurdistan_Workers'_Party! --<span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:blue;">Mrjulesd <span style="font-family:'Segoe Script',cursive; color:orange;">(talk)  21:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I will leave this one up to ANI. Bjelleklang -  talk 21:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:2602:306:BDF0:ADC0:3140:69B2:C415:921C reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "media citation of Marion "Pat" Houston as Whitney's executor is simply incorrect and is contradicted by Whitney's own will, to which I linked in footnote 5.  I think the actual will trumps People Magazine!"
 * 2)  "/* Adult life */ edit info about Bobbi Kristina's inheritance"
 * 3)  "previous edit was reverted for being too talkative - this provides the essential information in a shorter form."
 * 4)  "Marion is NOT executrix of Whitney's estate - why did you revert this incorrect entry?  I provided a link to Whitney's will, which establishes that her mother is executrix."
 * 5)  "inaccurate statement in top paragraph - Bobbi Kristina DID NOT inherit Whitney's estate in its entirety - she only inherits it if she lives to age 30."
 * 6)  "edit to correct statement that Bobbi Kristina inherited Whitney Houston's estate upon WH's death - she didn't.  She inherits in stages;  if she dies before she inherits, the remainder of WH's estate goes to others, not Bobbi's heirs or designees"
 * 7)  "Marion "Pat" Houston is not executrix of WH's estate.  The 2003 addendum to WH will (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/Whitney%20Houston%20Will.pdf) names her mother as executrix, bro/sis-in-law as trustees"
 * 1)  "edit to correct statement that Bobbi Kristina inherited Whitney Houston's estate upon WH's death - she didn't.  She inherits in stages;  if she dies before she inherits, the remainder of WH's estate goes to others, not Bobbi's heirs or designees"
 * 2)  "Marion "Pat" Houston is not executrix of WH's estate.  The 2003 addendum to WH will (http://abcnews.go.com/images/Entertainment/Whitney%20Houston%20Will.pdf) names her mother as executrix, bro/sis-in-law as trustees"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bobbi Kristina Brown. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Bobbi Kristina Brown. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Refuses to stop edit warring despite warnings and clear edit summary comments. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 07:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alesgeriy reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user just can't stop edit-warring and refuses to cooperate at ANI (see discussion here). The user is also quick to accuse other users of vandalism, even after being informed about WP:NOTVANDALISM. On my count, he has accused users of vandalism at least seven times. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

you Liar you vandalising my entry just because of your hypocrite political views. shame on you. you doing edit-warring and Vandalism Alesgeriy (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * seicer |  talk  |  contribs  14:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Saqib (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646319841 by Saqib (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646314508 by Saqib (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646309871 by Saqib (talk)"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Yasser Latif Hamdani. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Yasser Latif Hamdani. (TW)"

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:
 * seicer |  talk  |  contribs  14:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Gloss (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Jan 22, before the DRN discussion was opened
 * 2)  - Jan 22
 * 3)  - Feb 2, Another IP just opened a DRN discussion, but this IP decided to revert back to their preferred version for the time being
 * 4)  - Feb 2, DRN still open
 * 5)  - Feb 3, DRN quickly closed but talk page discussion quickly opened, 108 didn't comment there since
 * 6)  - Feb 4, talk page discussion still open, 3RR warning had been given already

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The issue was brought up on the talk page and the IP has not commented there since. They've continued reverting to their preferred version despite an edit warring/3RR warning.  G loss  17:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 * I actually did comment there and filed a WP:DRN. Look carefully. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You filed that DRN? That was filed by a different IP address than yours. - so you're admitting to having used two different addresses first of all. And secondly, you commented after making your fourth revert… after receiving an edit warring notice. The comment after the final revert doesn't make the final revert okay.  G  loss  19:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There haven't been three reverts in 24 hours. The reverts have been in a longer period, so that the edit-warring doesn't cross the bright line.  Also, since IP addresses change, the use of multiple IP addresses is not considered sock-puppetry.  However, I do advise the IP to register an account, because the article is likely to be semi-protected.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the edit warring noticeboard, no? Not the 3RR noticeboard, specifically? 24 hour time period or not, the IP was reverting to get their way throughout the discussion and after 3 reverts over Feb 2/3, a warning was given and an additional revert took place. If a block isn't issued for something like this, I don't see what this noticeboard is for.  G loss  03:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Bringing this back from the archives for an explanation of why it was archived without any action. If this was any other editor, they would be blocked for this edit warring. But since no admin saw this or wanted to comment in time for the bot, it gets archived and the IP editor gets off without any kind of block?  G loss  07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * As noted earlier, there was not 3 reverts within 24 hours. Blocks are designed to be preventative, not punitive, so blocking the IP address then and now wouldn't have any effect. At any rate, the page was semi-protected so any further disruption should be averted. seicer  |  talk  |  contribs  14:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What you're not explaining is why it has to be 3 reverts all of a sudden. It's been made very clear that edit warring isn't always hitting the magic number of three. Copied directly from the edit warring explanation: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. … Users who engage in edit wars risk being blocked or even banned." - but this one gets off free because he edit warred over the course of 3 days?  G  loss  16:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Tomica reported by User:Gloss (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)  (after edit warring notice was given)
 * 6)  (after edit warring notice was given)
 * 7)  (after edit warring notice was given)

The following diffs are also reverts within the same 24 hour time period, although outside of the conflict being argued above. Listing them here as WP:3RR specifically mentions that users should only revert on the same article 3 times within 24 hours "whether involving the same or different material". And neither of these two edits were obvious vandalism of unconstructive edits. - which brings Tomica's total revert count in the past (just over) 24 hours (approx 25 hours) to 9.
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: although the warning was quickly removed a minute later

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: -  has opened a discussion up, but Tomica has reverted three times since removing edit warring notice and since the discussion has been opened up.

Comments:

Blocks are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, of course. And with the edit warring notice being removed and three additional reverts since the discussion was opened and no comments on the discussion as of this positing, with the user's only acknowledgment of the discussion being to ask another editor to comment in the discussion, it's clear that a block is needed here to prevent Tomica from continuing their edit warring, especially given their past history of edit warring as shown through the user's block log.  G loss  21:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, let's resume. First of all, I was edit-warring with Chase, and not you. What are you? Some kind of his negotiator? Second, my last revert was a whole different edit, on which there was a note to not remove the "rave" term until the discussion does not resolve that. You added back positive because in your opinion [and Chase's] that should have been there instead of "rave", which is again an opinion, against a sourced adjective which explains how critics felt towards the song. Btw, my block log it's from 2009-10 when I was inexperienced and was edit warring about a whole different stuff about what you don't have idea I believe. Maybe I went too far with the 3RR, however, every admin that will make the decision should check Gloss and Chase's revenge behavior and stalking around my edits and articles I create/edit. — Tomíca (T2ME) 21:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Infantom reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Alerted)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Article is under a 1 rr and the warning is shown when editing the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_cuisine&action=edit --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

I didn't notice it's under the 1rr. (you can notice my clean history here). the editor could have notified me and i would have self-reverted as its widely common. I merely reverted an unexplained revert of a redundant and insufficient sourced content. Supreme Deliciousness should have followed WP:BRD in the first place, after my first revert, he had already suggested the same edit with the same source in 2010 and didn't get a consensus for this. Infantom (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * . It's hard to believe that Infantom wasn't aware of the 1RR restriction given the editor's history editing these kinds of articles and the editnotice. That said, I've alerted Infantom to WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. I don't intend to take any other action, but another adninistrator may feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The alert by User:Bbb23 should be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Pep2co reported by User:Prioryman (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646501920 by Prioryman (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646501317 by Prioryman (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646498252 by Wee Curry Monster (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 646471451 by IdreamofJeanie (talk)"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gibraltar. using	TW"

User has not made any attempts to discuss edits. Prioryman (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * They have now, but only to complain about being reverted by 3 other editors and a bot (!). Prioryman (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Comments:

This is pretty much cut and dried; a new editor edit-warring (currently up to 5 reverts in 24 hours) without any prior attempt at discussion, and ignoring warnings. The editor's comments on my talk page show that this is fairly stereotypical nationalist-motivated disruptive editing. Prioryman (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks like "stern warning" time from here - the warning at 14:28 was given only 6 minutes before the report notification at 14:34 - and at the same moment they appear to have been making an edit on the talk page. we can always WP:BITE but we are more likely to retain new editors if we simply make it clear what the rules are than simply enforcing them at this point. In my opinion, of course. Maybe we should simply lock out all disruptive new editors? Collect (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They've carried out two reverts since the warning. They know perfectly well what they're doing. I rather doubt that this is a wholly new user, either. Prioryman (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Warnings by different editors on different pages and they still revert more, now it is seven reverts, if this is not editwarring, what is?       Spumuq (talq) 17:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked for 24 hours by.

User:Theobald Tiger reported by User:Tgeairn (Result: 7-day break)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 646373120 by Tgeairn (talk) See talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646370109 by MLKLewis (talk) See talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 646284654 by MLKLewis (talk)"
 * 4)  "Cutting back the hagiographical content from the lead. See talk page."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) One of several notifications - See also mediation request and Arbcom Enforcement.

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) multiple threads

 * Comments:

Reviewing admins, be aware that this BLP is subject to both BLP Discretionary Sanctions and Landmark Worldwide Discretionary Sanctions, both of which TT has been notified of. Also, this is an experienced editor with a history at -nl. Tgeairn (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please also note that Tgeairn is ignoring hatnotes of in use and under construction thereby causing edit conflicts and User:Theobald Tiger is behaving impeccably. Cathar66 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This looks like a violation of WP:3RR. Theobald Tiger appears to be well-intentioned but stubborn. In my opinion Theobald might be able to avoid sanctions if he will promise to avoid the article and its talk page for seven days. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I promise to avoid the article and its talk page for (at least) seven days. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Result: User:Theobald Tiger has agreed not to edit the article or its talk page until 18:47 on 17 February, to avoid a block for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Atsme reported by User:Jytdog (Result:Withdrawn )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 16:09, 9 February 2015 diff
 * 21:57, 9 February 2015 set of diffs
 * 22:31, 9 February 2015 set of diffs
 * 22:49, 9 February 2015 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not done via formal warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page.... The article is very contested. It has been page protected twice for edit warring. We've been to BLPN, RSN, and Fringe Noticeboard. We had an RfC which is currently under review at AN. A situation that calls for a lot of restraint.
 * I urged everyone on the Talk page to talk and not edit war here at 00:07, 9 February 2015 and more times in that section.
 * to her credit she explained her change on the Talk page here
 * to which I replied with a warning to Atsme and everyone not to edit aggressively nor edit war as we are headed to AE here,
 * which she edit warred right past in the 3rd dif above.
 * and replied on the Talk page with a nasty note

Comments:

Atsme is really on fire today and is not exercising restraint. Clearly over 3RR. Very convinced that she has WP:The Truth. Please block her for a couple of days so she will cool down. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note - you can expect a lot of fireworks here if behavior patterns bear out and Atsme will defend her edits as upholding BLP; NPOV, and the close of the RfC.  She has nonetheless edit warred and violated 3RR.  The block is necessary.   The article really, really needs restraint and working of DR.   You may consider page protecting it, as the editors have been unrestrained.  But perhaps a block will help them see the necessity of it.  your call, of course.  Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning SPECIFICO  talk  05:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, Specifico advised Atsme to follow BRD with regard to her edits at Griffin on her Talk page:
 * at 23:15, 9 February 2015 here
 * and at 04:05, 10 February 2015 provided the EW warning to which he linked above. Jytdog (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note, I didn't see the EW warning as Atsme removed it in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Also presents a very combative attitude when a user tries to warn Atsme about edit warring as Specifico did . Warnings and behavior were dismissed as test edits and because they were trying to improve the article as Jytdog mentioned with the upholing NPOV/truth comments. Definitely an editor that seems like they intend to keep plowing ahead without getting it, so a block seems very warranted. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope the admin who reviews this case takes the appropriate action against the initiators of such a false claim. This is clearly retaliation against me because of a recent RfC that didn't go their way. Jytdog actually tried to bring an action at AN against the closing admin,, for edit improprieties not unlike what he is doing here now to me. Thank you for taking time out of your day to review this incident. I am sorry we had to go through it under false pretenses. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme ☯  Consult  07:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Groundless allegations, diffs are not edit warring.
 * 1)  Jytdog is the one who is on fire.  I'm just trying to edit and expand a BLP for GA review.
 * 2) Jytdog clearly admits there was no edit warring and mentions the possibility of a bold edit that would prove helpful.
 * 3) The admin who closed the RfC,, stated: Closing as "no". The opposers demonstrate quite well that this is a derogatory characterisation of the guy, a fundamental non-compliance with maintaining a neutral point of view. Of course, something cited to Griffin's own works, wherein Griffin specifically calls himself a conspiracy theorist, is a valid source for saying "self-described conspiracy theorist". Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Response to the 4 diffs Jytdog listed above - grabbed 4 diffs that are not edit warring - 3 perfectly harmless - 1 to correct a BLP violation:
 * 1) edit summary: (→Early life, education and career:  early career expansion)  <---part of the editing I was working on today to expand the article
 * 2) edit summary: (→top:  remove NPOV tag) <---I removed the NPOV tag after I fixed the BLP violations
 * 3) edit summary: (→top:  remove redundant link) <---I removed one of my own redundant links
 * 4) edit summary: (Undid revision 646414588 by Jytdog (talk) You do not own the article, I am following the RfC, you edited without consensus, I fixed the NPOV problems in this BLP)
 * 5) Warned Jytdog - abuse of warning templates
 * 6) Warned Specifico - abuse of warning templates
 * The following diff shows the amount of prose I added today to correct the BLP violations per the RfC:
 * 1) (Expand lead, modify for compliance with NPOV per RfC close, include inline text attribution to contentious material per BLP policy, added citation for CCF)  Note: The diffs above were just a continuation of this main edit.
 * I have also been in discussions on the TP before and after my edits:
 * 1) <--Proposal
 * 2) <--Explained expansion and NPOV corrections
 * 3) <--Summary of Jytdog's disruptive behavior
 * Jytdog is actually the one who was edit warring, and ignoring the BLP issues.
 * 1)  (with the dug-in state of the article, please do not be bold. this is going to lead to edit warring and page protection and discretionary sanctions being imposed on us. please let the close review finish. there is no deadline. Thanks.)
 * 2)  (there is no consensus for this. AN review is ongoing. discussion on Talk is ongoing and new matter was introduced here not discussed on Talk. patience, please.,)

 * Now moot – the particular page in question is now under a 1 edit per week restriction. – S. Rich (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Of course, the page was already under a restriction: no more than 3 reverts in 24 hours.  Violations of that restriction should have consequences -- especially when the violator comes in and insists that everything he/she did was justified (i.e., would do it all again). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Srich, please explain why you believe that the new restriction will remedy Atsme's ongoing disruptive behavior on talk and user talk pages? There is unfortunately nothing moot about Atsme's battleground behavior, personal attacks, and denial of basic WP policy.  She's failed to respond to advice or warnings, and has become more, not less confrontational, escalating her misbehavior and driving editors off the article over an extended period.  At the least, she needs a substantial block for quiet contemplation.   SPECIFICO  talk  14:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * As I predicted, there were fireworks! With regard to the protection, which is a discretionary sanction....yesterday, an editor from the side opposed to Atsme, Steeletrap, edited aggressively without discussing and getting consensus, which I reverted and I wrote on the Talk page that discretionary sanctions/AE were coming if folks kept editing aggressively and I also made it clear that with all the interested editors, even with nobody breaking 3RR we would end up with page protection/DS/AE if folks edited aggressively.   That push died down quickly and Steeletrap had the self-insight to acknowledge that she was wrong later.  As Atsme subsequently  ramped up her aggressive edits I again warned everybody that they needed to show restraint or they would end up at AE; these first DS are the next step on that road.  Atsme persisted anyway and has shown no self-insight here.   A block for 3RR is entirely warranted.'  The "false allegations" thing she wrote is incorrect as noted by Kingofaces above;  i will not lengthen this by responding to that but if a reviewing admin wants, I will do. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Note, I left a message on the article talk page for admin, who has been overwatching the article for a while now, and who imposed the 1R/week DS, so that he/she can review and close, if that is appropriate. (not sure of the intricacies of admin processes here) Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Note, I left notice on Callanecc's page prior to your comments, and he advised me to make a report at AE, which I am doing now.  *Jytdog, what you've done here by making false allegations, the links you provided which are clearly not edit warring, the BLP (NPOV) policy you violated at Griffin even after the RfC admin and other editors pointed it out to you, your refusal to acknowledge the RfC and attempt to go after that admin for wrong doing which was as groundless as what you are doing now, not to mention your WP:Forumshopping at AN, RSN, BLPN, and RfC in addition to your WP:SQS and edit warring at Griffin is shameful.  Callanecc advised me to initiate an AE.  Your behavior to prevent expansion and correction of policy violations at Griffin truly needs an admins attention.  You have gone too far.  <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme  ☯  Consult  14:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't make sense out of attacks on Atsme. He didn't edit war. The attacks are so clearly untrue, by this collection of attackers often found together. Correcting policy violations is not edit warring.--Pekay2 (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Withdrawn and posted link to this, at the AE opened by Atsme against another user here. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Chasewc91 reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Calvin999 (talk): A talk page discussion is currently taking place, and at least one other user has taken issue with this language. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk): Needs source and is puffery. (TW)"
 * 3)  "definition of rave is "extravagantly flattering or enthusiastic" (dictionary.com); means the same as "positive" and is not a WP:PEACOCK term."
 * 4)  "Revert readdition of WP:PEACOCK language with no explanation for its reinstatement"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

User has violated the 3RR (three reverts in less than 24 hours) and is edit warring, having reverted three different editors, implying probable issues regarding WP:OWN. Warnings have not been given, but a editor of over 5 years with more than 6,000 logged edits should know better. User is not assuming WP:GOODFAITH and is being very argumentative on the talk page, too. Also made a revert on Sunday night, too. — ₳aron  19:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Those 4 edits do not even cover a 24-hour span. 4RR isn't required for one to edit war, but you have been as well, so I'm not sure why you're filing this report. I'll admit I've done too much, and was planning to abstain from the article and allow discussion to take place.
 * I didn't say all 4 were in the 24 hour period, but 3 of them are. So yes, you did violate the 3RR, because you shouldn't be using the maximum of 3. —  ₳aron
 * A talk page discussion is currently taking place, which you only contributed to with this off-topic, personal attack-filled essay, while others have been constructively responding.
 * I left a very constructive and truthful comment about how you are handling this situation and handling yourself. —  ₳aron
 * Administrators should note that Calvin999 regularly collaborates with, who was recently blocked for blatant 3RR violations at this same article, and this edit – which blatantly disregarded the talk page discussion while instructing me to "open a discussion on the talk page instead" (did that) – seems like a very calculated attempt to "push me over" 3RR (which, again, was not violated).
 * Please find the last time that me and Tomica collaborated. Not this year, I can guarantee that. You and Tomica are both guilty of violating the 3RR rule. Only you can press your revert button, so implying I made you do it is unfathomable. —  ₳aron  23:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's all I have here; I can admit I'm in the wrong and willing to stop, and hopefully Calvin999 will as well. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * (full) for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Zzaxx1 reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "it is sourced you moron"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 646544103 by Weegeerunner (talk)"
 * 3)  "dude seriously stop your getting on my last nerv.  It has been confirmed that Spider-Man is apart of the Marvel Cinrmatic Universe"
 * 4)  "dude please stop Tripple Treat is wrong it's apart of the MCU it has been confirmed by both parties Sony and Marvel, marvel stated that Spider-Man will first appear in a marvel movie, then his solo movie that is co-produced by Sony."

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

Violation of the three-revert rule. Also personal attack on the fourth revert. <b style="color: red">Toon</b><b style="color: blue">Lucas</b><b style="color: red">22</b> (<i style= "color:green">talk</i>) 22:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone else involved with the dispute has at least made some attempt somewhere to sort the issue out, most notably: the main page's talk page and despite many warnings and instructions to do so, he has yet to join any of the discussions. (Which he has seen as evidence by the first revert.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 22:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * If disruption continues after the protection expires, or elsewhere in the meantime, we may have to consider a block. — MusikAnimal  talk  23:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel reported by User:TBSchemer (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 646480013 by Wikidemon (talk): One short blog post is not intro material. (TW)"

 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Prior reversions by User:Wikidemon to remove the same content:

Attempt by User:TBSchemer to resolve the problem with an alternate edit:

Reversions by User:TBSchemer to the last stable version with pleas to discuss the issue on the talk page:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

 * Comments:

User:Wikidemon has attempted to implement a change to this article 3 times, and has been reverted 3 times, with repeated pleas to leave the page at the last stable version while we discuss the proposed change on the talk page. After I reached the last reversion I am allowed under 3RR, User:Gamaliel jumped in with a revert to "win" the edit war. TBSchemer (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, neither User:Wikidemon nor User:Gamaliel has made any attempt to discuss the issue on the talk page, preferring to try to "win" through edit warring instead. TBSchemer (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for a long time. Frequently I see inappropriate material appear in the intro of this article, and frequently I revert it without discussing each of those reverts on talk. If the dispute persists, at that point I will bring the matter to talk. I have no knowledge of any conflict or discussion involving Wikidemon and I have not seen the talk page today. No one should be revert warring to introduce contentious material into the introduction of an article before a consensus has developed for inclusion. Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that this is the first I'm hearing of any of this about an edit conflict between TBSchemer and Wikidemon. I only looked at the most recent edit. If TBSchemer had simply told me to join the talk discussion, if there is one, I would have. Gamaliel ( talk ) 23:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (after finding of no violation) For context, (1) as far as I can tell the long term stable version of the article does not contain the claim that MSNBC "has long been accused of left-wing bias" that TBSchemer is trying to wedge into the lede, so BRD suggests that the burden is on them to establish consensus for it, (2) As TBSchemer admits, they themselves have reverted three times to try to introduce the disputed content, (3) I did in fact raise the issue on the talk page half a day before TBSchemer made this report, and so far I am the only one discussing there, and (4) I have made no further reversions and do not intend to do so in the near term, after TBSchemer made an edit warring report threat and tit-for-tat appeal to BRD in their edit summary (while reverting themselves). Not to beat a dead horse, but I'd like to establish that for the record and urge people to come to the talk page before trying to add stuff like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:<IP_ADDRESS> (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

 * Looking at the history of the article Age disparity in sexual relationships, I see "Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )" reverting only three times (not four), but <IP_ADDRESS> reverting at least three times (,, , ; considering the first edit today is an attempt to restore previously reverted edits), behavior they were previously blocked for. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * For now, I have semi-protected the article. The alternative would have been to block the IP due to their violation of 3RR - but I thought it better for now to permit discussion on the article talk page. If they resume edit warring on this article or elsewhere, a block may be needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumped to full article protection; after viewing the content dispute, it's best to encourage both sides to use the talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

User talk:<IP_ADDRESS> reported by User:Mishae (Result: no vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

 * Previous version reverted to:

 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff1 "Strange removal of archived url. huffington post link can be archived, it clearly was archived."
 * 2) diff2 "archiveurls"
 * 3) diff3 "Replied on talk page. I am not experiencing the redirect to a dead page but if you say there is a problem with it, then okay, remove the ArchiveUrl but other changes should not have been removed."
 * 4) diff4 "restore spaces to infobox (and restore minor strict formatting of quote marks) feel free to call an admin if you are seriously going to object to this. it only restore the article to the way it has been almost forever."

I was busy writing an article, when out of a sudden I was greeted with 2 reverts from this user. He was concerned about my removal of archiveurl which as I claimed to him later on the article talkpage was sending to a redirect which is dead (you need to wait 5 minutes in order to see it). I edited the article and removed the material and answered to him on the talkpage with the reason behind it. He responded with a revert of my restoration and added back some pointless stuff. I told him of 3RR rule on the talkpage and politely told him to stop reverting. On that, he reverted again in which he said restore spaces to infobox (and restore minor strict formatting of quote marks feel free to call an admin if you are seriously going to object to this. it only restore the article to the way it has been almost forever. On that I had no other option other then to come here because I think a block is necessary because the anonymous user uses revert button instead of quietly editing it, and to me, its quite disruptive, because I get a notification of a revert every time he does it.
 * Comments:

As a separate note, I need to point out that in his second revert, he didn't only did archiveurl, but he also did something else which he didn't mentioned in the edit summary.

This article has been on my watchlist for a long time. In my opinion, no one should be revert warring, and do pointless editing both of which are bordering with Disruption of the project.--Mishae (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 *
 * . The IP has reverted only three times, not four. Diff #2 is a consecutive edit and doesn't count separately. Also, it doesn't help that you called the IP a vandal on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I shouldn't have called him that, but an IP that reverts I view as such. I see more vandalic IPs then I see constructive ones.--Mishae (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * -- slakr \ talk / 04:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jeh reported by User:<IP_ADDRESS> (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) |1
 * 2) |2

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

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

Comments: Jeh plays as an article master, who never let useful and important corrections into the articles which he might involve in. The difference 1 listed above is a good example, see his comment about his undo, please!

 * Undid revision 646590359 by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) rv pointless changes

I bold the phrase pointless changes. Is that really pointless changes, please take a look at diff no.2 listed above. Another famous wikipeidan Guy Harris, only made some minor changes to that pointless changes, then this article read much more comprehensive than Jeh's revision. This is only one example, and also many other similar situations found involved with Jeh.

User Jeh is an important wikipedian without doubt, but no matter how powerful he is, he is only one man, Wikipedia.org needs more useful contributions and potential contributions from all over the world. His behavior like this is just setting blocks to deny those valuable contributions. He also use puppet sock policy to prevent someone against with him on some point, or figure out his mistakes. Take look at the associated talk page, we could find something important to prove it.

And what's more, I also doubt if a real editor on contributions, why is he always interested in reporting others as puppet socket? Please also check his contribution history, more time was paid on reverting and reporting, few useful article we could find within months.

So for this very obvious reason, I report this user, or wish a proper warning to him to help him find a proper seat for him to sit. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 * Reply by the accused: The SINGLE revert of mine reported here was of an edit made by what is clearly yet another IP sockpuppet (reported) of indef-blocked, who seems to have a fetish about making his mark on the PAE article, claiming that in its existing form it is somehow "misleading" - his favorite accusation. And, given the wording here and his apparent obsession with me, I have no doubt that the IP that created this bogus EW report is yet another SP (reported). ("Bogus" because one revert does not an edit-war make.) He's tried this before. I suppose my edit comment should have been "Pointless changes by sock of blocked editor". And, yes, I do think the changes were "pointless", Guy Harris's compromise edits notwithstanding.

 * Regarding the charge of general obstructionism, vague though that is, I will respond: Janagewen knows full well that changes and suggestions by him have been accepted, by me as well as by others.

 * Ironically (given that he is complaining about reverts on this article), the current version of talk:Physical Address Extension shows this: Complaint here was agreed to within the hour here, and fixed in the article (after I'd said "I don't have to be the one to fix it," and waited to give him or someone else a chance) here.

 * Then, after his indef block, his sock "Najagewinnen" says that that was not really the problem; this edit and subsequent exchanges show that (now, at least) he's really objecting to the word "extension", "extended", etc., in connection with x64's long mode. This apparently on the theory that since it's the only address translation mode under long mode, it's not really an "extension". Pointing out that the AMD documentation uses exactly this term ("PAE") to describe address translation while in long mode, and that we can't go against our sources, fell on deaf ears. I did however find that Intel does not use the term PAE for long mode address translation, and I reported that in the talk page discussion, and added that to the article.  And in response, I'm accused yet again of being "misleading", I suppose since he hasn't gotten absolutely everything he wants, which is apparently (for now) complete removal of anything related to the term "extension" in this context.

 * Frankly, after his indefinite block, the behavior that led up to it, and his behavior since (which has hardly improved), it is only to be expected that everything he writes is scrutinized very carefully before being given any serious consideration. That is on his own head: Blocked users aren't allowed to edit no matter how many IPs they manage to use, so we'd be perfectly within bounds to revert everything he posts on sight and not consider it at all. (I suppose he's going to say that the above is "misleading" again!) Jeh (talk) 19:37, 1