Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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:Kanuraj123 reported by User:Titodutta (Result: Blocked)

Page: Asaram Bapu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanuraj123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Edit_of_wikipedia_policy

Comments:
Constantly edit warring in Asaram Bapu article!

Mention User:Grayfell Tito Dutta (contact) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that the user hasn't been informed yet, and therefore I have done so. I have checked the edit page myself, and it does like a definite case of edit warring and therefore a breach of the 3RR rule. However, it is my first time actually editing on this Admin's Noticeboard, and do tell me if I am mistakened. Toodle pip, Chihin.chong (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the editor, Chihin.chong. Kanuraj123 could be sanctioned for edit warring, but not for a violation of WP:3RR, which requires more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. Here, Kanuraj has reverted 4x over a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I had not realised this! Thanks Bbb23. Toodle pip, Chihin.chong (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Added another diff! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2 more reverts! Anyone? The recent edit needs to reverted too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. The last edit was a copyright violation, which I've reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He is bypassing the block --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Galassi reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] February 24, 2009
2. [3] May 16, 2009
3. [4] October 4, 2009
4. [5] April 19, 2013
5. [6] April 21, 2013
6. [7] April 24, 2013
7. [8] April 27, 2013
8. [9] April 27, 2013
9. [10] May 5, 2013
10. [11] May 6, 2013
11. [12] May 6, 2013
12. [13] May 7, 2013
13. [14] May 10, 2013
14. [15] May 10, 2013
15. [16] May 11, 2013
16. [17] May 11, 2013
17. [18] May 11, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [19] October 23, 2009
• [20] February 5, 2011
• [21] April 30, 2013
• [22] May 6, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [23] October 4, 2009
• [24] April 19, 2013
• [25] May 6, 2013

Comments:

Galassi has engaged in a longterm drive to make respected Soviet philosopher Aleksei Losev appear to be as antisemitic as possible, based on fringe or possibly minor viewpoints. In this drive, Galassi has been opposed by many other editors and supported by none but he refuses to be governed by consensus. On October 23, 2009, Galassi addedantisemitic text about Losev in the article Stalin and antisemitism. He was reverted at that article by Miacek/Estlandia but he restored the text three more times, forcing the article into protection by Will Beback. The same controversy was brewing at Jewish Bolshevism: Galassi was inserting text about Losev being antisemitic and influential to Stalin. When Paul Siebert pointed out that Galassi's source was only a literary critic, Galassi said "Literary or not - he is a serious scholar. His perspective may by atypical, but it is valid nonetheless." However, Galassi continued to act as if the source was scholarly, not "atypical". On November 1, 2009, Galassi again restored his desired text four times at Stalin and antisemitism, in this case opposing Miacek/Estlandia and Anti-Nationalist. For this, Galassi was blocked. He reinserted this same material on March 22, 2010. Eleven months later, Galassi restored the text when it was removed by Zloyvolsheb. At the Losev biography, Galassi's text about antisemitism and Stalin has been reverted by DonaldDuck in February 2009, Estlandia and administrator Alex Bakharev in October 2009, and in April 2013 by My very best wishes, Estlandia, and also by an IP-hopping editor. At Talk:Aleksei_Losev#Removed_text_.28.22Controversies.22.29, Galassi's desired text was opposed by My very best wishes, Miacek, Igor Makhankov, the IP hopping editor, and myself. Nobody supported Galassi's text except Galassi. Nevertheless, Galassi acts as if he has complete rectitude in restoring the disputed text. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an edit-war, but a long term content dispute. All my edits are properly sourced to reliable and notable scholarly sources. A number of nationalistic editors have attempted whitewashing Alexei Losev, but there are scholarly secondary sources that testify to the antisemitic, misogynistic and other controversies surrounding Losev in recent years. All this is eminently relevant. My view was supported by Igor Markhankov. User Binksternet is not literate in Russian, and relies on machine translation, not conducive to understanding the relevant texts. Overall he is retaliating for an unnrelated edit. --Galassi (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Igor Makhankov said the Losev biography on English Wikipedia was "worse than [the] Russian one, which is hard to beat"... and he never endorsed your connection between Losev, antisemitism and Stalin. You are alone in your desire to insert that text. Regarding your accusation of retaliation on my part, I must say that I have examined a good proportion of your edits because I find so many problems. If your editing on Wikipedia was mostly free from problems, I would leave you in peace. The first time I became aware of the possibility of problems with your edits was in October 2012 when you wrote in the article that the widely criticized book The Pink Swastika was "thoroughly researched and heavily footnoted." This in Wikipedia's voice! During the next week, I found that you had spammed promotional links into a number of music and Ukrainian articles and that you had a probably conflict of interest regarding pop music in the Ukraine with respect to the URL torban.org. Since that time you have been indefinitely banned from the topic of Ukraine, so I do not feel that my aim was poor. So, no, I am not retaliating against you; instead I am working to protect the encyclopedia from the edits I judge are questionable. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That book is thoroughly researched and heavily footnoted, regardless of its conclusions and goals. That edit was neutral, and it doesn't give you a right to stalk my other edits. And torban.org is considered sufficiently reliable regarding the organology of the instrument in question. Makhankov's comment refers to the Losev article as a whole, and not to my edits. He said that my source was reliable. Your aim was not only poor, it is also malicious.--Galassi (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Igor Makhankov said there was too much in the article about antisemitism, which is against your contributions. He said one source was a legitimate publication, not a tabloid, but it was still not a good enough source on which to base so much of your additions. His opposition to your additions makes it five against one (you), not four against two, which is still not enough to justify so many reversions to your preferred version. The arguments against your desired text are valid and policy-based; centering on WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. My own arguments focus on NPOV and UNDUE, because you are misrepresenting the sources, you are telling the reader only the worst aspects, and the writers are at best holding a minor viewpoint but more likely a fringe stance. You bring this POV into the article as mainstream thought. Miacek argues that you cherry-pick the most unflattering words from the thousands of pages written by Losev. My very best wishes says that your sources are not mainstream, that you are pushing a POV which is not representative of scholarly thought. These are not flyweight complaints that you can just shrug off while continuing to insert your desired text. You must address the complaints and deal with consensus. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The arguments for my edits are equally valid and more. And YOU are not qualified to judge russophone texts, because you are not fluent in the language. The machine translation gives you no excuse.--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The jumping IP is blanker/vandal, and cannot be counted toward 3RR.--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And your policy claims are horsefeathers. Three scholars are DOCUMENTED to have said that Losev made antisemitic statements. There is no POV, RS, UNDUE or SYNTH.--Galassi (talk)01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are only three reverts by Galassi during 24 hours and one additional revert, approximately four hours later. There is also a pattern of long-term edit warring against consensus. It's noteworthy that Galassi appears five times in the log of blocks and bans on Eastern Europe, including this editing restriction by FPS, and all these incidents are about his edit wars, but Galassi still tells above: "This is not an edit-war, but a long term content dispute". My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As an outsider coming into this - it does appear that Galassi is the only one supporting the contested revision. Is this a fair reading of the situation? This is a yes or no question; I don't need allegations of malicious intent or animosity, just a simple yes/no. m.o.p 18:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Igor Marhankov supports my revision, conditionally - the article provides almost no information about the majority of Losev's activities. Actually I agree: the article direly needs that, to counterbalance the Controvercies section.--Galassi (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, only Galassi takes the view that this text is appropriate in the Losev biography and elsewhere. Igor Makhankov said there was too much in the article about antisemitism. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read through Igor's statement multiple times, and I'd agree with Binksternet's interpretation of it. Igor doesn't express support for anything in particular, he just points out some faults in the article; the other editors, however, oppose your additions outright. Though it's not the most clear-cut, consensus does appear to go against your edits, Galassi. Unless you can reach a compromise with the other editors and/or change the consensus, I wouldn't revert them anymore if they've agreed on an accepted revision. m.o.p 19:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Igor says my sources are reliable. Consensus is not a vote. I AGREE that there is "too much" antisemitism, BUT that must be remedied by increase in the rest of the article, NOT by whitewashing the subject, or trivializing antisemitism (and both Losev and Lev Gumilev have lent antisemitism the greatest respectability it ever had!).--Galassi (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you are going to restore the disputed portion of text? My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I fully agree with Galassi, consensus is not based on numbers of those pro and contra and what I think the real problem here is that racism should not be whitewashed or negated. Also, user Binksternet conduct in this issue seems to be POV pushing.--Tritomex (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a sober opinion. I am extending an invitation to My Best Wishes and Binksternet to expand and improve the rest of the article.--Galassi (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, and I already made a few edits.My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, you and I have been involved on opposite sides of a Jewish genetics question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Genetic studies on Jews and Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews/Archive_4#Elhaik_study. I jumped in to that discussion because I saw that you were opposing a large group of editors just like Galassi is here. I looked at the sources and at people's behavior and determined that you were becoming a disruptive editor on the topic of Jewish genetics. I made it clear several times that I thought you were the problem. In that light, your voice raised here against me is not surprising.

I fully agree that "racism should not be whitewashed or negated". It also should be given the proper weight of scholarship, and not unduly emphasized. The major Losev scholars dismiss this minor opinion held by Marianna Gerasimova (who Galassi does not mention) who was supported briefly by Konstantin Polivanov (a literary critic), Leonid Katsis (a respected Yiddish scholar), and journalist Dmitrii Shusharin. The Gerasimova theory is at best a minor opinion, as clearly stated by Russian philosophy scholar Vladimir Leonidovich Marchenkov of Ohio University, in the introduction to his 2003 translation of Losev's The Dialectics of Myth ISBN 0203633733. Marchenkov describes how Gerasimova, Polivanov, Katsis and Shusharin were quickly disproved by Olesya Nikolaeva, and by Losev's widow who published his letters, revealing Losev's private thoughts. The problem with Galassi's version is that he brings this short-lived minor viewpoint forward as the mainstream view, a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that I find your conduct in both situations problematic, does not mean that I have any personal intentions regarding you, rather I have problem with your way of editing.

Losev wrote "There is no such thing as Woman's Dignity. Similarly there cannot be a notion of Jew's Dignity" I suggest you also to read Sergey Zemlyanoy article "Clerical and conservative mythological dystrophy :Alexey Losev [26]--Tritomex (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that Binksternet is editing on the side that tries to refute the genetic connection of Jews to Palestine, isn't it?--Galassi (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• And it continues. I have added today's two reverts, with Galassi continuing his edit war. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you the one socking through a Japanese proxy-server?--18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not me. I have never socked. Are you the one who is continuing to edit war even though you are being brought in front of this noticeboard? That's what I call disruption. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Тhere is no edit war. We have a content dispute. Your dislike for the content in question doesn't delegitimize it.--Galassi (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring to return non-neutral text to an article. I have no "dislike" for the text, I am just very much aware that it is a fringe/minor viewpoint and not mainstream—that you are presenting it as mainstream against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and that this position of yours is a stance that you have taken across several articles. Me, I am happy to let the sources speak, and what I'm seeing is that just about every biography of Losev talks about his philosophy but does not bring up his supposed antisemitism. What I see instead is that Losev was the subject of a politically motivated attack in 1930. The attack made Losev into a villain; apparently you wish to continue to portray Losev as a villain in contradiction to mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Losev either way, but 5 mainstream notables hold him as an anisemite. One of these is a major 20th century writer, Maxim Gorky. Your whitewhashing of Losev doesn't fit the GOODFAITH criteria. And no one here ever says that he was a villain, only that his writings contain certain controversial ideas.--Galassi (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your mention of Maxim Gorky is actually the moment of truth. As I noted here, Gorky suggested in 1930s to exterminate all "class enemies" as "physically and mentally inferior parasites" (his words) by using then as guinea pigs for human experimentation. Does it mean that Gorky must be painted like Joseph Mengele in his biography? Of course not! Same with Losev. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• And again twice today. The reversions apparently will not stop, despite strong concerns about UNDUE and NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Horsefeathers. One of my edits was a restore of IP blanking/vandalism. To remind you: the consensus is a mutually agreed compromise, not a vote. You cannot UNILATERALLY delete PROPERLY CITED information. Your edits are DISRUPTIVE.--Galassi (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Now it is three times today, twice while the article was "in use" via template. Galassi, I would like to recommend that you take a coffee break, drive the car around a little, walk the dog... something other than obsess over this article while I improve it with mainstream secondary sources rather than primary sources as interpreted by you, or fringe sources that have been disputed. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Galassi strikes a blow in a long-closed RfA. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You should read up on WP:CENSOR.--Galassi (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And you might want to re-read the phrase at the top of that AFD that says "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• And it continues. Galassi invited me to participate in this article (see above). However, when I made a few relatively minor changes, he immediately reverted my edits [27]. Note that he did it without discussing my edits on article talk page. But this is not anything new. This is the reason he was sanctioned five times in EE subject area (see my comment above). If he repeatedly edit war while his case is pending on WP:3RR, what he does when he is not reported? My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What continues? I find Binksternet's version more or less acceptable, with the exception some stylistic issues. At the same time My Best Wishes continues POVpushing.--Galassi (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can not resolve even minor stylistic issues without blindly reverting another contributor (my diff above), while your case is pending on the WP:3RR, and consider such behavior legitimate, I do not think you can edit in any "difficult" subject areas. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your claim of DEFAMATION is not supported by any source, simply put.--Galassi (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and for the edit at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:IranitGreenberg reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: 72h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

Comments:

Editor is ignoring 1rr and edit warring across numerous articles in the IP topic area. He could also have been reported for reverts at Zionism ([34], [35]). Ignoring 1rr combined with POV editing is disruptive to the topic area, the rules should be enforced for those who show no attempt to follow them. Dlv999 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. That is why I think its better to explain the rules to the new editors instead of reporting them. Concerning accusation of POV, I suggest assuming good faith.--Tritomex (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor has had the policies explained to him many times (see his talk page). I told him that he was in breach of 1rr yesterday and asked him to self revert. Instead he made another revert within the same 24 hour period. This leads me to the conclusion that he is not interested in following the rules. Also I didn't say anything about the editors motivations, his edit pattern is not consistent with our nuetrality policy, that is all I know. Dlv999 (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg has been informed, explained, warned and blocked for the 1RR problem and he refuses to comply with it. (See his/her talk page). Pluto2012 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: No action)

Page: Palestinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicago Style (without pants) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Article is related to the Israel Palestine conflict and subject to 1rr restrictions. Edit warring in violation of 1rr combined with POV pushing is disruptive to the topic area and should be enforced. Dlv999 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted my violation. I've also joined the talk page. Thanks for the heads up on the rules, Dlv999. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked Given that the user has self-reverted, no more action is necessary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the original revert included a series of highly contentious reverts. The editor self reverted one of the series of reverts he made. Most of them are still outstanding. The editor also left this ridiculous warning on my talk page despite the fact I have only made on edit to the page in the last week. Dlv999 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Correctionperson reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result:48h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Editing to add a new revert[49], this one after Correctionperson had been notified they were reported here, and after I specifically suggested the user not reinsert this unsourced original research[50] while answering a question on their talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Drmies. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

122.62.226.243 reported by User:BlackCab (Result: )

Page: Pai Mārire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.62.226.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54] (the first of a two-part revert)
2. [55] (the second part)
3. [56]
4. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. This is a case of rolling reverts without discussion rather than 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]
On the user's talk page: [59]
IP user adds a quote as requested, followed by personal argumentation: [60]
I object to a single offhanded comment in a source being used to contradict historical consensus, and also list a series of unacceptable edits the IP user is adding: [61]
IP user doesn't respond, but reverts again.

Comments:

• On April 30 I changed a poorly-written and inadequately sourced article on "Hauhau" to become a redirect to Pai Mārire, the more comprehensive article on the same religion. [62].
  
• On May 3 the IP user, who has a happy career of disruptive editing, edit warring and adding patently unsourced POV and OR material to articles (generally with the theme of placing undue emphasis on Maori cannibalism) (see talk page here) added poorly-written references to "Hauhau" activities and began a talk page thread criticising what he/she viewed as a portrayal of the cult as "proto hippies".
  
• On the article talk page I addressed the dispute over terminology by detailing a list of RS that showed the weight of opinion of historians and invited discussion. I also added to the article's lead a bolded reference to the "Hauhau" name that was in use by 19th century colonists. The IP user is not addressing the issue, but simply reverts to their wording (with inadequate sourcing) and also persistently deletes source citations and the bolded wording in the lead.
  
• The IP user accuses me of vandalism [63][64] but still fails to discuss the issue. BlackCab (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• ... and then responds to the template message about this discussion with more inane insults. [65] BlackCab (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks I'm blocking the IP for edit warring here and elsewhere. They have a long history of such behavior and this behavior includes, unfortunately, poor writing and referencing and original research, besides false claims of vandalism. In the past they've been pushing a POV envelope as well; right now I don't see evidence of that, but I'm no expert on the matter. Now, it takes two to tango, and the IP and BlackCab go back a long way, it seems--since BlackCab reported them here they should also be aware of the 3R and other edit-warring policies and guidelines, but their behavior is, in my opinion, less disruptive than the IP's. I do, however, ask for another admin to look into it and see if BlackCab deserves a block: BlackCab, with no prejudice toward the next admin's decision, please let this serve you as a warning. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think BlackCab should be thanked for his long-standing efforts to work with 122.62... (aka Claudia) to improve this and other articles. BlackCab has attempted to get other editors involved, but most of the regular New Zealand editors with an interest in history have been exhausted by efforts to deal with Claudia in the past.-gadfium 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Reyk reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Declined)

Page1: Template:Arguments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page2: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

I am only providing one recent revert, but note that there is no edit comment. 

1. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Reyk#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Comments section below, that has a 2011 discussion at WT:ATA, the current discussion at WT:ATA, and Template talk:Arguments.

Comments:

• WP:Edit warring states emphasis added, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."  When I prepared the discussion structure at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 6#BRD for 426806486, I had expected a lot of discussion, but one day later Reyk decided to create his essay with the deleted material, rather than discuss.  Here is a list of related non-discussion instances:

• Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 6#BRD for 426806486
• Template talk:Arguments
• [68]
• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]

• This issue previously went to WP:AN3 here, but to this day I don't know why Reyk was not warned that discussion is required.
• In the recent discussion at WT:ATA#History of TMBS, Reyk defies consensus against three other editors, with a fourth editor getting involved on the Project Page.  He/she responds to the statement, "[T]he consensus was that TMBS was not compliant with policy/guidelines." by explaining that I'm trying to pick fights.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Declined. This is not the right forum for this complaint. There is no edit warring, just a very long-term and unfortunately continuing spat. I'm not going to enforce Qwyrxian's warning from January 2013, although he is free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Goodsdrew reported by User:CoCoLumps (Result: )

Page: Haitian American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Haitian Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:Hispanics/Latinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goodsdrew (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. [73] 10 May 2013‎
2. [74] 10 May 2013‎
3. [75] 10 May 2013‎
4. [diff]

User Goodsdrew and I are debating rather Haitians should be considered Latino are not. I insisted that Haitians are Latino and should be included in the Latino/Hispanic category. Every time I add a Latin category on Haitian Canadians and Haitian Americans, he/she removes them without showing any evidence that Haitians are not Latino. I already explain on the talk pages (Talk:Haitian_Canadians, Talk:Haitian_American, and Template_talk:Hispanics/Latinos) why Haitians are Latino however he/she is not being coherent. Can you check this out please? --CoCoLumps (Love yourself) 12:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

Temporary fully protection for these page is what I recommend. Theres is a debate that is moving forward - just need theses 2 to stop editing the pages in-question and just talk. It is going to be a long debate as both parties have sources backing both claims ,,,, so lets lock up the page till the debate is over. Both have reverted to many times and blocking both will not move things forward,,,, talking will. Moxy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor fails to engage on talk page or list sources to back up his position. With his latest actions, he has reverted four times within close to 24 hours (his fourth edits on each article was just outside the 24-hour window).Goodsdrew (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The user engaging in edit warring is CoCoLumps, not me. CoCoLumps has violated the three revert rule--I have not violated it. I have tried to engage with CoCoLumps on the talk page. CoCoLumps refuses to provide sources to back up his contentions, but instead continually reverts. (See report of CoCoLumps below for further details).Goodsdrew (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've combined the reports. We can see both of you on the pages at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User Goodsdrew is a liar. I have engaged and provided evidence that Goodsdrew choose to overlook. This editor is causing a disturbance that needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoCoLumps (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:PiMaster3 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Editor counseled)

Page: Ariel University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PiMaster3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [76]
2. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA; template is conspicuous on the article talk page.

Comments: Both edits remove West Bank and Palestinian Territories from the infobox, in standard POV-driven mode for this topic area.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sean.hoyland reverted my edit to the article, and the issue that he had was the part where it stated that it was in Israel. I restored the rest the the edit without the part that he disputed. My intention was not to start an edit war.

With regard to whether this article should be listed as being in Judea and Samaria Area or the West Bank, since the university is fully within Area C, that means it is under full Israeli jurisdiction, so it makes more sense to list it under Judea and Samaria.--PiMaster3 ^talk 20:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that you fail to understand WP:1RR. I'm not promising anything, but I strongly urge you to self-revert and then, if you wish, discuss why you violated WP:1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's now too late for you to self-revert. So, just explain to me why you were wrong and why your edits violated policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the disputed part of the edit also included the section regarding Judea and Samaria. The edit summary on the revert only mentioned the part about Israel. Had I known that it was also an issue I would not have re-added it.--PiMaster3 ^talk 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That helps a bit, but it doesn't get to the core of the policy issue (forget the content for a moment). When you change something in an article, that constitutes a revert from a 1RR perspective. If you change it again, even if only partly, that constitutes a second revert and violates 1RR. You need to understand that before you even start thinking about exceptions or administrative discretion. This is particularly important when dealing with articles subject to ArbCom restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize that my initial edit counted as a revert. I thought that a revert just meant changing to a previous version of an article. I will keep this in mind for the future.--PiMaster3 ^talk 22:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrific. I will assume good faith and close the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Croat1 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h)

Page: Kajkavian dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Croat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]

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

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

Comments:

This rather complex set of reverts, combined with reverts at Croatian language are part of a long-term nationalist POV-pushing pattern against consensus at these two articles (and usually including Chakavian dialect as well). --Taivo (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:TomPointTwo (Result: )

Page: Second Battle of Fallujah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 9 May 2013
2. 00:54, 11 May 2013
3. 00:58, 11 May 2013
4. 01:12, 11 May 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments:

Edit dispute with a longtime editor, User:Viriditas who refuses to acknowledge that others might simply have legitimate objections with how they are editing. Viriditas was rude, dismissive and condescending then devolved into accusing me of meat puppetry when I restored sourced material by an editor he's accused, but has yet to be found guilty of, sockpuppetry. Finally at the end Viriditas implicitly acknowledged that his reversions with the edit summary of "Not an improvement" were insufficient by bringing up issues with sourcing. By this time though he had already crossed the 3RR threshold and still seems unwilling to concede that I'm not simply editing out of bad faith. This is sad because, with the background of the editor, it seems more a case of ruffled hubris than actual ignorance. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no dispute on my end. An obvious sock puppet was identified and reverted, and an SPI filed. You appear to be proxy editing for the sock and you still haven't found consensus for your edits on the talk page. Other users have stepped in and have rewritten the section according to our policies and guidelines. You appear to be searching for a problem rather than recognizing the solution already in place. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly untrue. You've yet to justify your revert based upon your prejudice that I'm a meat-puppet and your overall conduct is clearly unbecoming and in violation of the long established 3RR rule. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The revert was justified on the user talk page, on the article talk page, and by at least two different users. The burden, however, is on the user adding content, like yourself. A sock was reverted and the 3RR was not broken. I hope this helps. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help, at least you. No editors have yet to weight in, or at least in a way that backs your position that the material is inherently unjustifiable and that I'm a meat puppet. All your assertions are without backing and you're in clear violation of 3RR. From this point I'll let the process take over as you seem to be both nonnegotiable and belligerently unilateral. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this posting on the edit warring noticeboard; I'm the editor who stepped in to rewrite the section according to our policies and guidelines. Technically, Viriditas is now at 3RR with three reverts (1st, 2nd, 3rd), but Viriditas did not break 3RR, nor did Viriditas make any further reverts after receiving a 3RR warning here from TomPointTwo. Meanwhile, TomPointTwo is technically at 4RR in that he has four times undid edits by Viriditas with reverts (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Remember, WP:3RR defines a revert as any edit that reverses the actions of another editor, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Hence, I recommend TomPointTwo withdraw this AN:EW complaint immediately and everyone just go back to discussing things on the article discussion page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have been constructive and needed but I don't think I'll follow as suggested. I've not violated 3RR and the edit history clearly reveals who has been unilaterally reverting. Being the experienced editor you are I'm puzzled at your conclusion of the log. Perhaps a further analysis? TomPointTwo (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Longkhj reported by User:Puramyun31 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kim Hyun-jung (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Longkhj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]
5. [94] no image revision

and more...

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Longkhj, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kim_Hyun-Jung_%28singer%29

Comments:User:Longkhj is once blocked due to vandalism, but the user has still repeated unhelpful editing of the article Kim Hyun-jung (singer). Longkhj added this fair use image which obviously violates NFCC#1 policy. --Puramyun31 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Suzanne888 reported by User:Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Tom Waterhouse
User being reported: User:Suzanne888

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:
'I believe I have resolved this issue and am happy to withdraw my request.'

FlatOut 05:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined Procedural decline, withdrawn by requestor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Black60dragon reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: )

Page: Parkour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Black60dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [102]
2. [103]
3. [104]
4. [105]
5. [106]
6. [107]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109] (Same link as above) and after another reversion without any comment on talk page from Black Dragon [110]. Black Dragon has again reverted without comment after I posted the previous link, again inviting discussion.

In this reversion I remind Black Dragon that he is (at that point) at 3RR and continuation may be considered edit warring. Another editor has also warned Black Dragon of his editing on Black Dragon's talk page here to which I added a comment here.

Comments:

I provide "many" sources and you never even looked at them. I am talking about it on his page, which again you never went to. I was reverted you because "you" vandalized by continually removing the template alongside the nickname. The template needs to stay and I should not be punished for keeping it on the page. I also warned him to keep the template which he did not do. BlackDragon 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides this isnt even violation of the 3 revert rule. As it specifically states "you may not revert more than three times in a '24 hour' period" which I did not do. Besides if time didnt count you would also be at fault for reverted mine too. Just saying BlackDragon 19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. BlackDragon is correct that neither he or anyone else is at 3RR. However, his behavior in the slow-burning edit war is worse as he has not discussed any of the changes at the article talk page, despite Chaheel's having opened up a topic there. If BlackDragon continues to battle without discussion, he risks being blocked, regardless of whether he has violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Hey I was discussing the matter at anothers page as he was the one reverting it originally. I hadnt noticed that there was a discussion at the page itself and wasnt worried about it. The infobox doesnt necessarily need a source if its in the article.

Besides I stopped reverting his and stopped adding the nickname despite it being true. I would know I have been doing it for many years. The edit that put him over was not even a revert. I clicked "undo" to go the pack to not have to type in the template he blatantly kept removing and erased the Art of Motion part BlackDragon 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, not sure how BD can claim to have been unaware of discussion, as by default Wiki watches talk pages as well as mainspace articles, so he should have been aware of changes being made. Also, Feraess invited BD to discuss changes on BD's talk page here on 8th May, and I did the same here on 10th May. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Atshal‎ reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: )

Page: UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atshal (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:

User:Atshal's edits

1. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]
5. [115]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116]

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

Comments:

This page is highly contentious. This user and others (incl. myself at times) have sailed close to the wind in reverts, but Atshal has crossed over several times, the four links above are a sample, examining the history of the article you will see many more reverts. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I am not sure if this warning is appropriate or not, but I was reinstating material that was being repeatedly deleted by another user, called Emeraude. I have spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of days editing the page, rearranging things and adding things - the only things I deleted were repetitions that made thing cluttered, and nobody complained about that. The material that Emeraude deleted was sourced from academic journals, or from the official manifesto page of the party. On one occasion Emeraud deleted a whole section because the website that I was citing was down due to a denial of service attack, and I reverted this since I don't believe that is a sensible thing to do. Similarly for material that was deleted by Emeraude that came from peer reviewed jorunals. Emeraude does not appear to have a warning for deleting my material, but I do for reinstating it? I would appreciate some clarification from somebody about the changes I can or can't make to this type of page, and if my behaviour was wrong in this case. Atshal (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the links that are provided by Gimli here were for a specific section that kept being deleted due to a broken link. I reverted each time thinking I had fixed the link, before finally I managed it (there was a hidden character at the end because I had copied and pasted from somewhere). I think the initial deletions were wrong, as the link should have been fixed instead of the whole thing deleted but the multiple reversions were due more to my failure to correct the link each time (even though I knew it was valid!) Atshal (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that after the final edit by Emeraud I put a discussion in the talk page Talk:UK Independence Party as to why I think the reversions by Emeraud were unjustified. The two editors who have replied support my original edits, in both the tone and the suitability of the sources. Emeraud has yet to reply. Atshal (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sigiheri reported by User:Minimac (Result: Blocked)

Page: Joint-stock company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sigiheri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [117]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [118]
2. [119]
3. [120]
4. [121]
5. [122]
6. [123]
7. [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [125]

Comments:

I'm not involved in this, but what I see from Sigiheri is disruptive removals over the same content in the lead section, and arguing about it in the talk page stating that 'Shareholders do not own the corporation'. This is a slow, but long edit war, with Srnec and more recently Discospinster reverting their edits. With this kind of disruption, I think Sigiheri deserves a block for his/her actions, but we'll see what the admins think about this. Minima© (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I blocked only Sigiheri for a few reasons. First, they were removing the opening paragraph from the lead, which is inherently more disruptive than removing other material. Second, they were being reverted by multiple editors. Third, they appear to have an agenda as they recently disrupted Corporation over the same issue. Finally, their comment on their talk page ("I have an open offer to discuss the issue in talk, but no one who reverts is doing it. What else should I do?") reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about edit warring and consensus. (As an aside, other editors are contributing to the discussion.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:RightCowLeftCoast (Result: Warned)

Page: 2012 Benghazi attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: In regards to the lead, the majority of changes were reverted, as can be seen by this diff to a status very similar to that of 8 May 2013, before the major changes made to the lead by Cirrus Editor

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554478319&oldid=554477226
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554479156&oldid=554478319
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554487867&oldid=554486575
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554544375&oldid=554540197
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554551184&oldid=554550369

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=554622458&oldid=553858856

Comments:
The editor appears to be involved with an edit war, and appears to have violated three reversion rule within the 24 hour period. I believe that the editor meant well in their reversions, wanting to move the discussion to the talk page; however, as this conversation was started here on 7 May (with a different section name), but RGloucester did not appear to have joined the discussion on the talk page before reverting others edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is not at all an edit war. We are going through the exact same process we went through last time to develop the present lead, which was developed through a consensus-based discussion. A good discussion is being had on the talk page. Until consensus is reached, I was maintaing the status quo and referring people to the talk page. This is a controversial subject, and with all the new information proliferating, it is necessary to be careful. Anyone who reads the talk page discussion, and my comments there, will understand. I invite RightCowLeftCoast to come to that talk page and assist with the discussion there, because the help is sorely need. If I must be blocked for breaking a "rule", it is just as well. I was going to ask for article protection prior to this, because of the influx of potential POV edits that are now occurring. It is the same thing that happened when this article was first created. I'm doing my best to help along the article, and a lead overhaul will hopefully be agreed to in time. Anyway, do what you must to me, but someone ought keep tabs on the article in the meantime. RGloucester (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I’m continuing to work with other editors on the lead for this article, at the talk page, until I know my fate. It is perfectly congenial, and I’ve alerted them of the charges I face. I hope I can still contribute in the meantime without causing any further trouble. RGloucester (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. RGloucester violated 3RR, but with 4 reverts, not the 5 listed above. The first two diffs are consecutive and count as one revert. In declining to block RGloucester, I'm taking into account that he stopped edit warring after being warned, his apparent good faith belief that he was not being disruptive, and his responses here and on the article talk page, both of which demonstrate good faith. That said, I'm warning him that for the foreseeable future (I'm not going to impose a strict time limit) he should restrict his efforts to improving the article by discussion on the article talk page, not by edits to the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Gobbleygook reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Moot)

Page: NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gobbleygook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User removed and/or modified the statement "The bombing campaign was criticized, especially for the number of civilian casualties that resulted from the bombing" four times in the last 24 hours.

Previous version reverted to: 13:13, 10 May 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:30, 11 May 2013
2. 19:25, 11 May 2013
3. 19:38, 11 May 2013
4. 01:56, 12 May 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was warned twice on their talk page about edit warring on different articles, once at 22:44, 10 May, and a second time at 19:04, 11 May.

• The user was informed of the 3RR on at least two prior occasions on the same day contemporaneously while the reverts were taking place on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
• The user disregarded the warnings and blanked their talk page at 16:23, 11 May and at 19:26, 11 May
• Three of the above reverts in this report were made after the two warnings were blanked by the user, indicating that the user was aware of the 3RR and decided to ignore it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: of 22:59, 10 May 2013, and 21:16, 11 May 2013‎.

Comments:

• In the last 48 hours, the user has reverted two different users, including myself and User:Peacemaker67.[126] Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• No doubt 3RR has been breached, although neither editor has properly engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I believe a short block and an ARBMAC warning would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have no interest in the subject. I merely detected an unauthorized number of deletions and modifications made by a "new" account and noticed your revert and followed up accordingly. I've also filed a corresponding SPI. As for engaging the user, as the link above shows, I discussed these edits on their talk page, which was subsequently blanked by the user. Finally, I have engaged this user on multiple talk pages with no change in their behavior. The user has perfected the art of IDHT and agenda-based editing to the point of professionalism. I maintain that this account exists solely to disrupt Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's not an accurate portrayal of the issue and your point about how this account exists "solely to disrupt Wikipedia" is bad Wikipedia etiquette and does not assume good faith. The first revert took into account what user Peacemaker67 said so technically it's a self-revert. You then reverted my next two good faith attempts to balance out the lead (while not removing the criticism) by adding legitimate third-party sourced material reflecting an important section of the article (namely, that there existed significant support for the NATO intervention of Yugoslavia), but despite even violating at least two wikipedia edit guidelines, I was still willing to take this to the talk page and even created an RfC for this issue specifically (unfortunately nobody has yet answered the RfC so hopefully some input can be given). In the meantime, I actually read the Chicago tribune article (the source cited) and found out that what was being cited (namely the criticism about the # of civilian casualties) wasn't even the point of the article and rewrote it accordingly to make sure that it not only reflected what is written in the source, but also that all sides of the debate were fairly represented. On a final note, I would like to point out that this user has engaged in a serious case of wikihounding as he/she has reverted every single contribution that I've made so far on Wikipedia so I would seriously ask that administrator's take a look at this.Gobbleygook (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I dispute every letter of every word you just wrote above, and I'm absolutely convinced that you are a returning blocked user who is not supposed to be editing Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined Let's finish up the SPI first. If they turn out to be a sock, then we won't need this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Srkris reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128] - Previous
2. [129] - Previous
3. [130] - Previous
4. [131] - Previous

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments: The user is continuously adding Non-Neutral content at Mughal Empire without reliable sources, or no sources at all. He has altered the content in many ways. In violation of WP:ES, he provided no edit summaries for his alterations and changes. Despite several warnings, he replaced the term "Mughal Empire" with "Mughal Sultanate" in the lead, removed religions from the infobox, removed the "Kingdom of Mysore" from infobox, removed referenced info about Kings, with much more serious alteration of other text, without citing any source, at all. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply: I am trying to add referenced content to Mughal Empire and the user above (ganging up with his friends) tries to vandalize the article by repeatedly removing large portions of the article (see [134], [135], [136]) without giving any reasons. I have tried to provide reasons for my edits and many of my additions that the user above has tried to revert, were actually references that I tried to add to the article. Bad faith reverts, edit warring and vandalism to the article are what I am trying to avoid here. Srkris (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The diffs you have provided are already there up, there was no need of them. Where you provided references for your edits/reverts? Where the reference for the term usage of "Mughal Sultanate" was provided? Where you cited your removal of infobox content? You provided no references at all, instead removed them. Your blocklog shows that you have been active in edit conflicts before too. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The block was based on the violation of WP:3RR, as well as the edit warring outside the 24-hour window, and the unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism directed against other editors. The blocks from 2008 (too remote) had no impact on my determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bodinmagosson reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: No action)

Page: Manchu people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bodinmagosson (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]

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

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

• Declined. @Kaiyr, I don't think you know what you are doing. Part of the problem is a language issue. I suggest you continue discussing the content problems with the other editor, either on your talk page (already begun) or on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:24.149.8.77 reported by User:The Interior (Result: Blocked)

Page: Metropolis at Metrotown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.149.8.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [143]

Comments: This is regarding a "controversy" section for an article on an urban mall in Burnaby, British Columbia. It involves an incident from last year where a youth was detained for taking video of security staff in the mall. I removed it per WP:UNDUE - this is a minor incident by any reasonable definition; no one was injured, no one was charged, no one was fired. Myself and another editor removed it on May 11; the section's author has re-inserted now four times, stating in his/her edit summaries that talk page discussion is not necessary. Note: my talk page post was made after the reverts. The editor has now made a post to my user talk speculating that myself or Emarsee (talk · contribs) is a mall stooge suppressing this info. [144]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Despatche reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145] First edit, unexplained removal of content, reverted by Materialscientist
2. "Yet another lack of explanation? I'll give you mine, then: I don't see where Pepsi themselves use "pepsi" or "PEPSI"."
3. "Wow, really?! Are you kidding me?! Do you even know what a "stylization" is? Yes, we can completely ignore the logo because Pepsi themselves don't actually write..."
4. "Get all the admins you like, I've stated the facts already. There is absolutely nothing controversial about this change in the context of Wikipedia."
5. I've provided valid /everything/, and you have provided nonsense. Overriding.
6. *Please* don't mindlessly revert without an explanation. See talk page. (after report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pepsi#On "stylization"

Comments:

Also consider this, as this user tends to edit-war ([146]). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I should be reporting you, I just didn't know how.

This user has completely dodged all of my questions and sent me mostly drivel instead. I've tried to answer what I can as well as I can and he dodges those efforts too. Observe him linking to a so-called "edit war" which was handled pretty quickly by simply finding the facts, which not even the other editor had at the time.

While I admit I'm (very!) aggressive with what I do, Tbhotch is impossible to deal with on a basic level, which is mostly why I was more aggressive than usual. That is a mistake on my part, but admitting that isn't going to solve the problem with the article, talk of which needs to be kept there. Which, by the way, probably isn't ever going to be resolved because he refuses to actually discuss further, and is instead opting to be sneaky about it by spamming bureaucratic threats until I'm silenced. I'm not even sure he understands what the proposed issue is.

I'm not even going to get started on the ridiculous "mirror accusations". All I'm going to say is that I'm still waiting for a reply, Tbhotch. Despatche (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply what? You are clearly edit-warring. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You see? This is what I'm talking about. I don't think this guy understands what's going on. Even now he's still dodging the actual discussion, going on about this stupid edit war, determined to get me blocked, hoping I give up.

Tbhotch, you haven't properly explained your case. I have responded to all valid points as well as I can, and there has been nothing on your end except threats and this. There is a reason I keep reverting at all, and it's obviously not to "win". Despatche (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, report me for what? The one who has broken the 3RRule and violate the WP:NPA policy is not me, is you. "There is a reason I keep reverting at all". There is no reason to edit-war, read WP:3RR which you deliberately decided to ignore with this edit, even when there is a report. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Admins note this person is disruptively editing: [147] (WP:NOTBATTLE), [148] (WP:NPA). (edit conflict)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012reported by Tritomex (Result: PP 1w)

Page: Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [150]
2. [151]
3. [152]
4. [diff]

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

[153][154] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:
The article Zionism is under 1 revert rule-The overriding of my (and others) editions through POV pushing, for many consecutive times, combined with removal of other sourced material and its replacement at least twice in 24h in the same article, though violation of 1RR is edit warring. Not to mention the clear context dispute to which user Pluto2012 is very much involved and where he accused other editors of edit warring and "propaganda" while reprehending them for the violation of 1RR, which now he commits.[156] Regarding context dispute: [157],[158].The two edits, removal of long standing material and its replacement with other, came after a removal of huge portion of material by the same user in the same day.I made my best by notifying the editor and asking him for self revert which he after asking for specifications simply ignored.--Tritomex (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani

On Pluto's page, Tritomex raised his suspicion, and was informed by two very experienced editors, User:Nableezy and User:Sean.hoyland, who have great familiarity with 1R that he had misread the evidence. Nableezy, for one, has often hauled me over the coals when I have inadvertently erred on 1R, and told me to revert, and never allows personal feelings to disturb his judgement. I myself suggested Tritomex crosscheck with a third party or admin before bothering this forum. He didn't. If the admin confirms that their judgements were correct, I would suggest a word with Tritomex over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and vexatious complaining be appropriate.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that all 3 editors are friends making together numerous edits related to Palestinians. However, removing my material and material from other editors, by Pluto2012 in one day, in the article under 1RR, later replacing it with his own material is edit waring. As I said all of this happened after he reprehended other editor (who was sanctioned for the same behavior) for 1RR violation.[159]--Tritomex (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

False, and don't personalize this as a POV-battle. None are 'friends' (as far as I know), and in any case, as I said, Nableezy has often confirmed the reading of 1R against me made by a partisan 'on the other side'. Neither Sean, nor Nableezy. nor Pluto have in the past had the slightest hesitation in challenging me if they think I have made a dubious edit. Please look up Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that I hate everyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been plenty of edit warring at that article but diffs 2 and 3 cited above are not examples of the edit warring. They are the 2 consecutive edits shown below.

• 2013-05-12T17:25:28‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,022 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (don't mix this with Israel. Israel came long after.)
• 2013-05-12T17:21:46‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,890 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎History: moved up)

The edits replaced an image that was added here @19:57, 27 February 2012 by user R-41 more than 14 months ago. It is I suppose technically a revert of a 14 month old edit but I don't think it can reasonably be argued that it is edit warring. There has been no edit warring over the image. Pluto was not edit warring with anyone by making these 2 edits. The 1RR restrictions and this noticeboard are in place stop edit warring, not prevent article development and improvement. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 1 week. I see a huge multi-user edit war going on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Nataev reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160], 20:12 12 May 2013, restores POV template earlier deleted by different editor
2. [161], 11:14 13 May 2013, same as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article is subject to WP:ARBPIA rule on 1RR, with notice prominently displayed on talk page, on which Nataev has participated.

Comments: Note that whether the editor removing the POV template should be doing so is a separate question from whether there is a violation of 1RR here. Also please look at this ANI discussion, where Nataev is seen talking about the subject of this article in very derogatory terms. In addition to a sanction for 1RR, I would request that Nataev be banned from editing this article, on grounds of repeated BLP violations.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

When I came across the article the other day I realized it was very biased. After reading the discussions on the talk page I became convinced that Goldblum himself has been editing the article. I find this alarming. Now Goldblum and Nomoskedasticity are trying to get me blocked. I have asked a dozen of experienced users who have access to CheckUser to help us determine whether Goldblum is indeed writing about himself. I honestly don't find this subject interesting at all. My only concern is that I believe it's wrong to write about yourself and try to get blocked anyone who questions what you're writing. I wish I could be left out of this. I have far more important things to do. Now that I have notified more than a dozen of experienced users about my concerns, I hope they will take appropriate action regarding Goldblum's use of two accounts to edit the article about himself. I leave it to them to decide where the article is biased or not. Nataev (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)