Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Ykantor reported by User:Turnopoems (Result: Protected)

Page: Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ykantor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] After a few days of no reply I proceeded to edit citing WP:BRD, the user immediately surfaced and undid my edit claiming that my reply was insufficient (in the edit summary), all this without replying in the talk-page. A day later I proceeded to undo his edit for failing to engage in the discussion, hoping that this might push him to reply.
2. [3] The user briefly announced a unilateral compromise in the talk-page which he immediately materialized (without actually addressing my reply). I then replied to his announcement on the talk-page and waited nearly a week for him to reply, to no avail. I once again proceeded to edit citing WP:BRD.
3. [4] Without replying in the talk-page the user reverted my BRD-edit claiming that I have yet to gather consensus for an edit, and furthermore, the user manually undid a similar BRD-edit I had made pertaining to a dispute with another editor.

Diff of edit warring: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments: I have opened a discussion in the article's talk-page and the user replied actively at first however he/she has stopped replying in favor of reverting my attempts at WP:BRD without actually contributing to the discussion that I have invited him to return to several times. The one time he did reply after that point was to briefly announce his compromise, which he reached unilaterally, and then proceeded to immediately materialize it before receiving any input. His edits are often slightly botched and ill-conceived.
Turnopoems (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ykantor- My reply

user:Turnopoems complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules.

- The talkpage relevant discussion

- Editing History:

: On 3 December I added factual and supported text to the lead. Turnopoems deleted some of my edit and another editor re-inserted it. So user:Turnopoems deleted it again. In my opinion this was an edit war , especially since 2 editors supported this text , Vs 1 editor- user:Turnopoems who opposed this text. Turnopoems deleted my text and replaced it with an unsupported and misleading text. Turnopoems deleted my text again although he have not fully replied to my talkpage questions yet. But he deleted it again. Then I inserted a compromised text. He deleted it again against a consensus ( of 2-3 editors against 1 editor). Another editor re-inserted my text and warned Turnpoems again that he had no consensus. Unsurprisingly, He deleted it again . I [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yom_Kippur_War&diff=next&oldid=641886993 inserted it again] while warning him "You have been already told that you do not have an consensus".

- Turnopoems and RULES:

-Turnopoems has undone many more that any other editor in this section. He does not pay attention to the consensus view and he forcibly push his opinion. He repeated it in the other argument which is discussed in the same talk page section. So it seems to be a typical behavior.

- During his other argument, he undone the article again, while falsely claiming that "The issue has been settled on talk". The other editor deleted again Turnopoems text while telling him that "No settlement and no consensus yet". Does it suit the "good faith" editing?

- Turnopoems repeatedly decides that a couple of days waiting for the response is too much, so he returns to his habit - undoing the other editor. e.g. "No reply in "Talk"-section", "No reply ".

- Turnopoems tend to ignore or to evasively reply to my questions in the talk page, . So a discussion with him is rather fruitless. e.g. My question (at 22 DEC and 26 DEC):""misleading as it implies that Cairo was a strategic target". Is this claim a wp:or ? ". He have not replied to this question yet.

- Turnopoems idea of a discussion is that he stands for his initial text and does not want to modify it. I tried to compromise with him and significantly modified my text towards his attitude, although it is not the best text I wish to have, since I wanted to finish with this exhaustive arguement. Ykantor (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Turnopoems - Rebuttal

First things first, you need to acclimatize yourself to the guidelines of this website. I have not violated any rules in regard to WP:EW, all my edits have been fully compliant and the reason why I undid the revert done by the other editor was for two reasons:

- He was indefinitely banned for sockpuppetry (reverting his contribution is exempted from WP:EW).

- He did not partake in the open discussion which aims to resolve the matter and thus his contribution, much like yours, are nothing but a disruption.

The other reason why I have continuously undone your edits is because a) you refuse to partake in the discussion and thus your position becomes moot and b) a longer period of time has elapsed and I chose to adhere to WP:BRD:

Bold editing is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. No editor is more welcome to make a positive contribution than you are. When in doubt, edit! Similarly, if you advance a potential edit on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time, go ahead and make your edit. Sometimes other editors are busy, or nobody is watching the article. An edit will either get the attention of interested editors, or you will simply improve the article—either is a good outcome.

I mentioned that the issue had been settled in the edit summary because the other editor asked for a source in order for me to include the text, which I included in my edit. He then reverted my edit, despite the lack of consensus, claiming that my source was insufficient based on a far-fetched, personal interpretation of the text in the source.

Wikipedia's content is not dictated by majority-rule, it doesn't matter if ten editors are fighting against one lone opinion as long as it's sufficiently backed by sources and/or complies with guidelines established by the community. Your responsibility is to discuss the matter to reach consensus, if you're unable to do that for whatever personal reasons (i.e. to avoid "exhaustive arguments") then please refrain from disrupting the work of people who are trying to make serious contributions on Wikipedia. If you felt that the argument has reached a dead-end then you have several tools at your disposal for dispute resolution, instead you chose to engage in edit warring.

Your compromise was unilateral and falls short of actually achieving anything in regard to my complaints, and I EXPLICITLY explained why I disapproved of it in the talk page where I offered a counter-proposal which you completely disregarded only to continue reverting my attempts at bold editing (without replying on the talk-page). You are the exhibiting the exact behavior defined in WP:OWN, constantly reverting edits under the pretexts of lack of consensus while forgetting that this is a two-way street. Where is your consensus for indiscriminately reverting my edits? Turnopoems (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: The Yom Kippur War is fully protected two months. This protection may be lifted if consensus is reached on Talk. User:Ykantor and User:Turnopoems seem to be engaged in a slow revert war. On the talk page there is a lack of clear proposals for article wording that people could support or oppose. The talk discussion has been running since 1 December but it is extremely boring and goes lazily in circles. An RfC was opened on 27 December but it's so vaguely-worded it's unlikely to be helpful. Anyone who is interested in this issue would be performing a service if they could nudge the participants to clarify the options and vote on them. The dispute is about just a few words in the infobox. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:79.141.163.7 reported by User:Irondome (Result: No violation)

• Page: Tiger I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: 79.141.163.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP made an overly detailed edit. I reverted, requesting that the edit be taken to talk. I was reverted again. I warned the user on T/P as to their attitude. I also reverted, urgently requesting that they take to talk. The IP reverted me again, claiming that the rationale of my revert must be discussed on talk first before I revert. An absurd reversal of B.R.D. I request some eyes here. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Irondome did violate the WP:3RR see recent edits: 1 2 3

Sorry but WP:SHOT applies here. Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming it is a competency issue. Can you not grasp the idea of gaining consensus and discussion? I will say no more. Irondome (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are on the behave that my addendum to the article is not okish, but you haven't represent any valid argumentation. Instead of removing it, represent some factuals in the Talk that the profound ground trials is not legitimate as the Wa Pruef 1 estiamtes. Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My ed summaries were detailed. You refused to go to talk. I am quite happy to discuss. Everyone knows my record on discussion here. Now go to talk and we can discuss and pull the plug on this dreary tussle. Then we can free up boardspace here for less trivial matters. Ok? Irondome (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't try to twist, you removed my addendum because you simply don't like it WP:JDL 79.141.163.7 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Parties are now in discussion on relevant talk page. Cheers Irondome (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss it, here: Talk Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The revert still continues on the article, even the case was meant to find a consensus in the Talk page. Now Gunbirddriver just reverted it again 1 within 24 hours, after Irondome recent reverts: 1 2 3 Could please some taking action of these arbitary revert warring? Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No violation – it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break WP:3RR. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, may I ask the question how to report Irondome if he continues with abusive language WP:NPA and defamation? 79.141.163.7 (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Parties now in cooperative discussion on article talk to improve article. Irondome (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Calvin999 (Result: Warned)

Page

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

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "Why should I have to take it to the talk page, when two editors thinks actress should be on there, and two that should not. It does not have to be my responsibility."
2. 11:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642145780 by Calvin999 (talk) Mariah Carey had 9 films, only two cameo appearances. That's different. Discuss on talk page."
3. 11:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642142587 by Tomica (talk) In the article Rihanna videography, only three films were actual roles, rest were cameos. Since this is getting edit warred, why not discuss on talk page?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rihanna. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has violated 3RR, is edit warring with three other editors and is causing disruption. Refusal from the editor to take it to the talk page. See history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rihanna&action=history  — ₳aron 13:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I only edit warred with two, when the third editor came in, I dropped a discussion on the talk page, so far, no responses. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I mean that you have made three reverts on the same article in less than 24 hours. In less than 24 minutes, in fact. You are not allowed to do this. You shouldn't just remove stuff from an article. If you have two editors reverting you saying not to do something, you don't keep on actively doing it. If you feel something is wrong, you drop a message on the talk page first, not when three editors have collectively reverted you five times. You could be potentially blocked from editing because you of your three reverts.  — ₳aron 20:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reverted four times, collectively, not five. The other one was SNUGGUMS. I understood, and I have posted a discussion on talk page. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad has broken 3RR with a series of four reverts beginning at 11:08 on 12 January. The last time he broke 3RR (December 20) he was excused without a block by the closing admin. At some point he should start following the policy. He might agree to stop editing the Rihanna article for two weeks to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Joseph Prasad is warned that he may be blocked if he continues to revert. On his talk page, he has stated that he is removing the Rihanna article from his watchlist. On that basis I'm closing this with no block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Drovethrughosts reported by User:Twobells (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drovethrughosts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Please see previous reports, no matter how I and others have tried user keeps reverting legitimate citations and factual evidence, seems to think they 'own' page., user insists an international co production is 'American', has reverted a total of 27 times:

• Really need some guidance here please. Twobells (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC) -->

I was reverting the incorrect changes you made of "is an American TV series" to "was an..."; it's always "is" per WP:TVLEAD, which then you reverted several times, which was wrong. I collaborated with you for several edits, cleaning up your additions (fixing grammar and citations), I don't understand what your problem is. Your continued assertion that the UK is also country of origin is incorrect; I provided you with 100% proof (the series itself from a UK version of the episode) that states in the end credits, "Country of first publication: United States of America" and below "©2004 USA Cable Productions LLC" and per the Berne Convention (which the series is copyrighted under) confirms "country of origin" as the country of first publication. Also, there is no "[you] and others, it's just you. Another editor, Drmargi is also reverting your changes. You've provided a citation that states "co-production", which I have never been against, that does not equal "country or origin". My reference 100% confirms "country or origin" as the proof is the the series' end credits along with copyright laws. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you weren't admin please check page history, you've proceeded to revert four times in one hour, not only that you altered the page chronology for some reason. User Drovethrughosts proceeded to produce '100 proof evidence' (NOR anyone?) that the show according to a pirated video tape (which no-one has seen) was 'American' while I edited in actual citations from tv industry experts referring to the UK's collaboration with Universal on Battlestar Galactica (2004) from Google Books. If administration care to check talk history they will find other editors who both edited the article (reverted immediately) and discussed adding the fact that the UK co-funded the show so no, it isn't just me, although I have been the one most recently having to put up with this crazy page 'ownership'. Twobells (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The only editor edit warring here is Twobells. He is determined to force in an edit, based on one iffy and one unreliable source that he feels somehow makes the American TV series Battlestar Galactica a US/UK (with UK primacy) television production, despite the only foundation for his claim is limited contributed funding of the mini-series and first season by the UK network Sky1 (along with the Canadian network Space, which doesn't seem to interest him); the principle source of funding was NBC Universal, which produced and funded the mini-series and five season series for the SciFi/Syfy Network. His whole argument hangs on the mistaken notion that the country of the source of funding, not the country of the production company is somehow the country of origin, in opposition to the standard established by consensus at Project:Television. Worse, he's filed one prior case here against myself and Drovethrughosts (the latter case was malformed and mistakenly removed by the closing admin, but wasn't worth pursuing), and is back at it today, but persists in edit warring and restarting the edit war, oblivious to the face he is the instigator of these edit wars. He is long past editing to improve the article. This has become some sort of cause (possibly based on anti-American sentiment, if a conversation with another editor and some past editing patterns are to be believed) he has taken up, not only on this article, but on a couple others as well, and he's determined to continue to edit war, engage in pointy editing (see some recent edits) and harassment via these noticeboards to have his way. Meanwhile, he has no foundation for his changes, despite his loud claims of so-called "legitimate" sources, both of which have been challenged as unreliable. His engagement on the show's talk page is not designed to reach consensus, but rather to dominate the discourse and tell other editors what is and is not correct, yet demonstrates a significant lack of understanding of (or blindness to) a range of policies he claims are being "violated." It seems abundantly apparent to me that he is not editing in good faith, but rather to win at any costs. --Drmargi (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Admin, please see both history and the previous 3RR report [13] regarding editor Drmargi to see who is doing the reverting and edit warring, the sources are completely legitimate cited from Google Books. I have no interest in UK being 'primary' whatsoever, I have no idea where that came from. Editor Drmargi is confused as to how production credits work and was himself previously reported for reverting 7 edits in 24 hours (see 3RR archive 367). To be honest both users Dmargi and DroveThrughosts seem to think they 'own' the article and jointly rush to attack anyone who might edit the article which is completely unacceptable and what is worse user Drmargi states that in editing the article that flies in the face of their wishes it is somehow pointy editing which is frankly ludicrous in that they have a nice comfy albeit incorrect article and nothing is going to change that. He goes on to suggest that there seems to be some sort of 'anti-americanism' going on which is frankly ludicrous and reflects a increasing sense of desperation considering I am Anglo-American. I have tried to explain how co-production articles work citing examples such as Gravity and Guardians of the Galaxy but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. In closing, the article reached consensus (when you calculate the numbers) on adding the UK contribution back In December; however neither editor seems to accept that consensus as it flies in the face of their beliefs pertaining to this tv show. Twobells (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• "I have no interest in UK being 'primary' whatsoever, I have no idea where that came from" — then why did you put it as "UK-USA" and "Sky1 (UK)-Universal TV (US)" then, when clearly the US is the primary producer of the series. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• "To be honest both users Dmargi and DroveThrughosts seem to think they 'own' the article and jointly rush to attack anyone who might edit the article which is completely unacceptable." — how are our edits any different than yours? You were the one to start the edit war twice now. And no, it's not "anyone", it's just you making these edits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• "The article reached consensus (when you calculate the numbers)" — what are you talking about? You refer to things that have never happened, the article did not read consensus and what numbers did you calculate? I'm sorry, but I think copyright laws which define country of origin is a better source than someone on Google Books. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• "I have tried to explain how co-production articles work citing examples such as Gravity and Guardians of the Galaxy but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears — as far as I see, it states "Guardians of the Galaxy is a 2014 American superhero film..." Also, see WP:OTHER. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a previous 3RR complaint on 30 December. The result was 5 days of full protection. It appears that User:Twobells has a theory about the nationality of this TV show: "it is the country that funds a production that defines ownership", but he seems to be the only one who believes this. Unless Twobells will make a promise to accept consensus from now on, a block may be necessary. Twobells has five previous blocks. Both Drmargi and Twobells would strengthen their case if they would give links to the policies they mention about TV shows and to the prior 3RRs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, Ed. I can throw in a few links when I have time, but any admin doing due diligence will have to look at the article edit history and talk page, which paints a vivid picture of what's gone on. I think the real issues underlying the edit war are Twobells's disruptive editing, constant restarting of this edit war, abuse of this noticeboard, and lack of willingness to work toward consensus. He stirs the pot, goes away for a while, apparently until he thinks things have calmed down, and then is back again, starting all over. Meanwhile, a quick glance at his edit history shows he's not editing anywhere else. Make of it what you will. I'm heartily weary of the whole situation. Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: Twobells is blocked 48 hours. User:Drovethrughosts is warned for edit warring. This dispute happened before, on 30 December. That time the 3RR was closed with protection. It seems that Twobells just isn't going to stop, no matter what anyone says. Twobells doesn't appear to have any support from other editors but he keeps reverting anyway. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:85.241.122.28 (Result: Semi)

Page: Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:

User has a conflict of interest. 85.241.122.28 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC) -->

User has a couple of trolls seeking to censor info from a RS more like. spa anon ips and editors with one edit ffs - what conflict of interest? - censor the RS all you like - whats your interest in it anyhow? maybe you have the conflict of interest etc . Sayerslle (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why are you still reverting? 85.241.122.28 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Et vous? why are you. I am not. its pointless to edit in a tidal wave of SPAs anyhow. I must learn.Sayerslle (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

English please. 85.241.122.28 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two weeks. Sayerslle did not violate 3RR but the IP did. This is a biographical article on a controversial person. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

User:187.15.181.49 reported by User:Gsfelipe94 (Result: Two articles semied)

Pages: 2013 Copa Libertadores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2014 Copa do Brasil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: 80.111.184.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 187.15.192.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 187.15.194.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11 January 2015‎ - (Undid revision 641976314 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))
2. 12 January 2015 - (Undid revision 642043139 by Gsfelipe94 (talk) not a graph, it is Atlético Mineiros starting lineup on that game.)
3. 13 January 2015‎ - (Undid revision 642195316 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))
4. 11 January 2015‎ - (Undid revision 641907914 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))
5. 11 January 2015 - (Undid revision 641976260 by Gsfelipe94 (talk))
6. 12 January 2015‎ - (Undid revision 642043031 by Gsfelipe94 (talk) it is not a graph, it both teams starting XI, do you know anything about football?)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:01, 11 January 2015
2. 19:20, 12 January 2015
3. 16:33, 13 January 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I'm adding only one IP for the title, but as you can see, it's probably an user with multiple IPs. Due to his edits, he might have a Portuguese profile, but didn't create an English one. Also based on those edits, I believe he's Brazilian and that his edits are only based on the fact that he is a supporter of Atlético Mineiro. Tried to reason with the person via article's edit summary and reached each IP with a talk page for discussion as well. I used to deal with it only via edit summary, but now I decided to follow the standard path and report cases instead of just reverting them in a loop at the articles. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected both listed articles for two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper. I struck out one IP from the header because he didn't edit either of the listed articles. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My bad. I probably copied and paste from a previous IP, so I'm to blame for that. The other IP was User:187.15.192.28, just for information. Thanks for dealing with it Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Scsu76 reported by User:Barek (Result: Blocked)

Page: Charleston, South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scsu76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:53, 13 January 2015 (→‎Armed Forces: Relevant - check your history.)
2. 19:30, 13 January 2015 (→‎Armed Forces: The entire section is relevant to Charleston, just as other information in the write-up. Apparently, you do not like the fact the military built the economy of Charleston - "Joint Base Charleston".)
3. 18:21, 13 January 2015 (→‎Armed Forces: "Join Base Charleston" and the military section belongs in the Charleston write up. Otherwise, the entire section on Charleston will need to be re-written, on ALL topics. People want to know about the AREA; Remember, "Joint Base CHAR")
4. 18:59, 8 January 2015‎ (→‎Armed Forces: Yo are wrong, otherwise, the entire write up of Charleston would need to exlcude all aspects of Metro Charleston, i.e. "Port of Charleston", etc. Look at the military emblem "Joint Base Charleston.")
5. 03:33, 7 January 2015 (→‎Armed Forces: Each City is listed. It is called "Joint Base Charleston", not "Joint Base North Charleston" for a reason. Section is correct.)
6. 00:50, 20 December 2014 (→‎Armed Forces)

Diff of warning for edit warring: 21:32, 13 January 2015‎

Comments:

An IP and this user appear to have been in an edit war for a while before I came across it today (note: I am not the IP, and welcome any checkuser to verify if there is any question on this whatsoever).

I have attempted to discuss the issue on the user's talk page at User talk:Scsu76#Charleston Armed Forces, but they have refused to respond - simply reverting. Their argument seems to be that because the base is called "Joint Base Charleston" (and not "Joint Base North Charleston", or "Joint Base Charleston Metro Area"), and because Charleston owes its development to the military, that the military section needs to be expanded to cover all military units in the metro area. This despite the fact that most of those units are actually not within the borders of Charleston itself, but instead are located in the greater Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area, mostly in the cities of North Charleston, South Carolina, Goose Creek, South Carolina, and Hanahan, South Carolina. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Sardanaphalus reported by User:Edokter (Result: no vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: 1

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2

Sardanaphalus has a habit of reinstating his edits, even if they are reverted for good reason; In this case, half the section of the linked template became unreadable, so I reverted. But he takes it personally, so I warned him to not to do so, or I would report him to 3RR, even after one revert. Minutes later, he does it anyway. By doing so, he is damaging legibility of templates (not only this one). He has been instructed be several editors (and admins) to show restraint and test his edits before implementing them, but it falls on deaf ears. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 23:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. --slakr^\ talk / 04:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Heybob124 reported by User:Toohool (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Heybob124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: n/a

Diffs of the user's edits:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

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

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

Comments:
User is dead-set on adding sloppy/unsourced/duplicative content to the lead of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino despite having been repeatedly reverted by multiple users. User was blocked as User:Hey111184 yesterday for 24 hours, then came right back after the block expired with this new account. Shows no indication of having even seen talk page warnings. Toohool (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakr^\ talk / 04:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Ready to quit smoking? reported by User:GB fan (Result: blocked)

Page

Smoking cessation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ready to quit smoking? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642393345 by Deli nk (talk)"
2. 02:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642393054 by Fyddlestix (talk)"
3. 02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642392843 by Seattle (talk)"
4. 01:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642392510 by GB fan (talk) Video doesn't even exist."
5. 01:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642392173 by Seattle (talk)"
6. 01:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642391737 by GB fan (talk) It was an example, not a spam."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Smoking cessation. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

float

Blocked indefinitely by Materialscientist; I'd say this should be left open for now however, as there may be more to this than meets the eye (I should add I saw this linked on IRC). He seems to be saying he's the owner of an anti-smoking website in the UK. —Soap— 02:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Joseph Prasad reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked)

Page

1989 (Taylor Swift album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Joseph Prasad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642394648 by Afireinside27 (talk) Yet Taylor Swift only says Big Machine."
2. 01:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Does not look official whatsoever, and home come then it was not mentioned by Big Machine or Swift herself then?"
3. 01:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Republic is not her label's official site. Her label is Big Machine.http://www.bigmachinelabelgroup.com/artist/taylor-swift/"
4. 05:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "As far as I can tell, I see no release date on that source. How come Billboard has no article for it yet?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 1989 (Taylor Swift album). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has engaged in an edit-war on the Taylor Swift album page for 1989 with another user. User did not open discussion on talk page of album, or on user's talk page. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And again, yet the other editor was not warned for violations. The only reason I'm always on here is because every time there is an edit war like this, I am always the ONLY one who get reported, even though others edit war as well. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The user was reverting a perfectly legit and cited update because he did find the source (Republic Records' official website) to appear "official" enough, and stated that Big Machine is her label. I informed him that Republic handled her releases to pop radio (and is listed on Republic Records as one of their artists) but he continued reverting. I then took the matter to his talk page to discuss but he was non-compliant. Afireinside27 (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The ink is not yet dry on the previous 3RR report of Joseph Prasad. User:Afireinside27 is warned for edit warring. See an apology on his user talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Vice regent (Result: )

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andiar.rohnds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25] In this version, it can clearly be seen that in the section "Muslim reactions", the sub-section "Condemning the attack" is higher than "Supporting the attack".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:30, January 13, 2015
2. 16:48, January 13, 2015
3. 22:48, January 13, 2015
4. 03:14, January 14, 2015

In each of these reverts, the user moves the sub-section "Supporting the attack" above "Condemning the attack".

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

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

Comments: The user has made 4 reverts in less than 24-hours. I recall reverting the user only 2 times, meaning the other 2 times the user has edit-warred with some other user. The user doesn't seem to have engaged in any discussion during the first 3 reverts. Even though during that time, I had posted messages on the talk page. (Here's the section: Talk:Charlie_Hebdo_shooting#Condemnation_higher_than_support). I posted a message to the user's talk page, pointing out to them that they had been reverting without discussing. After that Andiar.rohnds did post on the talk page, but immediately after that reverted me again (making it the 4th revert in <24hours). I also found their comment on the talk page somewhat unhelpful, esp since they started off with "Wikipedia is not your personal agenda device..." Since then, another user has posted on the talk page, and seems to also disagree with Andiar.rohnds. Coupled with the fact that others have reverted Andiar.rohnds' reverts, it seems clear to me that Andiar.rohnds' position is in the minority here.

After the 4th revert, I warned the user and asked them to self-revert. The user responded back by saying I was "confused" and I should go read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines

I'll gladly take this report back if Andiar.rohnds self-reverts and agrees to resolve this matter through discussion.VR _talk 06:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussions were had, and previously archived. Discussion still continues on main talk page. User simply will not listen and is reporting falsehoods. --Andiar.rohnds (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since I reported the user, they are continuing to make the exact same reverts. Andiar.rohnds didn't revert me, but rather someone else. It seems Andiar.rohnds is not willing to stop reverting.VR _talk 17:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Andiar.rohnds' usual revert is to simply swap the order of Islamic sources supporting the attack versus those condemning the attack, to put those supporting the attack first. Andiar.rohnds often cites Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2#Muslim response as his reason for reverting, but I am unclear on whether that talk thread reached any conclusion. Maybe the submitter of this 3RR, User:Vice regent, wants to comment? I confess that Andiar.rohnds comment at the beginning of the thread suggests that his motivation is personal POV and does not show a desire to reflect what reliable sources have written: "This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, and should be removed immediately. --Andiar.rohnds (talk)" It is unclear how Wikipedia policy justifies Andiar.rohnds' reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At no point in the section (Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting/Archive 2#Muslim response) does Andiar.rohnds give an explanation for changing the order of the Muslim sources, except for one comment on 13:52, 10 January 2015. Whereas the edit-warring happened Jan 13-14. By the time the edit-warring happened, that one comment had been archived anyway. On the other hand, 5 minutes after the edit-warring above started, I posted a comment. Andiar.rhonds didn't discuss at that section while continuing to edit-war, until much later.

You're absolutely right that it is unclear how their reasoning is in line with wikipedia policies. I actually have a hard time understanding Andiar.rhonds' arguments at all, which are often aimed at attacking a particular user (like myself or someone else) than at justifying their edits.VR _talk 01:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong on the ANI board (Result: declined)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ryulong has far surpassed [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] 3RR on the AN/I board. The underlying argument he seems to put forth is that the user in question is (probably) banned. What he doesn't seem to appreciate is that he is the subject of the complaint and that at least two other users consider the merits of the complaint to worth at least a cursory notice. GraniteSand (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO says that reverts to edits by banned editors or their sockpuppets and meatpuppets are exempt from 3RR. Whether or not I am the subject of the thread that this banned editor started is immaterial.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I find your general demeanor to be reprehensible. That this user may (or may not) be banned but they have become peripheral to your conduct at this point. GraniteSand (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless the edits made by this user are beneficial to the project (which the baseless complaints I was violating WP:BITE or whatever else he was going to pull up) do not qualify. ToQ100gou/ToQ100gou2 and his dynamic IP addresses are not allowed to edit the English Wikipedia until he properly appeals his ban like a normal person. I am fully within policy to remove the content and have it remain removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You continue to make excuses for your behavior by degrading your target. The status of your victim does not release you from your own responsibilities. GraniteSand (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is where you are incorrect. Because ToQ100gou is banned, none of his edits are allowed per WP:BANREVERT. Reverting edits by a banned user is exempt from 3RR.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I have ceased removing the section on ANI as it wasn't getting anywhere. Clearly, these two editors strongly dislike each other, and while Ryulong may or may not be removing these comments due to "I don't like them there" wikipedia is not a battleground. That being said, I do think that, while Ryulong may not be the right person for removing these comments since they're about him, his comments about WP:BANREVERT are valid, which is part of the reason why I ceased reverting him. Reviewing admins may also want to take a look at the note left on my talk page. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 09:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Declined per WP:BANBLOCKDIFF. Ideally Ryulong would not be the one removing these posts by an indef-blocked editor, given they were about Ryulong in the first place. But removal of what is basically a trolling by an indef-blocked editor is not the basis for a 3RR sanction. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Trolling" suggests that there is not inherently valid commentary to be had. Were to Ryulong to have treated any other editor this way he'd be in line for consequence. GraniteSand (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Editors in good standing have every right to lodge ANI complaints and have them considered. That right is not routinely extended to the sock puppets of indef-blocked editors. I would add in passing that I also reviewed the actual complaint, and it lacked merit on the evidence provided. Had the material not been removed, I would have declined and closed the thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to interject, but where does it say the user was banned? Aren't bans different from being blocked? TL565 (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The master account is indef blocked. There are a fair few similarities between indef blocks and bans, but practical differences are outlined at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I see, but does the 3RR apply because multiple non-blocked users were also reverted? TL565 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ya can't fault a guy for knowing the loopholes and how to exploit them. You can, however, fault the loopholes. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's genuinely disgusting and people are beginning to take notice. GraniteSand (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a loophole. Banned editors and indefinitely blocked editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia and other users are not allowed to proxy for them. GraniteSand seems to want the report there because he feels I am somehow toxic to the project and must be punished, even when those complaints are brought up by someone who blatantly admits they are evading a ban by saying they are totally not, obviously being a banned editor, and is definitely not someone in good standing. You are also heavily mistaken how these threads are supposed to operate because once it is declined that is the end of it. If you actually believe there are violations of policy that I have performed then you are perfectly free as an editor in good standing to report me for them but this situation here is not the case.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

You were clearly within the letter of policy. You could have stepped aside and let another editor revert, with the same outcome. Instead you chose to make a battle of it. Almost as if you enjoy battles, especially when you know you'll win. I think we could do with less of that. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GraniteSand is a user in good standing, and free to post the concern if they feel it is meritous (bearing in mind they're then liable for the contents of it). I count three reversions there (unless I'm mistaken), and reverting the banned editor is a non-consideration, so it falls slightly short of being actionable. But reverting GraniteSand (or any other user in good standing) is not 3RR exempt. WilyD 10:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if the content is originally by a user not in good standing? Because I'm pretty sure there was just a whole arbitration case concerning this to some extent.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit in any way, shape or form, regardless of the alleged quality of their edits. And standing up for banned users is not a good thing to be doing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is "standing up for a banned user". ―Mandruss ☎ 10:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If you restore a banned editor's edits after they were deleted, then you're standing up for the banned editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily. His edits were not restored because they were seen to be proper. They were restored because multiple editors felt it was (ethically) wrong for Ryulong to be the one removing them. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet we have multiple attempts to explain that according to policy this was wrong to assume. Simply because the editor was complaining about me is immaterial to the fact that he should not have been editing anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I put "ethically" in parens for emphasis and clarity. You do know the difference between legal and ethical? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:WWGB reported by User:MrX (Result: no violation )

Page

Death of Leelah Alcorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) to 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Death */ nothing in sources about postponement just change of venue"
   2. 21:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642333089 by Toadie291 (talk) notability not established"
2. 00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "/* Death */ it's the family's business who they invite to the funeral, this is just trivia published by the tabloid rag Daily Mail. It's also pathetic that some editors can't resist a cheap shot against the family"
3. 12:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ ce"
4. 12:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ grossly untrue"
5. 12:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642447857 by Midnightblueowl (talk) opinion, gain consensus on talk page for this sweeping statement"
6. 13:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 642449204 by MrX (talk) please contribute to discussion on talk page, thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "/* EW */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC) "/* "Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide" */"

Comments:

Diff #3, while it looks like a minor copy edit, reverts Midnightblueowl's partial reversion of WWGB's edit here.- MrX 13:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I acknowledge the exercise of strong involvement in this article, however, my edit history shows that my edits were spread across a range of issues within the article, rather than just an edit war. I did not exceed three edits on any one issue (while acknowledging my understanding of WP:3RR). If it assists the resolution of this matter, I will stand aside from further edits of this article for 24 hours. Regards, WWGB (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but you don't get three reverts per issue. I can't help but think that you may have been trying to WP:GAME the system. You certainly don't offer any assurances that you will stop edit warring after 24 hours, or that you will adhere to WP:BRD. You also ignored a warning and continued to edit war.- MrX 13:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I second MrX's concerns, and have felt WWGB's edits to be disruptive (albeit perhaps well-meaning) in this context. Particularly problematic for me has been their decision to refer to those making edits which they disagree with as "pathetic", in doing so showing no regard for Wikipedia:Civility. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a talk thread here where there seems to be a 4:1 verdict in favor of saying the parents were 'publicly accused of pushing her to suicide.' Can WWGB respond here to answer the talk thread? Is there any WP:BLP argument regarding the parents to show that WWGB's reverts were justifiable? Usually BLP is satisfied if a reliable source is linked, though I notice that there is no inline cite for 'publicly accused'. If WWGB won't accept the result of the talk thread, can they say if there are any conditions under which they would stop reverting? EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to provide an update, the talk page verdict is now at 5:1. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no way this should have been reported here. Many (most?) of these reverts were undoing clear BLP violations: controversial claims about to living people linked to unreliable sources. WWGB was completely justified with this edit, for example, even if the edit summary was inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • With due respect to StAnselm, I disagree completely. This was entirely the appropriate place for WWGB's behaviour to be discussed; they may be exonerated of any criticism, but it was the appropriate place for it to be discussed nonetheless. There were no BLP violations present, as the 5:1 consensus at the talk page appears to have vindicated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what "5:1 consensus" you mean - in any case, consensus is not determined by counting votes. According to our policy and long-standing consensus about reliable sources, WWGB was reverting a clear BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn#Disputed information regarding Alcorn's funeral? The five editors in question are saying that it was not reliably sourced according to BLP standards - that implies a BLP violation. StAnselm (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not the section that we are referring to; the one in question is Talk:Death of Leelah Alcorn#"Alcorn's parents were publicly accused of pushing her to suicide". There, five editors have agreed that the edit in question was not a BLP violation, despite WWGB's insistent and repeated statements to the contrary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, that demonstrates a profound lack of comprehension of WP:BLP and it's rather hypocritical considering that you tried to rename a related article, Leelah's Law to Leelah's Alcorn Law and added {{sic}} to the lead. The content is sourced, which you well know, and if you didn't know, you could discover for yourself in about 17 seconds with minimal effort.- MrX 20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's say is once again, slowly: BLP-related claims need to be reliably sourced, and the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I would add that StAnselm has been blocked before for edit warring while fallaciously claiming that he was defending against a BLP violation.- MrX 20:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

StAnselm, I respect you as an editor, but you are confusing two completely different debates over at the talk page; the one that is relevant here has nothing to do with the validity of the Daily Mail. That's a different debate being held in a different place. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see we were talking about two different things, but I wasn't confusing the issue - the Daily Mail edit was one of the reversions listed in the case report, and that's what I linked to in my initial comment. StAnselm (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• No violation While I guess some edit summaries could be better, there were some serious BLP issues with some edits that needed to be reverted. No violation found. seicer | talk | contribs 20:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Which edits do you think needed to be reverted?. Please share your findings.- MrX 20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of them - but particularly including the ones which suggest the (living) family "pushing her to suicide" which is, in every sense of the term, a "contentious claim about living persons." The use of "despite" is a "word to avoid" and the wording of the asserted cause of any funeral postponement requires strong sourcing per WP:BLP. In short - this complaint fails. Collect (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Collect, why is it that you seem to follow me to Arbcom cases, AN/EW, ANI, AE, and various other venues? Is it just coincidence? In any case, these are not BLP violations. The content did not state that her family "pushed her to suicide" which is the same non-sensiscal claim that the WWGB made on the article talk page that was roundly refuted. It stated that her family was accused of pushing her to suicide. These are very different things. For example, Dan Savage famously said that her parents 'Threw Her In Front Of That Truck'.- MrX 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not "follow" you anywhere at all. [37] in fact shows quite the opposite. When trying to cast stones at everyone else, one ought to look at one's own glass house. You should also note that I do comment at these boards, and you being here has naught to do with anything much at all. But it is nice to see you attacking everyone save yourself. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Practically anything sourced to the Daily Mail in a BLP-related article is a BLP vio, for starters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget to mention this source [38] or this one [39]?- MrX 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And Dan Savage speaks from a extremely POV orientated view. Because of BLP we have to tread carefully with this issue. The Statement that the family pushed her to suicide is highly contentious and should carefully be examined before being used. I suggest moving this discussion back to the talk page. Avono (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

So what? - MrX 21:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hell, I would have reverted this one on the grounds that this is an encyclopedia not a tabloid rag. Probably more of them, if I looked closer at it. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup, should have never been used. I previously warned about it in the talk page but that was apparently ignored. Avono (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Pktlaurence reported by User:Rob984 (Result: 24h)

Page: Lordship of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pktlaurence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]
8. [48]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion here: Talk:Lordship of Ireland#About the 'Gaelic Ireland" label. Final attempt to reason here: [50]

Comments:

Editor no longer willing to resolve the issue on the talk page. Rob984 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 20:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Edit Fact reported by User:121.45.218.89 (Result:No Violation)

Page: Tony Jones (theologian) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edit Fact (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. Note: [55] from FreeRangeFrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes these an almost complete revert to [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First attempt - reverted: [58] Second attempt: [59]

Comments:

I attempted to improve the references, but that edit was reverted too. So I stopped due to the 3RR. But I still believe some of the sources are reliable based on the topic.

No violation - Edit Fact has made a total of three edits to the article and per policy only two reverts as two of the edits were consecutive. -- GB fan 19:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PuffinSoc reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: )

Page: Charlie Hebdo shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PuffinSoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] << I'm sorry, I honestly have no idea what this is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]
6. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] (the response was "If the Islamists on here had their way, the entire "Charlie Hebdo shooting" article itself wouldn't exist. Don't engage or appease them.", followed by an immediate revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: the user has resisted attempts by several invitations to join the discussions on the talk page

Comments:

Note: please see the following notice; PuffinSoc has also been edit-warring with MoorNextDoor. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:MoorNextDoor reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: )

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

And a separate edit war with PuffinSoc:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] (followed immediately by another revert).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: several ongoing discussions on the talk page over several days.

Comments:

MoorNextDoor and PuffinSoc are on opposite extremes of a battle over the background material in the article—PuffinSoc (and others) wants to greatly expand it, MoorNextDoor (and others) wants it effaced. Neither is seriously engaging discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear, this is not about PuffinSoc who's been at it for ages without ever bothering Curly Turkey (his talk page will show who tried to contact him more than once), it's about the fact that User:Curly Turkey:

• Reverted what I've deleted and when I added a relevance template, he removed that too [76][77].
• Falsely accused me of trolling.
• Attacked me again personally, instead of answering the question.
• Thinks that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to him (I can provide diffs of the his reverts if needed). MoorNextDoor (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editor Comment: I just spent some time looking at the underlying dispute here after seeing it at ANi. I also just evaluated parts of this report. The first 4 diffs against MoorNextDoor do not prove edit warring. The first is the deletion of a paragraph being fought over. The next three are insertions of dispute tags, which keep getting removed. No violation by MoorNextDoor. The counter accusations by MoorNextDoor against Curly are also without much merit in my estimation, although removing the relevance template and the linked comments are not really helpful to deescalate the situation. The second set of diffs 71-74 is indeed 4RR on the same issue by MoorNextDoor. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen the ANi page, and suggest that the page becomes a 1RR article with all relevant editors warned of this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Easy, attack was related to ISIL we can slap the ISIL 1RR on it. Legacypac (talk) 09:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think-the charlie hebdo shooting by the kouachis is directly related to ISIL, but AQAP AQ in the Arabian peninsula, - ISIL is different.Sayerslle (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it's disputed [78] but the 3rd gunman at the supermarket did pledge to ISIL, and there are doubts about AQAP. I'm not going to argue one way or another or a third way about AQ's role, I'm just looking to use the existing 1RR policy and community sanctions for ISIL on a somewhat related article. Legacypac (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that the three-revert rule (3RR) does not apply to User:Curly Turkey ?

On top of the 3 I've already listed, you have to add some more reverts to his account:

• [79]
• [80]

• He removed a reference template that was added by Vice regent. When Vice regent asked him why, he falsely accused me of adding it (as if that was a good excuse).

• He's how he questions someone's source and deletes it (although he's wrong). [81][82]

MoorNextDoor (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Notes:
  1. MoorNextDoor's final revert was after receiving a 3RR notice
  2. all such edits were to the same paragraph
• Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Eraserhead822 reported by User:Noyster (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Kader Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Eraserhead822 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:48, 5 January 2015
2. 16:39, 6 January 2015
3. 08:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC) "/* January 2015 */ notification"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user insists on changing a date of birth contrary to the only source given. The user has been asked to provide an alternative source , but has not done so or made any attempt to communicate : Noyster (talk), 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours seicer | talk | contribs 15:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)