Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Egyptian445 (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 13 May 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:Earl King Jr. reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: Stale)

    Page: The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Zeitgeist: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Zeitgeist: Addendum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Zeitgeist: Moving Forward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1] & [2]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [3]
    2. [4]
    3. [5]
    4. [6]
    5. [7]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: A previous lengthy discussion[9] -- Recent addition[10]

    Comments: This user's battleground behavior has been going on for awhile now. He is currently edit-warring over multiple articles. Largely a single topic editor he clearly doesn't understand how WP:BRD works. Another editor, AndyTheGrump, has provided numerous diffs regarding this user's disruptive behavior.[11] --- It's likely that Earl will come here and present a lengthy "defense", but this has been going on for too long. Please assist. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Zeitgeist article is problematic and controversial because of the many sympathizers it brings to the page. The editor making the complaint is one of those. I have done my best to get the article neutral. I have not violated the three revert rule ever to my knowledge despite what the above says. I may have reverted a couple of things twice in 24 hours thinking others might back that through consensus and sometimes they did. I am not a single topic editor. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd add to that that I have come to the conclusion that Earl King Jr.'s entire behaviour regarding the Zeitgeist-related articles has become so problematic that I think a topic ban may be necessary. He has been using the TZM talk page a a forum for half-baked conspiracy theories, making personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, and editing in a manner entirely inconsistent with NPOV and RS policy - he is clearly not 'neutral' regarding TZM, as recent posts by him on the talk page make clear. Anyone involved with these articles will be aware that it can be difficult at times dealing with the relentless attempts by TZM supporters to spin the articles their way, but the way to deal with it is by making clear that content needs to be based on on-topic sourcing and strict adherence to policy, rather than by engaging in synthesis and turning articles into attack pieces based on conjecture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been plenty of edit warring to go around. There is now some active discussion about merging all this junk into one cesspool....my honest take is the movement is a hoax...created by just another charlatan and giving space to this crap is not in our remit. Let's see if Earl can cease edit warring and also if Nagualdesign can cease calling him "Zionist" which is absolute bullshit.--MONGO 14:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that a topic ban may be necessary. This message board posting is not about whether you agree or disagree with the article topic, it's about an editor's disruptive behavior which has not only been cited in this complaint but ongoing for too long. And yes, he is largely a single topic editor, [12] who has recently blanked his talk page from this unresolved dispute. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Both SomeDifferentStuff and Andy are extremely aggressive editors. I have not edit warred by continual reverting after consensus. I have not broken the three revert guideline to my knowledge. I do not take the bait when those two provoke which they do on the The Zeitgeist Movement article talk page. I discussed the other article pages by opening a thread on the Zeitgeist movement page about redirecting those articles. SomedifferentStuff for whatever reason has edited with the in-plants from the Zeitgeist movement. I have no ownership issues with the article, though it is mostly myself that rewrote it from the mess it was previously. I have no agenda beyond presenting the information neutrally. I have created a couple of articles on Wikipedia that have zero to do with this topic and my watch list is well rounded. I edit the related Zeitgeist articles a lot because there are constantly issues there and I appreciate other people that are trying to keep the article from being an advert. I would note again that SomeDifferentStuff has been overtly aggressive and accusatory on the talk page and I believe trying to provoke a personal battle, which I have not done. Example above SomedifferentStuff is accusing me of blanking my talk page. No, I just removed his message which is a way to tell someone I got the message. But, it is an inflammatory rhetorical way to present me so he did it. Andy also has never edited the article beyond making reverts and using extremely caustic, provocative, maybe nasty language on the talk page to make his points. His block history makes it clear as does SomeDifferentStuff's that they are familiar with issues related to problematic editing. I have not taken the bait from Andy on the talk page either. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "SomedifferentStuff for whatever reason has edited with the in-plants from the Zeitgeist movement". I have no idea what an 'in-plant' is supposed to mean, but it clearly isn't a complementary way to describe a contributor. And it should be noted that Earl King Jr. also seems to think that the TZM article talk page is an appropriate place to describe members as "brainwashed" [13], and to accuse Peter Joseph, the founder, of using "neuro linguistic programming and meme control". [14] None of this has anything whatsoever to do with article content (and is arguably a WP:BLP violation), and accordingly has no place on the article talk page - but Earl's response to me asking him not to use the talk page as a forum has been to carry on regardless. As for the issue with redirects, it should be noted that Earl made no effort whatsoever to indicate on the talk pages of the articles being redirected that there was a discussion going on - instead he simply claimed that there was 'a consensus' for this, and attacked anyone who disagreed. Clearly Earl isn't the only one causing problems - neither he nor User:Nagualdesign should be using edit summaries for personal attacks as seen here, [15] but it seems to me that it is Earl that is provoking this, with his repeated talk-page posturing and refusal to take disagreements regarding article content as anything but evidence for some sort of improper pro-TZM agenda. Maintaining reasonable policy-compliant coverage of this topic requires patience, and a commitment to ensuring that policy is complied with - and not just the policies that prevent TZM members turning the article into a puff-piece as many would clearly like. It needs a commitment from all contributors to maintain neutrality by working strictly from sources, and avoiding the sort of synthesis that Earl has been engaging in lately in his efforts to promote what amounts to a conspiracy theory - that Peter Joseph founded the whole thing as a money-making scheme for personal profit. [16] If Earl wants to promote this theory, he should find some other place to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy I am referring to the meat and sock puppets in the article. There is a long and huge history of that. Also you present me as promoting conspiracy theory. I have discussed the article and the article is in the conspiracy theory category on Wikipedia. Also what you are saying about Joseph is a real stretch and any appraisal I may have done about him is not the way you 'paraphrased' it. Your caustic approach to people you disagree with and your rephrasing to put things in a darker light, and saying I am promoting a theory on the talk page is unwise. Also saying that I provoked the editor into him calling me Earl 'Zionist Agenda' King Jr. is kind of ridiculous. I respect a lot of your work though I do not like your caustic approach but I think you have gone too far, if this is what you are saying. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a simple verifiable fact that you posted accusations of "brainwashing" and nonsense about "neuro linguistic programming" (which incidentally is pseudoscientific hokum) and "meme control" (whatever that is supposed to mean) on the talk page - and you have repeatedly argued that Peter Joseph concocted TZM for personal gain. That is self-evidently a conspiracy theory. Such comments have no place on an article talk page, and can only ever be seen as provocative. Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and your personal opinions of TZM should have no bearing on article content - yet you have repeatedly argued for inclusion of content not sourced to material directly discussing TZM on the basis that it fits in with your personal theory. [17]. That is not the action of a neutral contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The article as said Andy is in the Conspiracy Theory category of articles so its doubtful that things about that would not come up on the talk page. Again you are paraphrasing very poorly your interpretation of anything I wrote for effect here. Also you did not respond to what I said. You said that the editor that called me 'Earl Zionist Agenda King Jr.' in his edit summary [18] was not guilty of anything because I may have provoked him. That is ridiculous. Saying a racial/ethnic slur here is justified? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the article has been placed in a 'Conspiracy Theory' category is of no relevance whatsoever - you are promoting your own conspiracy theory on the talk page. As for your suggestion that I stated that Nagualdesign "was not guilty of anything", that is an outright lie, as everyone can plainly see. Frankly, I am beginning to have serious doubts as to your present competence to be editing Wikipedia at all - your posts are becoming increasingly irrational. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? You said above that I provoked the other editor into it. One of your posts above says: User:Nagualdesign should be using edit summaries for personal attacks as seen here, [19] but it seems to me that it is Earl that is provoking this, with his repeated talk-page posturing and refusal to take disagreements regarding article content as anything but evidence for some sort of improper pro-TZM agenda. Maintaining reasonable policy-compliant coverage of this topic requires patience, and a commitment to ensuring that policy is complied with - and not just the policies that prevent TZM members turning the article into a puff-piece as many would clearly like. End quote Andy from a couple of paragraphs up, it shows that user calling me Earl King "zionist agenda" Jr. The editor that called me a zionist agenda I never had noticed before, but warned him on his talk page. Andy's comment here was that I provoked it. That is clear. I think this is way off base. Also listening to Andy going into paroxysms of rage over his conceptions is getting old. I find him contentious most of the time like this example. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. I said your behaviour was provocative - it was. I didn't say that Nagualdesign wasn't guilty of anything. He clearly shouldn't have made the comment he did. You always had the option of reporting his comment - instead you responded in kind, further inflaming the situation. [20] As for "paroxysms of rage", it is you that is exhibiting irrational behaviour clearly driven by emotions, not me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    There is a discussion in progress about how best to arrange the pages about the Zeitgeist movie and their related "movement." These pages have been difficult for some time, as single-purpose accounts and promoters of the movement and its conspiracy theories have tried to use the page as a promotional platform to present their views, repetitively and at length across multiple articles. It's hard for me to see that Earl King Jr. is the problem. Tom Harrison Talk 00:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Tom, this complaint is not about how Earl deals with IP's coming to the page. It's about his battleground behavior and blatant disregard for WP:BRD when interacting with established Wikipedia editors. It's unacceptable. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't really characterize the situation as I see it. The idea that Earl is the problem isn't supported by the links presented, or by the discussion just above for that matter. Tom Harrison Talk 12:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ? We must be looking at different links. The ones I provided above clearly show edit warring over multiple articles and disregard for WP:BRD. Equally important is that this battleground behavior is not new. On top of that it appears this complaint may be past its due date even with this mess of evidence over 3 different articles [21][22][23]. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You may be laying it on a little too thick S.D.S. considering you were blocked for editing warring and tendentious editing previously on these articles [24] I warned you as did some others on your talk page at the time prior to your being blocked. I hope your current report is not revenge related. I know that is in the past but your current over the top 'complete with capital letters type of 'yelling' is getting old. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    I've added the other article pagelinks to the top of this section. Sorry if this is inappropriate, but since my own interactions with Earl have been mostly limited to Talk:Zeitgeist: The Movie I thought it worth linking. More importantly, if Earl needs a holiday then it should be from all 4 pages. nagualdesign 01:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You never did apologize or refute making a racial/ethnic slur to me on the article edit summary nagualdesign. Just what is my 'Zionist Agenda' to your mind? You are an example of negative participation on the article by people with an agenda. That comment deserved censure. You used it in two edit summaries and instead of reporting you I warned you on your talk page [25]] which you mocked. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I certainly did refute making a racial/ethnic slur [26] as I resent the accusation. I didn't apologize because I don't feel it necessary, as I didn't use any pejorative terms. And although Zionist is arguably the wrong adjective to describe your apparent agenda, I do believe you are staunchly.. how shall I put it.. anti-Zeitgeist? anti-anti-Semitic? pro-Jewish? These are descriptive terms, not rude words! Of course you are more than entitled to your own world view, but in my original edit summary (the one that offended you so very deeply) I was simply trying to point out that such conflicts of interest are contrary to WP guidelines, hence the link to WP:Agenda account. Of course you already know all this, but thank you for the opportunity to clarify things for the casual observer. If you'd like to take that further then take it to ANI. This section is about you, not me. nagualdesign 16:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is about the big picture and anyone that comes here is under scrutiny. Your statement above What I am against is the constant erosion of these articles by Earl King Jr. and co. who seem intent on undermining the perceived "anti-Semitic" message of these films by souring the articles. The fact that you refer to me as Earl Zionist agenda' King Jr.' is pretty damning and that you did that just recently in the history of the article. When you say, I do believe you are staunchly.. how shall I put it.. anti-Zeitgeist? anti-anti-Semitic? pro-Jewish? These are descriptive terms, not rude words end quote. Not sure what those statements you are making mean except that your interpretation seems disconnected to anything I have done. How is it that you think I am pro Jewish, or that you think I edit across these articles that way. What does anti-anti Semitic mean and what group are you referring to by 'Semitic' Arabs or Jews? Anyway your attitude does not make a lot of sense to me. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm.. Perhaps you should write and ask Michelle Goldberg what Semitic means. Isn't she the reliable source who says that Zeitgeist: The Movie is "covertly anti-Semitic"? Surely you must remember, Earl, you made great efforts to have it included in the article lead. And that's why these films don't 'deserve' to have articles on Wikipedia, right? ..Anyway, let's not stray off topic. Like I said, take it to ANI if you wish. *yawn* nagualdesign 00:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how you equate me with having a 'Zionist agenda'. I don't think what you are saying makes a lot of sense from any perspective. I still do not have much of a clue about your ideas except it sounds like conspiracy thinking as you referred previously to myself and others as maintaining a stance. You are complaining about Michelle Goldberg a journalist from a notable newspaper that has been cited on some article information, and you have no problem saying that I am a Zionist agenda editor. That journalist was discussed at length on the talk page and checked out and passed notability tests elsewhere. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm complaining about Michelle Goldberg now, am I? That's news to me. If any uninvolved administrators wish to ask me sensible questions relevant to this complaint about Earl I'd be happy to help. As for silly questions (red herrings, really) like asking whether Semitic refers to Arabs or Jews, or implying that I said something then expecting me to defend myself, I have no interest in that. I won't be responding directly to any more of Earl's bullshit. nagualdesign 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Less than a year ago SomeDifferentStuff was found in violation of editing guidelines on the article in question [27] It was shown that he violated the 3 revert guideline. I have not violated the three revert guideline to my knowledge and opened a thread to discuss putting the movies into the Zeitgeist Movement article. I do not think I have gamed the system either When S.d.s. was blocked he was given this message by an Admin. You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. For what ever reason these Zeitgeist related things cause great consternation among the followers or sympathizers and others. I have tried to be a neutral editor on related articles. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Earl, using a distraction tactic can be useful but I would encourage you otherwise. I was previously blocked because I exercised poor editing behavior, which I take full responsibility for. -- Even with the evidence against you, it is unlikely that it will result in a block this time, but I encourage you not to take that as a green light to continue your disruptive battleground behavior. This noticeboard complaint will soon be part of the historical record, accessible for future use if need be. -- I will not post here further. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Earl continues on his warpath. [28] I don't think he's taking this complaint very seriously, and thinks he can abide by the letter of the law but flaunt the spirit of the law, so to speak, and he'll get away with it. He thinks he knows just how far he can push. The problem is he's always pushing. Do you see? Can we wrap this up please? nagualdesign 04:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So you think I am like an Indian on the warpath, because I supported another persons edit. You also think I have a Zionist agenda. You think I am 'pushy' and keep on pushing, and you have told me on the talk page of 'Zeitgeist movement' to stop editing and move along. Anything else you want to get off your chest? I fail to see that you are making any serious conversation about anything here. A couple of paragraphs up you said I won't be responding directly to any more of Earl's bullshit., but you just keep coming back here insulting and baiting. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    More of the same

    This user is continuing to edit war. Here is a fresh revert from today[29] without consensus and with zero discussion on the article's talk page.[30] - He still hasn't grasped the concept that edit warring is not justifiable under any circumstances. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought you said a couple paragraphs above that you were through posting here. So far its established that you were definitely blocked previously from editing the article for edit warring and disrupting Wikipedia and violating three revert and that was not that long ago [31] and I was one of the people that warned you at the time on your talk page. Also I did not edit war. I made one edit a day ago. I affirmed someone elses edit, Bobrayner's an experienced Wikipedia editor with a good reputation if I can say so. Also there is a discussion on the talk pages now of those articles. Even if you underline your message and embolden it, if it is not true, it does not really matter, no matter how you 'market' that idea. Earl King Jr. (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is "a discussion on the talk pages now of those articles" (or more accurately, a note pointing out that there is a discussion taking place elsewhere) because another contributor added it. You restored the undiscussed redirect before any such notification of the discussion had taken place. Why? What is the urgency here? Why are you so keen to redirect the articles, and so keen to avoid participation in discussions from people who have been involved in their creation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not. Those articles originated generally by groups of Zeitgeist supporters and were not neutral nor was the Zeitgeist Movement page for a long time. Mostly they are all marginally o.k. now, because they have been reedited by neutral editors and changed from advert copy paste things, but the question is if they are overkill and not needed except maybe the first movie one, Zeitgeist the Movie. That is the flow of current discussion. Manipulating language to sound harsh is not really advisable. You have done about zero in a positive sense Andy. You contribute zero to the articles just hit the undo button now and then and make your scathing comments. You could have added discussions at those talk pages at any time, instead you have harped over and over that someone should. Your summary here is also wrong. The redirects have been discussed now in edit summaries on the article pages and on the Zeitgeist movement page and now on the pages of the articles. It does not matter who created the articles either because here we are all volunteer grunt workers. Editing on Wikipedia is an existential exercise and the articles have no intrinsic value unless they pass muster in the here and now, which according to the marginal consensus on the Zeitgeist movement page, they do not. I supported Bobrayner's edit after the fact, because he supported the redirect and that right now is the consensus more or less on the talk page by neutral editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So basically you are saying that you alone get to decide who is a 'neutral' contributor, deserving of notification regarding this issue - in spite of the ample evidence already provided that you have let your own anti-TZM feelings, and insistence that you 'own' the article influence your editing behaviour. Well tough - Wikipedia doesn't work like that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You can flame and bait from now till the cows come home. Assuming I hate Zeitgeist is wrong. You assume too much. As said you are contentious on this and tendentiously attack for what ever reason. You have not done anything to back your theories of how the article should or could be, just accused others and read people the riot act. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My 'theory' is that articles should comply with policy, rather than with the half-baked conspiracy theories of contributors who fill article talk pages with bollocks about "brainwashing", "neuro linguistic programming" and "meme control". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably if you followed your theory your block log would look different. It is a conspiracy category article.[32] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it is an article about a political movement that some have accused of promoting conspiracy theories. Not that the article topic is relevant anyway, when discussing your abusing the talk page as a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is getting tiresome. Yesterday AndyTheGrump posted a reminder that any proposal to redirect the articles should be noted on the talk pages of the articles concerned, with a link to the discussion, to which Earl responded with more bullshit. [33] Of course Andy was correct, and it was up to Earl to sort it out really, but he didn't appreciate the advice. I tried to help him by adding a note to each of the talk pages, to which he has responded with yet more bullshit. [34] [35] [36] Laughably, he has yet to provide a clear rationale as to why these pages should be redirects. He says what he'd like to do, and a few others simply agree (ignoring all guidelines), but hasn't said why, even after all of this brouhaha. And he calls that "the flow of current discussion"! nagualdesign 20:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a bad place to call Wikipedia editors contributions bullshit. This is not a free for all for name calling. You could get blocked for doing that and you have used that word recklessly in other places, not just the immediate above. Uncivil, baiting nagualdesign. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not when you post bullshit conspiracy theories on article talk pages, it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I warn you also that you are in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is never o.k. to make personal attacks Andy. Looking at your block history you have not understood that. Never means never. Not here and not on article pages. Earl King Jr. (talk)
    Describing your bullshit conspiracy theories as bullshit conspiracy theories is not a personal attack. Still, if you want more attention drawn to your bullshit conspiracy theories, feel free to report me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your block history says it all Andy [37] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit cited by Somedifferentstuff to open this thread is the first on that article in 9 days by Earl King Jr. Just pointing out what should be obvious.--MONGO 01:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing comments

    Stale. This was a valid report at the time, and I'm not really sure why nobody took action while the issue was fresh. That being said, the edit warring has ceased, at least for now, so no action is necessary at this time, and I am closing this thread with the following admonishments:

    • @Earl King Jr.: You were edit warring on each of the three articles linked at the top of this report. There's no doubt about that, and your reasons don't matter. Edit warring is unacceptable regardless of who's right or wrong, whether or not you think one or more editors have an agenda, or regardless of any other excuse you might come up with. If your tendentious editing continues, I would not be surprised to see someone file a report at ANI next time and ask for a topic ban.
    • @Somedifferentstuff: Please remember that BRD isn't a policy, it's a suggestion for one way to deal with editing conflicts. Editors are not required to follow BRD, so I advise against using someone's "disregard for BRD" as an argument in a discussion. Editors are required to avoid edit warring, however, so the intent of your report was correct.
    • @Nagualdesign and AndyTheGrump: In the spirit of civility, please try to avoid describing other user's contributions or comments as "bullshit". It is by nature an inflammatory term, and is never useful for actually calming a dispute. I'm not trying to say everything has to be sunshine and rainbows all the time, but before you hit "save page", please try considering how you'd react if someone described your contributions the way you're describing others'.

    I suggest, if this dispute continues, that it be taken to ANI for discussion of topic bans, or to other forms of dispute resolution, or request page protection instead of edit warring. —Darkwind (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Beyondname reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Stale)

    Page:

    User being reported: Beyondname (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. [diff]
    1. diff
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]
    1. diff
    2. [diff]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: notification

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

    Comments:

    User:Ikonmc reported by User:Gparyani (Result: No violation)

    Page
    Nickki praize (Musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Ikonmc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Nickki praize (musician). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User keeps recreating the same page after it has been deleted several times (see talk page) Gparyani (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Although the article recreation seems to have stopped, this account has 28 edits, all of which have been deleted, and presumably concern the article in question. A quick glance shows three deletes under this title and one here. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the reason why he stopped is because I gave him lots of warnings (4im and then 4) Gparyani (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Qwaider reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Protected)

    Page: List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Qwaider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [41]
    4. [42]
    5. [43]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]

    Comments:
    As you can see, Qwaider was invited on two occasions to join any of the seven talk page discussions about this material but declined ("This isn't worthy of discussion"!), racking up five reverts in as many hours. This material has been repeatedly attacked by a long stream of apparent sockpuppets/meatpuppets; it was deleted three times by Older Sam, and challenged on the talk page by Eng.eslam87, Amal_Mosad, IP 86.97.0.130, IP 176.225.18.2, User:بلال الدويك, IP 76.185.173.125, and IP 94.129.52.24. All are brand-new accounts whose first and only edits are about this highly controversial topic, except for Qwaider and بلال الدويك, who are very possibly alternative accounts operated by the same person (بلال الدويك boasts of living in Jordan, while Qwaider's earliest edits were to Jordan; Qwaider has returned to Wikipedia after many years for the sole purpose of edit warring on this topic).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Response:
    From Qwaider: I'm not sure how this works or if I can have a say in this issue. But I would like to make it clear that this person "The timesAreAChanging" have reverted the changes often times without providing cause. He insists on including anecdotal inflammatory unsubstantiated content. He has continuously refused requests to breakdown and cleanup the events in the table. He relied on one source that was disputed over and over including other pages on wikipedia. He also rejected changes from many other editors, without providing any reasonable cause.
    On the other hand he accuses people of being alternative accounts with no proof, and bullies/threatens of blocking in the case he doesn't have his way.
    This is the absolute opposite of the open communications that we need to have. He has not even once presented any alternative choice and have continually badgered other editors no matter he is told. From all my comments on the change he took "This is not worth discussing", which relate to the unsubstantiated anecdotal. I humbly request to have this page be reverted to the right content, and a protection be imposed. Any additional information requires verification of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwaider (talk • contribs) 19:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I find this diff to be downright fascinating. It says that in a week with 48 edits, the only change that's managed to stick was adding a "vandalism" template by an admin. (Apparently nobody can agree to anything else.) In any case, regardless of who's right or wrong, it's blindingly obvious that:
    1. Nothing is getting done to improve Wikipedia,
    2. editors are spending a lot of energy on this nothing, and
    3. the current approach of reverting and re-reverting just isn't working.
    I'm encouraged by the fact that there are no less than six sections on the talk page dealing with this (a seventh, indirectly, as it is an edit warring notice), so I really want to tell everybody to calm down, maybe take a break, get some tea, and try to talk it out. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a fair characterization of what's happening. This article is under a sustained, specifically focused, attack from an outside source which has galvanized people to come here and remove reliably source information they find what has been generally described as "offensive to Islam". The deletions are accompanied by a angry entries on the talk page a a few additions to the help desk The source seems to be an Arab language blog or other website as nearly all the single purpose accounts originate in Arab-speaking countries, with a college (Texas A&M) town in Texas and Malaysia being the exception. The Texas IP seems to belong to someone who utilizes English as a second language. Almost all of the edits you've mentioned has been reversions of these attacks by long established editors. This is not an edit war or a generally contentious article, it's outside canvassing of single purpose meatpuppet accounts to vandalize and censor an article. These established editors need help, not patronizing links to wiki essays. GraniteSand (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that we're dealing with established editors or sockpuppets? It sounds like you need to assume good faith. Saying that it is being reverted because it is "offensive to Islam" when I cannot find this language anywhere is tantamount to accusing the editor of being a radical. On the other hand, you say "established editors need help" — sounds like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
    In any case, the purpose of this board is to call attention to active edit wars, and to deal with them appropriately. Banning or blocking a user should always be a last resort, as it is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. Has a block been earned here? Definitely. Will it be given? I don't know. If the user in question decides to quit the edit-warring behavior and contribute on the talk page, then there's a good chance the answer is no. The appropriate way to deal with it depends greatly on the situation. If an editor can be brought around, then why not try it?
    Also worth noting is that the version that GraniteSand is looking for is in fact the version that currently exists on the page. I'd say that a revert against consensus will probably be the litmus test as to whether a block is given or not. Jsharpminor (talk) 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    From Qwaider: Good advice. Getting my Jasmine green tea, and Organic Honey, and will update the talk pages when I have details. Qwaider — Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We also need a automatic temporary 3RR block for Qwaider as evidenced by the diffs provided by TimesAreAChanging. GraniteSand (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We need block for TimesAreAChanging for cyber bullying and threatening others. He also have reverted the same article many many times and we have reasons to believe that he will continue to do this. He is probably friends with GraniteSand and insists on spreading wrong and misleading information GraniteSand (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwaider (talk • contribs) 23:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You're liable for a block for violating the WP:3RR rule. It would behoove you to read the rule. Several experienced editors have reached out to you to engage and help explain things to you. You've declined up to this point and now you're put yourself in a position where you've qualified for temporary block. GraniteSand (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clear that TimesAreAChanging and GraniteSand are a tag team performing the same type of changes to the same page so they can get around the WP:3RR rule, they are engaged in edit war. There have been more than 10 people requesting this change which means the insisting 2 editors are forcing everyone into their form of consensus. They are forcing an unsubstantiated source onto everyone. This has been rejected by about 10 editors already and yet they keep this game.
    I would like this addition to be removed and the page be protected. The content they provide is inaccurate, highly controversial, and unsubstantiated by any scientific source. It promotes hatred and intolerance by promoting lies and anecdotes.
    On several occasions, they reverted the content more than 3 times, either without providing cause, or after threatening with banning users "Further edit warring will likely result in ANI intervention and sanctions." I'm not sure who appointed these people Wikipedia police? If I find their content being misrepresented I have the right to point that out. And I did.
    My criticism is more than one issue, first, this information is far from accurate, second it spans 5 centuries and not a single event or a single war. Finally some of the events rolled into this entry are already mentioned in the same table.
    Admins, please do not allow such practices to ruin this great platform. I have asked only to have the numbers CLEARED and BROKEN DOWN to the actual events that happened. Not lump everything under 5 centuries of events between many nations! In all events a specific event is mentioned, unlike this case.
    Dear admins, this is a campaign by islamophobes and they're trying to tarnish the name of Muslims by blaming them for these casualties instead of blaming specific incidents that caused that problem. Not even a single sect of Islam is being blamed, but all of the Muslims and this is unfair and flat out racism.
    Kind Regards
    Qwaider (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a democracy — majority rule doesn't count for anything here. What should be moving us is the quality of argument.
    In reading through this entire piece of prose, I see only one argument here: that a five-century-long campaign ought to be broken out into its constituent parts, as there was not a single campaign running steadily through all those five centuries. It is an incontrovertible fact that this is by far the longest event listed on this page (the runner-up, at 196 years, is the Crusades).
    You should focus your efforts on proving one of two points:
    1. The Muslim conquest of the Indian subcontinent is a bad article title, is too long of a conflict, and should not be included in the list of deadliest human disasters.
    2. The number is inaccurate, and an alternative number is ???????. Alternately, you could argue that the number is inaccurate, and cite sources that take issue with the 80 million number.
    If one of those can be argued successfully, you might succeed in building the consensus you seek.
    Going on about "campaigns by Islamophobes," "ruining this great platform," "more than 10 people requesting this change," and the like will not help your case. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Qwaider's summary of events strikes me as rather surreal; I have seldom seen so self-righteous an edit warrior! I was one of three editors who reverted him, but I did not add the material in question, and my so-called "cyber-bullying" consists entirely of the following warning: "Please adhere to WP:BRD. Further edit warring will likely result in ANI intervention and sanctions." (I clearly wasn't blowing smoke, and it's impossible to argue that there has been no 3RR violation.) I have never interacted with GraniteSand before in my life, and Qwaider is one to talk considering the numerous brand-new accounts repeating his arguments. In fact, it's rather difficult for me to believe that all of these single-purpose accounts with Middle Eastern origins who openly seek to combat "Islamophobia" are acting in good faith.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard for me to believe too, but I'm trying not to take sides here. I am certainly not arguing that there has been no violation. I provided Qwaider with steps to advance his cause within the bounds of the wiki. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jsharpminor for not taking any sides here. I would like to touch on the fact that the numbers have been inflated and cited from an unreliable source. The problem is clear that we don't have any level of accuracy with absolutely no statistics, the cited work commits a grave extrapolation statistical mistakes and I am in the process of obtaining it and writing a full thesis on it. In the mean time. As mentioned earlier:
    # This is really a long period of human history, with no records and
    # there are 2 items in the same table that are part of this 500 year history. These items are: Item 3, Mongol Conquests 1206-1368 and item "Conquests of Timur-e-Lang".
    What I am seeing is extremely zealot editors engaging in edit war, that I unknowingly, and unwillingly engaged in trying to state the facts that we don't have any reliable source for this information. It's not serving the truth or knowledge.
    This is not a single purpose account, I use wikipedia all the time, I just don't edit that much. I do have a day job and don't have too much time to edit as much as I like. And I detest this continuous line of accusations. This has been mentioned several times. One time I am someone else, another time I was called what "edit sock??" or something like that? I don't know what you people feel but this isn't something that I enjoy being called.
    I'm perplexed to compare last centuries statistics compare to 10th century statistics and come with only 20 million error margin, while we can't do the same for WWII which has values ranging 45 million. The audacity of such a claim is beyond anything preposterous I've ever seen!
    And how come suddenly GraniteSand came here to "demand" a block for another user? Isn't this a clear case of collaboration? Anyway, I don't want to accuse anyone of anything I can't prove. All I know is that I am reading some inaccurate information on this page and I would like it to be corrected scientifically with real tangible facts, not anecdotes.
    Once again, thank you J#minor for being neutral on this. Qwaider (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Page protected for 3 days. I bumped up the protection to "full protection" because this is a clear content dispute involving (auto)confirmed editors. The entire first page of history represents exactly 0 bytes of productive editing - in 53 revisions by 26 users, no net change was made to the article except tagging with a protection template. With an article history like that, I am not going to declare that any one particular person is at fault -- but I admonish everyone to remember the edit warring policy as well as the three-revert rule to avoid further disruption. Please seek dispute resolution if the talk page discussions are not fruitful. —Darkwind (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.228.216.17 reported by User:Kentronhayastan (Result: Protected)

    Page: Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 198.228.216.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

    Comments:
    User has been edit warring using several different IPs:

    • 198.228.216.17
    • 198.228.216.24
    • 198.228.216.35
    • 198.228.216.45
    • 198.228.216.28

    User made changes information to inaccurate information. The original information had remained unchanged since 2011. User refuses to use the Talk page before making changes. I have submitted a request to protect the article temporarily [60].

    Comment - Kentronhayastan, it looks like you've done your share of reverts as well.... Jsharpminor (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't remember breaking the 3RR rule, but I guess there was one too many reverts there. However, I did constantly invite the user to the Talk page and I did stop reverting. Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Since those reverts aren't all within 24 hours, you technically didn't violate 3RR. In any case, the object here is to bring both parties to the talk page to start the discussion. I don't know yet what's going on; I'll look at it. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to bring him/her to the talk page; no result (s/he kept reverting). The worst part is that the page is now protected and can only be edited by administrators (even though I put the request for semi-protection), and the last edit that was kept was his/hers.Kentronhayastan (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkwind Actually I was reverting an edit made by the IP [61] and the following edit [62], which I would have reverted immediately when it happened had I been watching the article, because the information is not consistent with the rest of the article. The information the IP changed was discussed and accepted since 2011. The article is about the Kingdom of Armenia, so including the dates of its predecessor (Satrapy of Armenia) and a capital two predecessors (Urartu) ago is illogical (like I said earlier, it's like including the dates of the Roman Republic in the Romen Empire article). I did not break the 3RR, but the IP did, and I continuously invited the IP to discuss it on the Talk page with no success, yet the IP's misleading information is remaining in place. (I invite you to read the sources I have stated, including from Encyclopaedia Britannica and Iranica in the talk page of the article). Thank you. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Neuroresearch reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Autism Research Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Neuroresearch (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 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) to 06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to"
      2. 05:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
      3. 05:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
      4. 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Moved Quackwatch reference to treatment section, requested citation for attribution of "beliefs org subscribes" to and updated with current information regarding INSAR & conferences"
      5. 06:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ Updated reference to ARI supporting ABA"
      6. 06:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ This is a research funding organization, not a medical organization - updated "medical citations" required throughout"
      7. 06:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ removed extra "arrow" in text"
      8. 06:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "→ fixed Quackwatch reference - was a broken link"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 07:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Autism Research Institute. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Concerns about criticisms */ r"
    2. 08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Gross violations of WP:MEDRS, lack of WP:RS */ new section"
    Comments:

    Note misleading edit summaries. Note changes to references gave them titles that were not accurate. This editor filed a notice at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and proceeded to revert multiple instances of multiple editors work without waiting for resolution or any consensus building. For a detailed explanation of the problems with the article justifying the tags see the talk page. There has been ongoing discussion, this editor made one comment and then proceeded to make multiple reverts. MrBill3 (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    MrBill3 initiated the reverts earlier in the day without explanation and reverted to content that was out-of-date and inaccurate. For example: the organization ended its conference two years ago - which was noted earlier in the Talk - but MrBill3 edited this back in. The organization also sponsored research with INSAR at one time, but it was noted that content was out-of-date as well - but MrBill3 reverted that back in too. He arbitrarily reverted back to a version of the page with outdated references that were discussed in the talk without explanation and will not accept changes from others. Neuroresearch (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears this article needs to be recast to frame the information around the organization's role as a non-profit that is funding autism research and omit out-of-date information. I am working on a draft based on the original that cites third-party sources. Neuroresearch (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I do apologize if MrBill3 felt the summaries were misleading - that wasn't the intention. It didn't make sense that edits that had been addressed previously in the Talk were being disregarded when he reverted.Neuroresearch (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Uishaki reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Not blocked)

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

    Previous version reverted to: [63]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [64]
    2. [65]

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

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

    Comments:

    Articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict broadly construed are subject to a one-revert restriction. See WP:ARBPIA#Further restrictions. Uishaki was alerted to the sanctions.[67] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not blocked - the last revert was well over 24 hours ago, and there is no longer a plausible threat of disruption. However, additional (separate) sanctions may be necessary pursuant to ARBPIA, and I will handle that directly on the editor's talk page. —Darkwind (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:213.3.21.204 reported by User:Mostlyoksorta (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Asmallworld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    213.3.21.204 (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 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) to 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 18:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "false information based on boulevard press, irrelevant for the company"
      2. 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 17:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "Too much information which is irrelevant for the company and concern the chairman personally"
    3. 17:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 17:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    5. 17:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    6. 17:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    7. 17:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    8. Consecutive edits made from 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) to 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 23:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
      3. 00:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Asmallworld. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Many other editors also gave warnings. Tried to resolve on user talk page Mostlyoksorta (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked by Ymblanter (t c). —Darkwind (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Moxy reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: Malformed report)

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


    Editor:Moxy is edit warring on three separate edit pages simultaneously (Putin, Russia, Ukraine), and has published a personal attack against this editor referring to me as child and inferring that he/she is the only "adult" editor on my Talk page. The edit warring by Moxy is further wallpapering false statements about "cut-and-paste", which has nothing to do with my edits which contain a fully researched quotation presented with full citation and URL given from mainstream news sources such as the NYTimes and The Wall Street Journal. Wikipolicy on "Valid usage" and "Fair usage" is explicit on this matter. These are the diffs for the edit warring on "Vladimir Putin":

    (cur | prev) 20:58, 7 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (194,063 bytes) (-1,432)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job - Always write the articles in your own words and cite the sources of the article. - this is not hard to understand) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 20:52, 7 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (195,495 bytes) (+1,432)‎ . . (→‎Intervention in Crimean Peninsula: Add recent report in NYTimes of Putin attempt at de-escalation after Crimea military build-up. Add cite and url.) (undo)


    These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on "Ukraine" page:

    (cur | prev) 20:44, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (247,691 bytes) (-625)‎ . . (WP:NOTHERE - editor has been told to join the conversations - but yet still edits this copy and paste job !!) (undo | thank) [automatically accepted]

    (cur | prev) 20:27, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (248,316 bytes) (+625)‎ . . (→‎Russian intervention in Ukraine: Adding update and cite of status of 2014 International Geneva Pact. The International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the direction and progress of events in the region.) (undo) [automatically accepted]


    These are the diffs for edit warring by User:Moxy on "Russia" page:

    (cur | prev) 20:47, 1 May 2014‎ Moxy (talk | contribs)‎ . . (201,538 bytes) (-1,523)‎ . . (revert copy and paste job again.. Did you even read your tlak page messages?) (undo | thank)

    (cur | prev) 20:35, 1 May 2014‎ FelixRosch (talk | contribs)‎ . . (203,061 bytes) (+1,523)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea and 2014 Geneva Pact: Agreement with PhilKn on condensed version, and the International Geneva Pact is the only Notable and neutral reference point for gauging the progress of events in the region. Add cite.) (undo)


    The edit warring by User:Moxy must be halted and the personal attacks must be retracted. FelixRosch (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Posted directly on Talk page for User:Moxy on my account name.

    Comments:

    Attempt to request that User:Moxy stop edit warring and retract personal attack has been ignored. User:Moxy has now resorted to starting a whispering campaign on various Talk pages to foment further edit warring behavior against this editor (e.g., User:Irina and User:Malick, after being requested to stop edit warring on 3 wikipages simultaneously.) FelixRosch (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Moxy's view

    So lets look at the real story here - as in this editor has not replied to one of my posts. FelixRosch has been adding editorial quotes (copy and paste) of news article on multiple pages and has been reverted by multiple editors. He has been asked to engage in the talk page conversation to no real avail - until today after implementing the text again . There are concerns raised about the edits that is begin ignored like WP:BROADCONCEPT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BALASPS and WP:QUOTEFARM. As I have said to Malik Shabazz " I do blame myself for this - as my approach to him was heavy handed of the bat - a personal thing I have with copy and pasting that gets me upset. All we need is Felix to talk this out with the others over editing .....even if they revert him today again - how can we make this clear? I wont be reverting any more but I am afraid the others will and thus we will just be going in a edit war circle again. I have joined the conversation he started here and was wondering if a RfC would be a good idea - as we need some outsiders looking at all this."

    • Russia:-FelixRosch edits that have been reverted by 5 editors two times by me (Moxy).
    • Putin:-FelixRosch edits - that have been reverted by 2 editors two times by me and saw the removal of QUOTEFARM tag with an summary saying "Repair Quotefarm problem..." - however nothing was fixed in that regard.
    • Ukraine:-FelixRosch edits that have been reverted by 3 editors 1 time by me (Moxy).

    Example addition below -

    On 7 May 2014, The New York Times reported: "Putin Announces Pullback from Ukraine Border" after discussions with Switzerland's Dieter Burkhalter in an attempt to de-escalate mounting tensions of Russian troop massing on the border of southeast Ukraine during and following the Crimean intervention.[120] Putin stated, "We were told constantly about concerns over our troops near the Ukrainian border... We have pulled them back. Today they are not at the Ukrainian border but in places of regular exercises, at training grounds." Putin added that in regard to pro-Russian forces acting within Ukrainian borders and in an appeal "to representatives of southeast Ukraine and supporters of federalization to hold off the referendum scheduled for May 11, in order to give this dialogue the conditions it needs to have a chance."[121] In a reference to the scheduled 25 May 2014 presidential elections in Ukraine, Putin added: "Let me stress that the presidential election the Kiev authorities plan to hold is a step in the right direction, but it will not solve anything unless all of Ukraine's people first understand how their rights will be guaranteed once the election has taken place."

    -- Moxy (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. When providing diffs, you actually need to right click the "diff" or "prev" link and copy the URL. Don't just highlight and copy the entire line from history, because there's nothing leading to the actual edit when you do that. —Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CharlieBrown25 reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Dinosaur Train (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    CharlieBrown25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [68]
    2. [69]
    3. [70]
    4. [71]
    5. [72]
    6. [73]
    7. [74]
    8. [75]
    9. [76]
    10. [77]
    11. [78]
    12. [79]
    13. [80]
    14. [81]
    15. [82]
    16. 04:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Mz7 suggested using milder wording. Thanks Mz7, I think you may have come up with the solution :-) !"
    17. 04:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Oh gosh, come on, what's wrong with THIS now?"
    18. 04:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Look, this version says it isn't definate, but possible. Can you please explain what's wrong with that?"
    19. 05:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Look, please don't block me, I've waited for a talk page response, and no one's saying anything. And this isn't the same thing I've said before."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. [83]
    2. 04:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */ c"


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 04:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot */ c"
    2. 05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Shiny\Gilbert Romance Plot */ c"

    See also Talk:Dinosaur_Train#Shiny.5CGilbert_Romance_Plot, User_talk:FilmandTVFan28#Peaceful_Request

    Comments:

    Stale. This report was valid at the time, and 3RR was definitely broken, but the last revert was over 24 hours ago and the page is now protected. There's no current threat of further disruption, so no block has been issued. —Darkwind (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.23.71.99 reported by User:2Flows (Result: Already blocked)

    Page
    Florida Atlantic University High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    198.23.71.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608128133 by AbigailAbernathy (talk)"
    2. 22:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608126638 by AbigailAbernathy (talk)"
    3. 21:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608124617 by 2Flows (talk)"
    4. 21:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608124141 by 2Flows (talk)"
    5. 21:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608123120 by 2Flows (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Florida Atlantic University High School. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Just got the following post on my talk page, which indicates the user intends to engage in an edit war through VPN IP addresses to get his vandalism in the article: User_talk:2Flows#yeah so.... 2Flows (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, 2Flows. Sorry to butt in, but I've requested that the High School's page be protected because of his vandalism (just in case the threat was real).--A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 22:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks AbigailAbernathy, I see the page is now protected, so hopefully the IP editor will stop with their disruptive editing. 2Flows (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked for vandalism. —Darkwind (talk) 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:198.228.211.37 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: 31 hours)

    Page
    Sukhoi PAK FA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    198.228.211.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608162779 by SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk)"
    2. 03:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608165463 by Winkelvi (talk)"
    3. 03:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608166363 by Winkelvi (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sukhoi PAK FA. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Seems like a possible vandalism-only or agenda-only account. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Now this guy is making uncited changes too. Seems like he got too carried away with reading APA. SukhoiT50PAKFA (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours —Darkwind (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Barylomax reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Version as of 18:03, 11 May 2014

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff- Revision as of 21:37, 11 May 2014
    2. diff - Revision as of 21:39, 11 May 2014
    3. diff - Revision as of 21:42, 11 May 2014
    4. diff - Revision as of 21:44, 11 May 2014
    5. diff - Revision as of 21:48, 11 May 2014
    6. diff - Revision as of 21:57, 11 May 2014
    7. diff - Revision as of 22:01, 11 May 2014
    8. diff - Revision as of 22:11, 11 May 2014
    9. diff - Revision as of 22:13, 11 May 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

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

    Comments:
    Conflict of interest diff. Attacks diff, diff. Not sure what this is supposed to be diff but the edit summary makes COI clear. MrBill3 (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. —Darkwind (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:93.103.69.172 and User:Jazbar reported by User:Yerpo (Result: 3 days)

    Page: Party of Slovenian People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 93.103.69.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jazbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 14:08, 3 May 2014

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    As anon:
    1. 14:08, 3 May 2014
    2. 14:10, 3 May 2014
    3. 10:33, 6 May 2014
    4. 03:17, 7 May 2014
    5. 03:23, 7 May 2014
    6. 07:31, 7 May 2014
    7. 10:50, 8 May 2014
    8. 10:12, 11 May 2014
    9. 08:45, 12 May 2014
    10. 16:16, 12 May 2014
    As User:Jazbar
    1. 14:19, 3 May 2014
    2. 10:44, 4 May 2014
    3. 16:10, 6 May 2014
    4. 03:38, 7 May 2014
    5. 03:47, 7 May 2014
    6. 04:04, 7 May 2014
    7. 02:10, 8 May 2014
    8. 16:09, 8 May 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    • to Jazbar:
    1. 02:54, 8 May 2014
    2. 04:16, 7 May 2014
    3. 03:50, 7 May 2014
    • to anon:
    1. 14:13, 3 May 2014
    2. 03:20, 7 May 2014
    3. 03:25, 7 May 2014
    4. 18:36, 12 May 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

    Comments:
    Low-intensity edit-warring, not sure if there was a breach of 3RR strictly speaking, but there are more than enough reverts for the situation to be clear. I strongly suspect this is the same user, reverting alternatively as logged-in and non-logged-in (same pattern). User Jazbar responded to my attempt of resolving the dispute at Talk:Party of Slovenian People, but gave no arguments, just vague accusations of bias. Note that he has also threatened me and generally behaved uncivilly, which I reported at WP:AN/I, but my report was overlooked (see [87]). — Yerpo Eh? 16:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked - both IP and registered editor have been blocked for 3 days. Length of block is due to slow pace of edit war. —Darkwind (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:NE Ent (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Relationships */ where she lives isn't exactly vital information people need." (1 set of reverts)
    2. 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 608221102 by Rusted AutoParts: The problem here is, though the source says she "lives" there, Johansson has said in numerous interviews she "spends time there". . (TW)"
    3. 18:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Not really needed in the infobox." (2nd different set of reverts)
    4. 20:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "It's a useful parameter for politicians and such. For an actor, its not immediately important to know where they live. As long as its in the article body, an infobox addition isn't necessary. If you feel different, please take to the talk page"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    00:34, 3 April 2012 (See also block log

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Why are people so swift to interpret this as an edit war? It's baffling, as both are two sets of different edits not in combative form. First two were removing the info from the article completely. Other two are from the infobox. Why I'm being reported is understandable, I have a history, but in this context, in no way am I engaging in a war. They are two separate edits of different contexts, failing WP:3RR. I personally feel this is a jab considering we were on different ends on the spectrum on a previous debate. I must make clear that in no way I went in here with a malicious intent, and ask that this be dies acknowledged so a discussion at the relevant talk page can unfold. Rusted AutoParts 21:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably because the language of WP:3RR specifically says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." That said, I have no inclination to block anyone if there aren't going to be any more reverts. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres a discussion going on as we speak. No one has reverted since the discussion began, and can assure no more will occur. Rusted AutoParts 21:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: A diff of edit warring is supposed to indicate that you've warned the editor in question recently about this edit war. A warning from two years ago seems a little out of place here. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I think at this stage, it is safe to assume RAP is aware of WP:3RR. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rusted AutoParts: I just noticed that your previous 6 month edit warring block was undone in February when you agreed to a 1RR restriction; which you've violated twice now on this article alone. Something you didn't mention when you tried to parse the meaning of a 3RR restriction. Did you forget about that promise? What possible reason can there be for not re-imposing the 6 month edit warring block? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't forget. I've prided myself with avoiding any edit war, seemingly up until now. Those incidents were because I got hotheaded. Here, it was a blunder on my part as I forgot to go to the talk page. But I swear, I am engaging in that discussion and this is just an isolated incident. I'm not the world's most perfect person, but I do my best to do what's right. Looking at the issue, I was in the wrong, I acknowledge that and apologize. I look back on my blocks and shake my head, wondering why I was so dumb. Then again, when I started on Wikipedia in 2010, I was 15. I was young, cocky, naive. It's 2014. I'm gonna be 20 soon, and maturing. I have my growing pains, but I take them as learning experiences and try and discipline myself to prevent any further incidents. I got slipped up a bit here. Rusted AutoParts 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a feeling if some of the admins involved in that February unblock discussion on your talk page saw this, they would re-impose the 6 month block. If they did, it would be nearly impossible to argue with them. However, because (a) I'm just an old softie, (b) I suppose perfection is an unreasonable expectation, (c) it's such a shame to block an otherwise good faith editor for 6 months even when they're frequently stumbling into trouble, and (d) my instinct is that you actually are trying to change, it ain't going to be me doing the blocking. Please consider limiting yourself to 0RR except for vandalism; just discuss all good faith disputes rather than revert even once. That's a really strong suggestion, not a requirement, but being scrupulous about 1RR is a requirement. You're on life number 8.99; it's only because I'm rounding down that your 9 lives aren't up. Please. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I swear if I do it again, I won't even argue for another chance. I'll just walk away. Thank you. Rusted AutoParts 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Master of ravens reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: 48 hours.)

    Page
    Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Master of ravens (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 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) to 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 23:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
      2. 23:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Interpretations of Genesis */"
    2. 23:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
    3. 22:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608128593 by Editor2020 (talk)"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 21:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "Added knew info that states the areas of the book of genesis that old earth creationists believe can be interpreted metaphoricly"
      2. 21:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
    5. 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */ For the 100000 time I am trying to make Wikipedia fair by not showing some one elses view as fact. But atheist keep changing back. please help so this site can become a better place."
    6. 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
    7. 21:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
    8. 01:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    9. 01:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Age of the Earth */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 21:33, 11 May 2014
    2. 21:29, 11 May 2014
    3. 02:05, 11 May 2014
    4. 01:43, 11 May 2014
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Ronhjones Jsharpminor (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gembres reported by User:Gyrofrog (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Amhara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Gembres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 04 May edit (but this had happened intermittently since February 2014)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:44, 12 May 2014
    2. 21:10, 12 May 2014
    3. 21:13, 12 May 2014
    4. 00:26, 13 May 2014 (This one is slightly different, but still a revert to his version. At this point, rather than running afoul of 3RR myself (I hope), instead of reverting the content I simply restored the {{Unreferenced section}} tag (00:04, 13 May 2014), which had been in place since Feb. 2013. But Gembres reverted this, as well)

    This is just in the past 24 hours; the reverts have been occurring since around the beginning of the month. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Amhara people#Notable Amhara people 02 May, 12 May although I have attempted to maintain a discussion on that page with this user since February 2014. User:Dougweller, at my request, weighed in as well (06 May).

    Comments:
    I had tagged this article back in February 2013 for reasons I've laid out at Talk:Amhara people#Notable Amhara people. Gembres believes I am singling out this article due to ethnic bias, but I have explained why I have specific issues with this article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Paeancrime reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: 31 hours)

    Page
    Edward Guiliano (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Paeancrime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608314588 by Neonorange (talk) excuse me? Kndimov agreed with me that GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet"
    2. 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608313613 by ClueBot NG (talk) again Kndimov agreed with me. GB Fan is a banned sock"
    3. 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "kndimov agreed to take back his edits, see his talk page"
    4. 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet. See Loriendrew's comment on GB Fan's talkpage"
    5. 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "reverting vandalism and editwarring by GB fan"
    6. 01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608310236 by GB fan (talk) not reliable source, NYT is a reliable source"
    7. Consecutive edits made from 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608308072 by GB fan (talk) non notable"
      2. 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "delete"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Edward Guiliano. (TW)"
    2. 02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
    3. 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    We are having dscussion at WP:ANI. Matter is settled now. No editwarring going on for a while now. This is totally unwarrented.--Paeancrime (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined. This report may or may not have substance, but a thread is already open at WP:ANI regarding the dispute between these two users over this article. Posting here strikes me as forum shopping, and I am declining this report accordingly as redundant. Let it play out at ANI. —Darkwind (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: each thread was opened by a different user, so it's not forum shopping per se, but it's still redundant. —Darkwind (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The report clearly does have substance, and nothing much seems to be happening at the ANI thread so far. I'm reopening this one, and I've blocked for 31 hours for 7RR vio; more may be added over the issues at ANI. Note that while the edit warring warning listed here came too late, after the edit warring, there was also a timely one here. I hope the bot won't have a nervous breakdown over the two templates, but I didn't like to tamper with Darkwind's post. I'll make a note on ANI. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Maeveh reported by User:Dougweller (Result:24 hours)

    Page
    Nordic race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Maeveh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 08:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    2. 18:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    4. 12:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 11:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Using multiple accounts */ new section"
    2. 17:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Nordic race. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    He's ignored messages at his talk page so didn't bother to do this. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Continued edit warring, changing images and removing maintenance templates since May 9th, at one point after being warned created a sock to do it. Dougweller (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Not sure they've found their talkpage, as the sock was created before the warnings. (Possibly by mistake, even? It's an easy typo to make.) But hopefully a block will help them find it, and it's pretty much the only thing left to try. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    User:Discographer reported by User:Lukejordan02 (Result: )

    Page: The Beatles discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:Discographer (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: The Beatles discography: Revision history

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

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

    Comments:


    • Comment@User:Lukejordan02: As much as at first glance, your entire series of edits appears positive, and that I can understand your frustration at having that work reverted, you have of course read WP:BRD, which applies regardless of whether or not you think the talkpage has gone quiet, and that forcing someone to break WP:3RR (especially via your comments in the edit-summary) is considered inappropriate, and can lead to a block in and of itself? the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you spend a few minutes reviewing Lukejordan02's edits, you will note that he makes massive content and style changes to discographies without edit summary, discussion, or collaboration. If anyone reverts him, he immediately reverts again and will engage in edit wars at the drop of a hat. Take a look at this talk page; his response to people who attempt to engage him in conversation is to simply blank the page. I would reject this report as being malformed for a start, but his behavior really needs to be addressed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Brian Josephson reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: )

    Page
    Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Remote viewing */ improving precision: the view that RV is PS is not held by _all_ as existing version implies"
    2. 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608357278 by MrBill3 (talk) where there is controversy, a respectable encyclopedia would say 'generally'"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) to 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      1. 11:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "including 'pseudoscience' is unnecessary as it is referred to in the article, and more significantly conflicts with WP:NPV"
      2. 11:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "restored 'generally', as it is untrue to say there is no controversy, as evident in many of the sources"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

    diff

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 10:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */ new section"
    2. 11:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Assert mainstream scientific consensus */"
    3. 11:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Improving the lede */ cmt"
    Comments:

    Note this editor has a COI and continues to edit the article directly rather than propose changes on talk and follow consensus. MrBill3 (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment by editor concerned: readers of the above will note that my edits involved straightforward points that should not reasonably have required discussion on the talk page (for example, RV clearly is a controversial area, contrary to what was asserted by the editor that I reverted). Also that I have received praise and encouragement for my editing by editors who obviously think I am doing the right thing. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Egyptian445 reported by User:AntanO (Result: )

    Page
    Microsoft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Egyptian445 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608395709 by AntanO (talk)"
    2. 15:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608394940 by AntanO (talk) see article talkpage"
    3. 15:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608393095 by AntanO (talk)"
    4. 15:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 608391626 by AntanO (talk) see your talkpage and rv unexplained revert"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Using talk page as forum. (TW)"
    2. 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Egyptian445 (talk) to last version by AntanO"
    3. 15:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Microsoft. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is not supportive and revert edit before issue solved, and blanking his/her talk page AntonTalk 15:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    you have reverted just as many times as i did Egyptian445 (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    and you also edit reverted my several times at my talkpage Egyptian445 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=608398875"