Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive189

User:FrankAndProust reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bitcoin#External link

Comments:
To deal with the spam that was being inserted into the article's External Links section, I replaced the section with a DMOZ link per Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. User:FrankAndProust apparently didn't like that his external link was removed, so he's responded by continuously spamming the page with his link, despite identical links already present on the DMOZ link, and despite an attempted compromise by placing an alternative but identical purpose link in the article. The editor is attempting to promote his website through external link spamming, which is vandalism per WP:VANDTYPES: Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. - SudoGhost 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I understand what the problem was. The link that Frank posted was to the wrong page on the site, and was therefore fairly useless to the casual user. I have fixed this, so now the link goes to a more useful page. When you see the right page, its use is immediately obvious.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you do understand the problem, since you see DMOZ as "that link site that should be removed". I can see where the confusion would be if you don't understand what DMOZ is or haven't read Wikipedia:SPAM#Dealing with spam. - SudoGhost 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

SudoGhost, I can't believe you keep insisting on this. My intentions matched my actions, and they are clear. I tried to keep the status quo up, because the link I proposed fulfills the requirements of WP:ELYES. And as I already said in the Bitcoin Talk page, I don't know the owner or have any affiliation with that website. It just gives complete real-time information of the Bitcoin network and it also provides historical charts which are appropriate and necessary for the article.

There is no point in discussing this further. Please let the administrators give the final answer. All that needs to be known are in the Wikipedia logs. --FrankAndProust (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You tried to keep a "status quo", by spamming your link? You inserted your link, and it was reverted. Edit warring to keep your spam in the article is the opposite of a status quo. If it was truly a "status quo" you were interested in, you'd have reverted it back to the pre-DMOZ version. Instead, you inserted only your link, even when an identical-in-purpose link was used as a compromise. Nothing short of this not-significant link being in the article suffices, even when identical links are offered to be used (and are already present in DMOZ). When your bottom line is "my link need in the article" no matter what, even changing your arguments and contradicting yourself when those reasons are refuted, that is spamming. - SudoGhost 15:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following to try and solve this issue. Let's roll back to the status quo before all these edits and counter-edits started. This is the version I am referring to: Also, let's start a new section in the Bitcoin talk page and let's all of us propose which external links are proper and which are not. How do you feel about this? --FrankAndProust (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That belongs on the talk page, not AN3. - SudoGhost 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SudoGhost has made an offensive edit summary - "Rv external link spamming. It is vandalism and will be reverted. Establish a consensus for inclusion. WP:SPAM#Dealing with spam replaces *all the links*, not *all the links except for spammed links*" in his edit of 15:44, 2 July 2012. Describing good faith edits by other people trying to resolve this dispute as vandalism is not OK.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDTYPES: "adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning." If you have an issue with the way that's worded, discuss it at WP:VANDALISM. The edit was not directed at you modifying the link, but at the editor who inserted the link again, and again, and again. - SudoGhost 09:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protected — Five days. Regarding the link, the steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. There is also an external links noticeboard. The link to http://blockchain.info does not appear to be conventional spam as mentioned in the WP:VANDAL policy. It seems intended to assist the reader by showing them the worldwide stream of bitcoin transactions as they happen. It is up to the consensus of editors whether the link should remain. FrankAndProust does *not* have a pattern of adding this link to multiple articles. It seems he has been adding content at Bitcoin since February. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam reported by User:Bidgee (Result: No action)

Page: Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

• User:Arcandam bold changes: [8]
• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:LauraHale#WP:POINT snd User talk:Hawkeye7#Revert

Comments:
Arcandam is alleged (in the edit summaries) that I was canvassed, I was not asked to revert by anyone. Bidgee (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not necessary. See Laura's talkpage for more info about the canvassing. Without canvassing it would be 1 vs 1 (meaning only 3 links instead of 6). Arcandam (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to revert. I'm not clear where the canvassing accusations are coming from. --LauraHale (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to provide explicit instructions for it to be canvassing. You must've read your own talkpage. Arcandam (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Again where was I canvassed? I was not asked to revert your edits by any editor, such allegations are false and bad faith. Bidgee (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

On your talkpage. I repeat: You don't have to provide explicit instructions for it to be canvassing. Arcandam (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bidgee: It is probably not a good idea to tell me to fuck off. Arcandam (talk) 06:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And editsummaries like "Don't fucking remove my comment's on another editor's talk page" don't help either. Arcandam (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)That is only a notification of the AfD (which I've yet to support or oppose) in which a number of other editors got, I only noticed the dispute on my watchlist after the bad faith comments you made on LauraHale and Hawkeye7's talk page. Cease the false allegations. Bidgee (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You removed my comment from another editor's talk page and making false allegations, what am I meant to say? There is no policy stating we can't swear. sigh Bidgee (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We had an editconflict, duh. Something went wrong and my reply was there but your message wasn't. You should probably take a look at your own comments and list the things you accused me of. Then you should take a look at WP:NPA. Arcandam (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish, you can't remove another editor's comment in an edit conflict, Wiki software prevents it. Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. That means you have to go back and copy-paste the text. While doing that I must've missed that sentence. Are you trying to make people believe it was intentional? Even though my reply to the comment that disappeared was there? Funny. Arcandam (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam, you are a very quick study for someone who's been here for such a short time. I've been here for over 4 years, and I can tell that you know a lot more than many new editors already. Is this, by any chance, your first account? Doc talk 06:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, of course not. Look at my earliest contribs. Arcandam (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The two edits in March of this year? You didn't truly start editing until April 26th of this year. Am I missing something? That's not long ago for someone of your knowledge. Doc talk 06:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is: people who are new don't welcome themselves. People who are new don't use AWB when they've made less than 100 edits. Arcandam (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching the events at the Justin Bieber on Twitter article today with some dismay. While there are always going to be possible improvements, the approach demonstrated by Arcandam is inappropriate, condescending, and unlikely to convince (let alone encourage) other editors. Arcandam's edits have included the following inappropriate edit summaries: "canvassing", "Laura canvassed Bidgee to come here", "I wish this was a joke", "worst article ever", "omfg", "oh please", "how super-duper interdasting", and (the bizarre) "basically anyone who is someone has received one or more death threats. I am 25 and I am not famous and I have received several, even onwiki". When faced with dissent, Arcandam's approach has been to assume bad faith in accusations of canvassing; and then to violate 5RR. It should be obvious to Arcandam that the Justin Bieber on Twitter article is not an article on a civil war, technical medical procedure, or esoteric financial indicator, and accordingly it should be allowed a little leeway in including (sourced) material that is likely to be relevant to the readers it is bound to attract (at the rate of almost 500 visits per day). Could someone here please attempt to demonstrate to Arcandam that: having a condescending attitude to editing at WP is a sure-fire way to repel and discourage other editors, and that when faced with (inevitable) dissent, the appropriate procedure to resolving disputes is on the article's talk page (and not via the revert button). GFHandel ♬  06:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to check the actual edits, not just the editsummaries. You'll see I improved the article. Also it would be a bit more fair if you would've looked at both parties instead of just one. Arcandam (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It would've been better if you mentioned this. Arcandam (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone logged out to revert again. Fine, have it your way. I am not going to ask my cabal to support me. Arcandam (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

@Bidgee: saying stuff like: "Are you dumb or just playing dumb?" is not helpful. Arcandam (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nice try in taking this EWR off topic, you very well know why I said it, since you claimed that my reverts were from canvassing but then tried to deny it. Bidgee (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. I was drinking Coca Cola when I read your message and I laughed so hard that I needed to clean my monitor and keyboard before I could type this comment. Hats off to you for having a sense of humor, I appreciate that. Arcandam (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• All of this chatter is superfluous to the clear fact that Arcandam reverted five times within half an hour... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Most of the text here is offtopic, indeed. Maybe you should've mentioned this in your edit, so people can understand why you wrote what you wrote. You were trolling a user that was feeling down, I reverted you. Arcandam (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it rather interesting that an Admin (User:John) whom is involved ([15][16]) is willing to allow Arcandam off the hook. Someone who hasn't had any part in the article and the AfD should take the action needed. Bidgee (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Arcandam has indicated they will not continue to edit-war. Any block now would be punitive. On the other hand, there are other users (see just above) whose conduct probably needs to be examined. I will obviously leave this to someone else to close. Bidgee, AN3 is not meant to be a "hook" but an aid to collegial editing. --John (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since Arcandam has promised to stop. It does not seem that this particular war is continuing. The last edits by Arcandam, Bidgee or LauraHale are all more than 24 hours ago. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arcandam‎ reported by User:LauraHale (Result: No action)

Page: Justin Bieber on Twitter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arcandam‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17] This was good version.

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Comments:
This appears to read to me like the user will continue to engage in edit warring over the article. As this happened AFTER they promised an admin they would work more collaboratively, and as the user has cast non-good faith aspirations on another user for their WP:GAN review with out providing any evidence to support this claim, can some one look into their editing and again warn them? --LauraHale (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. You are pretty desperate to get revenge. Do you have a difflink that shows I ever promised an admin I "would work more collaboratively"? I never promised that and no admin ever asked me that. I think you just made that up. Do you have a difflink that actually says I "will continue to engage in edit warring over the article" instead of one that appears to read that to you, but to no one else? I think you just made that up too. I tried to give you the chance to explain yourself in a constructive discussion without any personal attacks, but unfortunately that was a waste of my time. Your response to my post on your talkpage proves that communication between us is rather useless. I would like to ask you to stay off my talkpage until you feel ready for a constructive discussion, I'll return the favor. Arcandam (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. A careful observer would notice the quote about the GA review was written by user John.

Please redact the revenge statement. This is not a WP:AGF statement. I am not seeking any form of revenge and you have zero diffs to support this claim. This diff cited by john appears to indicate that you would avoid edit warring, which broadly construed means "work more collaboratively", which is the purpose of Wikipedia. I promise to stay off your talk page, having only ever made 1 edit to it, to warn you of 3RR. Anyway, I patiently await the redaction. --LauraHale (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why should I redact that statement? Please read WP:DUCK and reread your own comment above dated 12:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC).

You may want to start by redacting the following claims you made, I will patiently await the redaction:

"I am not seeking any form of revenge and you have zero diffs to support this claim." (Actually I just posted a diff that proves just that)

"promised an admin they would work more collaboratively" (This never happened, and no admin has ever asked me this)

"has cast non-good faith aspirations on another user for their WP:GAN review with out providing any evidence to support this claim" (You are talking about someone else, and you are falsely accusing that person)

It would also be a good idea to stop claiming I am not acting in good faith.

When you've done all that please respond to the most recent message I left on your talkpage by leaving a message here, I have watchlisted this page. Arcandam (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
p.s. Please follow WP:BRD from now on. You made very bold changes on 30 June 2012‎ and 1 July 2012‎. You have been reverted. Now you have to discuss. Instead you chose to editwar. John (who is an admin) didn't really like the article, but Fluffernutter (who is also an admin) did some major copyediting before I saw this article for the first time. Lets see what Fluffernutter had to say about it: "(copyediting before my eyes pop out. come on guys. missing words and everything, and this is a FAC??)" & "more ce. seriously, guys?" & "more ce. Seriously, it horrifies me that this passed a) a quick look-over and b) GA".

I don't see what Fluffernutter's comments about a content issue, have to do with your edit warring? Why would comments by someone else on article content, justify you making the multiple reverts listed in this report? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

GFHandel said I used "inappropriate edit summaries" in an edit made on 06:42, 2 July 2012 one section above this one. Fluffernutter made a proposed rewrite BTW which is 50k instead of 91k. Arcandam (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Arcandam has stopped reverting. See also the closure of the report above. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:94.169.156.204 reported by User:Jeffwang (Result: 31h)

Page: Danaus genutia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.169.156.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Comments:

• Vandalism; I was using igloo so I did not notice I violated 3RR by accident. --J (t) 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 31 hours for vandalism. Consider reporting this kind of a problem at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ansob reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: List of sovereign states by date of formation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ansob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

• 1st revert: 00:06, 29 June
• 2nd revert: 00:17, 29 June
• 3rd revert: 00:27, 29 June
  • Blocked 00:31, 29 June by FisherQueen for 24 hours
  • Continued reverting on List of sovereign states at 04:35, 30 June
  • Blocked 04:43, 30 June by SarekOfVulcan for 48 hours
• 4th revert: 02:06, 3 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Believe the two previous blocks were sufficient warning...

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I haven't discussed or edited either article in recent history.

Comments:
Note: Joe Decker full-protected List of sovereign states on July 1, which may be why Ansob didn't revert on both articles. Note that this is an edit warring report, not a 3RR report.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Two weeks. It seems this user's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to edit war about the status of Bosnia-Herzegovina, according to his personal theory. This is his third block in seven days. It is unclear whether his presence here is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [32]

1. 3 July 13:16, blanket revert to this version from almost a year ago, removing over 10,000 bytes of text from multiple intermediate edits
2. 3 July 15:00 (same rv)
3. 3 July 16:55 (same rv)
4. 3 July 17:57

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33] (warned now, but I saw this situation only when the 3RR violation was already complete

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not from me; I'm not involved in this dispute.)

Comments:
A particularly disruptive form of revert-warring: blanket reverts to very old versions, without indicating what in the intermediate versions the editor actually objects to; vague handwaving edit summaries claiming "POV" and "per consensus", but no actual participation in any talkpage discussion. These blanket reverts are a persistent pattern with this editor: same kind of conduct quite recently on Goumenissa ([34]) and Byzantine Iconoclasm ([35]). Even a brief look at the editor's contribution history will confirm he has a long history of contentious editing and revert-warring; prior block in August 2011 related to this ANI thread. Unfortunately I can't find any official WP:ARBMAC warning yet, but I recommend a block well longer than the customary 24 hrs in this case.

The other party involved in this edit war, Jingiby (talk · contribs), who also has quite a long history of disruption, has gone up to but not beyond 3R at the time of this writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I admit it wasn't a perfect handling of the situation from my part, but Jingiby (talk · contribs) is responsible for the edit warring, by constantly stalking not only me, but many others. I just don't allow cyber-bullying. I always try to builf consensus, but unfortunately can't tolerate infantile nationalistic POV, or the deletion of referenced info, as Jingiby (talk · contribs) does. AngBent (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned - closing this as stale, but the editor is warned of likely sanctions if misbehavior continues. Statements above about fending off a POV-pusher show worrisome signs of WP:MPOV and Angbent is encouraged to read that article and shape up accordingly or face sanctions. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Protected)

Page: Mark Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Comments:
No violation of 3rr. This user has a long history of combative edit warring. Check his talk page history. Recently off a 1-week block for warring. In response to my EW warning, he removed the warning and reinstated his change to the article.

The different between EW and 3rr have been explained to the user repeatedly, but he still can't or won't understand the difference, and nearly half his edits are edit warring without discussion.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you accuse me of edit warring after one revert, but you think it's okay to make three reverts yourself without edit warring? Why did you [me for violating 3rr] after only two reverts? Two is less than three. And why is it okay for you to add original research but it's not okay for me to revert it? Read WP:BURDEN. If you want to add material, the onus is on you to cite it. You can't accuse me of edit warring if you're going to ignore policies that apply to you. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The "first revert" you list isn't a revert. It's my initial edit. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

As I, and others, have explained repeatedly, "edit warring" is not the same as "the 3 revert rule". You can edit war without violating the 3rr. I warned you for "edit warring". I even went so far as to explain this in detail on your talk page after the warning, but you removed that too. Then you templated me and came here to complain that you hadn't violated 3rr. Please calm down, listen, and take your concerns to the article talk page. I've already posted there. You have a substantial history of edit warring, and it needs to stop.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mark Phillips.". That looks like a 3rr warning to me. 89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the difference between edit-warring and WP:3RR? You know that you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while for me, but wouldn't edit warring include reverting against the consensus of many other users, running up to 3rr as if it ain't no thing, and then reporting other users if they run up to 3rr? I think it would. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". How can a single edit count as repeated? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Page protected - One week, by User:Bwilkins. EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mann jess reported by User:89.100.207.51 (Result: protected)

Page: Mark Phillips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

• 1st revert: [41]
• 2nd revert: [42]
• 3rd revert: [43]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments: User is repeatedly readding original research to the article

89.100.207.51 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR states that the other user has to make more than three reverts. You're about as guilty as Mann Jess, and as other editors have reverted you and none have supported you on the talk page, you've also been ignoring WP:BRD. Running up to 3 reverts and then reporting someone else for reaching 3rr does not make you right in this. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ehm... I didn't "Run up to 3 reverts and then report someone else for reaching 3rr". He reached three reverts before I did. And accused me of edit warring after my first revert. And accused me of breaching 3rr after my second revert. I can't assume a lot of good faith on his part. He's been ignoring WP:NOR and WP:BURDEN.89.100.207.51 (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Page already protected one week. See above report. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:98.234.134.32 reported by User:Jprg1966 (Result: declined)

Page: Martyre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.234.134.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

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

Comments:

User has been warned about precisely this problem before in just the last couple of weeks: diff --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 07:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - there was almost no misbehavior here, except by perhaps Jprg1966. Adding a reference is always encouraged, and vandalism templates are only meant for vandalism. Please be careful to stop biting the newbies. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm Always seems more important at the time. Mea culpa. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Swifty reported by User:Bgwhite (Result: 24h block)

Page: Tomorrow (The Cranberries song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Swifty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

Comments:

Do to edit patterns, I suspect the editor reverted the article three previous times as IP editor 174.102.31.108. Last edit summary was, "I am going to ANI everyone who is has been reverting this." Bgwhite (talk) 07:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I stepped in because what was being reverted was wrong! There is nothing wrong with page strolling and seeing a conflict and I'd like to point this out and I'd appreciate it if Bgwhite would take it there. Thank you. Swifty*^talk 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the 4th editor to revert you. A discussion was also taking place. No reason to revert somebody 5-8 times. Your conditions are not on your user page or talk page. Please make them visible so others can see. The Worm is aware of this discussion. I'll leave it upto the Worm on what to do with this discussion. You've also put up a retired sign. Bgwhite (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking into things further, I've blocked Swifty for 24 hours for edit warring. I do not believe he is the same as the IP, partially AGF, partially due to Swifty's editing habits not matching an in depth comparison. I can elaborate more if required, but I think I've said enough there. As to the subject of the edit war, whether or not a link is spam, I agree with Bgwhite's interpretation on his talk page - not only does a link's content matter, but also it's position on the page. I'll unprotect the page in question now. Remember, please do try and discuss things on the talk page. Worm^TT(talk) 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48h)

Page: Rob De Luca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

• 1st revert: [60]
• 2nd revert: [61]
• 3rd revert: [62]
• 4th revert: [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:
BLPN Discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wiki_image_policy_collides_with_guidelines_for_biographies_of_living_persons_.28or_at_least_with_their_personal_rights.29

User talk discussion: [66]

Add: Note editor is attempting to claim a BLP exemption and made the fourth revert after another editor and myself stated it did not apply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

5th revert: [67] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - NeilN states that he and "another editor" said BLP did not apply here. I see NeilN, myself, MilborneOne] and perhaps one or two others either saying the claim it is a BLP issue is absurd or asking as yet unanswered questions as to how the image can be libelous, unsourced, etc. Canoe1967's claim is that the subject has communicated to him that the photo does not match his current image. Whether or not this is true is, AFAIK, unknown and immaterial. Canoe1967 has refused to address questions as to how this is a BLP issue and is clearly edit warring against a clearly articulated consensus. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

6th revert: [68] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 48h. This would have been a simple 24h, but the 6th revert (after more than 1 3RR warning) and the comment on his talkpage about the editors that have been reverting the changes were not acceptable (as was claiming a spurious exemption from 3RR in the first place). Black Kite (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Vibhijain reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Pages protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd
• 3rd revert: 3rd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Page: Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: 1st

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Page: User talk:Smsarmad (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: Partially previous version

• 1st revert: 1st
• 2nd revert: 2nd

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Comments:
Editor edit warring on multiple pages, and on Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 reverted probably without even reading the related talk page discussion and the source cited that the content he was adding was massively POV, source falsification. And also edit warred on my talk page. --SMS ^Talk 14:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As of I Protest, first diff is of 30 June, the second one of 1 July, and the remaining of today. The thing was editors were reverting without discussing on the talk page. Same is the case with Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. As of User talk:Smsarmad, you termed one's claims as false, just because the discussion was getting his way. This page is not for content disputes. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm on 1RR and the editor is also clearly baiting my restriction, first following to an article he never edited before and reverting my edit and then reverting again often without good reason or discussion (in atleast one case failing to follow BRD). Also at SMS's user page, an editor is allowed to close discussions on his own user page.. ironically Vibhijain changed the heading of a 3RR warning on his own talkpage once before to "false warning" even where there were diffs of hard evidence. [73]. It is funny that he objected at SMS's talk page closure and editwarred on it which could merely be taken as a categorization of discussion on false claims. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

@Vibhjain: How were they "not discussing" on the talk page? I'm looking at the talk page, and I sure see discussion. If, by "not talking", you mean "they didn't come up with a conclusion which I felt was viable," then you need a severe correction in what the term "not talking" actually means. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, as a note, please do not let this page become a proxy for this edit war stupidity. I will personally hat or remove discussion if it turns into unproductive bickering. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• @TopGun Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is on my watchlist. And there is already a discussion at I Protest, which is there before you started editing there after your block got finished. As of the talk page, one may have the right to close his talk page discussion, but he/she does not possesses the right to term someone' claims as false, that too without any proof. @MTO The issue is they are reverting, without the discussion getting over. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Are you seriously that unself-aware? Do you not see you're doing exactly the same thing? Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Observe it again. I have reverted only when an editor has put or removed the controversial part of the article. I have taken the revision at the time of the start of discussion as the stable revision. Also I will like to ask TopGun that he has been making controversial edits, citing the B of WP:BRD, and when the page watchers revert him, he cries foul and says hounding. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment - I've locked all three pages for a day. I will leave this open, and any other admin is free (and even encouraged) to take corrective action, give out warnings (on top of the protection), seek a larger solution for the problem on another board, etc. as they see fit for the situation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. It is the right thing to do at this time. Also, I don't see any 3RR violation, so why is this being kept opened? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Because there was still edit warring. 3RR is not a license to revert at will up to three times per day: it is a bright red line that will definitely get you blocked, though you might deserve and get a block for less. Also, on your part, unhatting a discussion on a user talk page closed by that user is not acceptable at all, and edit warring to do it is beyond the pale. At very very most you should have changed the section title (although frankly not that either): certainly not unhatted the section. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Since blocks are preventative and not punitive and considering that no further disruption is possible, as the three pages have been protected, there is nothing here warranting a block. That said and to everyone: stop the blockshopping. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:173.0.254.242 reported by User:Cresix (Result: No action)

Page: Mabel Simmons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.0.254.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Article before reverts: [74]

• 1st revert: [75]
• 2nd revert: [76]
• 3rd revert: [77]
• 4th revert: [78]
• 5th revert: [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mabel Simmons#Reversions
Cresix (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Cresix admitted on the talkpage here [81], that material from my edit was accurate and his reversion was inaccurate due to being unsourced. Basically, he argues that information from my edit is interpretation. Basically, what I did was remove inaccurate characterization of Madea as "argumentative" (which is equally interpretative) to "overreactive" because the entire article describes her as going overboard. One section even talks about her murdering her husbands. So I basically tell Cresiz that his same arguments can be made for trying to reinstate "argumentative" and that my characterization simply restates the same thing the rest of the article has stated into single words. I tell him that describing someone who's willing to go to jail and use guns for perceived offenses as "Argumentative" is not an accurate description. Mind you, I had to initiate this talkpage discussion because Cresix decided to revert 7 edits with no edit summary. That's what he's left out in the above! 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is edit warring, not what is the "correct" interpretation of what should be in the article. You should not edit war even if you think you are right, especially after you are warned. And BTW, I admitted that one small part of your many changes is correct. Now, let an admin decide this. Cresix (talk)

Well, if the issue here is mainly edit warring and avoiding an edit war, why did you revert so much material without even bothering to make an edit summary or attempt a discussion on the talkpage? It's like asking for an edit war. If I'm all about avoiding an edit war as you so claim to be, I'd at least make an edit summary or attempt a discussion on the article talkpage before I made such an expansive reversion. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me be more specific: the issue here is violating 3RR. Now, again, let an admin decide this. This is not the place for you to try to bicker with me. If you have comments for me, make them on my talk page. Cresix (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not bickering. I'm just defending myself. Gee whiz! I will go to your talkpage then. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Ugh! Cresix told me to come to his talkpage to discuss the edit warring issue and now he's deleting my comments and ignoring me, then he comes to my talkpage and tells me that I will be getting blocked by an admin and not to remove his comments. 173.0.254.242 (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Cresix doesn't have to talk to you on his Talk page if he doesn't wish to, and he never said he would. He only said you could comment there. You did, and he removed your comments. At the same time, after you removed the 3RR warning from your Talk page, Cresix had no right to revert you. You can remove such warnings from your Talk page if you wish, although it is understood that in so doing you've read them. Finally, although it's not my call, your conduct looks like edit-warring to me. The best place for you to state your position is to return to the article Talk page and discuss the issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I understand your points, Bbb23. The only reason I restored the 3RR warning (something I wouldn't have done on a registered editors' talk page) was because of the possibility that another person might edit with that IP (such as with a dynamic IP or a business with multiple users), so that person would realize what is going on. But, as I said, I understand why you would express a concern about that. Thanks for you comments. Cresix (talk) 00:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually doesn't Cresix have a right to revert my talkpage considering he was giving me a warning. That's why I've left it on my talkpage. I was of the impression that because it was a warning, I had no right to remove it until an admin saw it. At least this is what he led me to believe anyway by stating: "Do not remove this until an admin takes action". 173.0.254.242 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since the dispute has stopped at least temporarily. Nobody has reverted on July 5. All parties are urged to use the article talk page to get consensus on what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:80.133.26.183 reported by User:BullRangifer (Result: Page semied)

Pages:

• Vitamin C (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Vitamin C megadosage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

User being reported: 80.133.26.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: Vitamin C

• Previous version reverted to: Vitamin C megadosage

We're dealing with an IP who changes IPs and continues the edit warring. I have warned all four incarnations and am reporting the last one. See the edit histories for the articles.

• 80.133.26.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.133.45.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.133.45.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.133.57.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Articles' edit histories show plainly what's happening. See just the last few edits.

I have requested protection for the articles.

All IPs have been warned. See their talk pages.

The IP has violated 3RR and been warned. I am not reverting their last edit but will leave that to the admin who protects the articles. This should force the IP to discuss on the articles' talk pages. They have been advised to create an account so that further accusations of sockpuppetry can be avoided.

See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 80.133.57.193

Editor is not responding to warnings or requests to discuss on article talk pages. Per BRD they need to start a discussion on the articles' talk pages, as I have instructed them. I'll respond to such discussions. I am not reverting their last edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, which appears to be the best solution. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ornaith reported by User:Martinvl (Result: Protected)

Page: Kilometres per hour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ornaith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]

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

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

Comments:

This user is a newbie who seems to have an attitude problem. He refuses to accept that by changing key words (in this instance replacing the word "symbol" by the word "abbreviation", he is misrepresenting the source text). When I explained that his explanation was in fact WP:OR, he seemed scornful of my suggestion. When I threatened him with a 3RR, he gave the response "Heavy-handed threats do not impress me". In short, if he is to make any contributions to Wikipedia, he needs to undergo an attitude change.

For the record an "abbreviation" is a shorthand of a piece of text made up by removing letters from the text - for example "VAT" for "Value Added Tax" and "IVA" for "Imposta sul valore Aggiunto" (Italian for the same thing) are abbreviations because they change with language, however km/h is a symbol because it is the same in both English and Italian, even though the Italian for "kilometres per hour" is "chilometri all'ora" (no "k" and no "h"). Martinvl (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is full of misleading and ambiguous statements, frankly verging on the dishonest (in common with some of your article edit summaries I might add).

• You assert that I replaced the word "symbol". I did not. I put the use of that word into context, including the word "symbol" in the sentence. No source text was misrepresented - my edit was to an unsourced summary, in the lede section, of the referenced text further down the article.
• You didn't "explain" it was WP:OR, you asserted that it was, with no reasoned explanation, and threw in a threat om my talk page to get me banned (which you did not describe as a 3RR warning either).

I suggest that it is you with the "attitude problem". Your attitude appears to be that you own the article content, and you can veto any improvements or wording clarifications that I make.

You refused to engage in reasoned discussion over my changes to the (your?) wording, and you persistently used misleading edit summaries to attempt to disguise your actions. Do you remember these:

• [89] - The removal of my picture caption and the vanishing "kph" statement.
• [90] - The removal of my picture caption again and the vanishing "kph" statement again.

For the record we could add that over about the same period which, incidentally, was more than 24 hours, you made the following 4 reversions:

• [91]
• [92]
• [93]
• [94]

I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to collaborate and reach a mutually agreed text; not try to wear your opponent down with a single-minded determination to see your will prevail, and uncompromising attitude accompanied by threats of banning, bad-minded comments and refusal to engage in reasoned discussion. In this [95] exchange I invited you to participate in a reasoned discussion and attempt to reach an amicable compromise wording, I explained how your condemnation of my edits was flawed, yet each time you took no notice and continued with your attacks and your campaign to eradicate my work. Ornaith (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not pushing my wording, I am pushing the wording of the source document, nothing more and nothing less yet you insist on a wording that changes the meaning of the sentence without any citation whatsoever to back up your changes. Moreover, in the event it being impossible to reach a mutually agreed text, the original text stays. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week. It is possible that User:Ornaith is adding unsourced material to the article, but both parties deserve edit warring blocks and it doesn't seem useful to block both. Surely there is a forum where you can get outside input for this dispute. See WP:DR for some options. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:24.99.68.123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Block, semi)

Page: Melungeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.99.68.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96] (note this is several days ago

• 1st revert: [97]
• 2nd revert: [98]
• 3rd revert: [99]
• 4th revert: [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments:
This has been going on for over a week, with 4 editors reverting the IP. See also efforts on IP's talk page, WP:RSN, and the IP's continual attacks on other editors saying they are vandals and violating our TOS. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP has also added "this is a cease and desist" on another editor's talk page, see [103]. That looks pretty close to a legal threat. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Another revert by the user: [104]
• Another revert by the user: [105]
• Another revert by the user: [106]
• Another "Cease and desist" from the user: [107]
• A level 3 warning to the user: [108]
• A level 4 warning to the user: [109]

The number of other editors involved has increased. The user's edit summaries (when present) and remarks on other user talk pages seem rather hostile, offended, and confrontational. The user has been asked, repeatedly and politely, to discuss the subject on the article talk page, but has not done so – preferring instead to comment on other user talk pages and continue revert actions. The user seems to feel personally offended by the article content and is trying to correct some perceived wrong. (I have no clear understanding or opinion on the substance of the user's concerns.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of the same user's actions is also found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Legal threat.3F and some serious way beyond 3RR edit warring. Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A third "Cease and desist" from the user: [110]. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked one week and article semiprotected by User:Bwilkins, as explained at ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: No block; final warning given)

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

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: 22:54, 4 July 2012
• 2st revert: 22:57, 4 July 2012
• 3nd revert: 22:58, 4 July 2012‎
• 4rd revert: 22:58, 4 July 2012‎
• 5th revert: 17:37, 5 July 2012‎

Comments:

Evlekis has been around wikipedia since 2005. Lately he's been involved in many disputes culminating in a 1RR violation on Kosovo. His main disputes are with User:Majuru (who reported him) regarding the addition of Serbo-Croat spellings on bio articles of personalities born in the former Yugoslav state. This incident is a similar one, where Evlekis was edit-warring with an IP over spellings, geographical names and citizenship issues. The first revert of Evlekis against the IP had to do with Ukrainian boxer Alexander Dimitrenko. The IP changed Dimitrenko's citizenship from German to Ukrainian and Evlekis reverted him immediately. Of course Evlekis reverted him without any fact checking (even the substantial wiki article on Dimitrenko mentioned the citizenship change), but the IP was correct as at the time of the match (2008) Dimitrenko was still a Ukrainian citizen as he gained German citizenship in 2010[112]. The rest of the reverts had to do as his 1RR violation with Kosovo-related issues/disputes (including the revert of a dubious-discuss tag where he was basically asked by me to provide some references about source use of the spelling he had added). That being said I've noticed that this particular user claims on reports against him that when editing he isn't aware that his edits are violating any policy(User:Bwilkins seems to have noticed that too[113]), which I personally find disruptive since he's been around since 2005 and has been involved in way too many ARBMAC disputes. Given the recent violations on ARBMAC-related topics ARBMAC-related restrictions are required in addition to the procedural block regarding the 3RR violations. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the IP was a disruptive user whose only purpose was to raid Wikipedia by stylising a number of articles in accordance with a POV sentiment in that one's country of birth should be Kosovo regardless of the time he was born and with absolutely no regard for the controversy this particular entity causes when presenting it in a sovereign manner. Frankly, we get hundreds of such opportunists per month; they know they cannot achieve a consensus to have historical accuracy replaced by modern-day entities so they try their luck by abusing the editing privileges they have on pages which are not protected. It is patently obvious that when an editor attacks such articles and ignores the template warnings issued to him whilst he is in the process of edit-warring himself, he is obviously not editing in good faith. To that end, all other edits submitted during those minutes can be positively attributed to the same user and when they too are radical changes of details such as nationality, dates of birth, other statistics and all without an edit summary, any user is justified in reverting those edits. Now if Zjarri himself changes Italy for Norway on a random article, I will have absolutely no problem with that and would not even challenge the edit and this is because I know his is a genuine account. The IP ignored the maximum four warnings, I reported him and User:Materialscientist ruled the warnings fair, assessed the situation himself and blocked the user in his tracks. Please note that there was no appeal by the IP following the block, no replies to the warnings and no attempt at communication during his spree. This in itself is revealing. Meanwhile, if Zjarri has observed that one or two contributions by the disruptive IP were appropriate I will not contest his editing of those articles. Regarding Majuru-Ottomanist (not sure if this is one user), this is someone we know to have edited in previous guises (consult User:WhiteWriter for more information there), I cannot help it if another tendentious editor has come on the scene and attempted to derail conventions and assume the role of the apologist versus solid facts. If Zjarri refers to the Republic of Kosovo edits then we were both at fault but my final contribution there was a good faith removal of my last contribution and was carried out in accordance with Ottomanist's request. Please note that Ottomanist too has been reported for his own behaviour on Greeks and Talk:Greeks, again adding inappropriate and controversial matter and using it to introduce ill-founded statements on the article in which he attempts to deny a link between modern and ancient Greeks. Concerning Slavic spellings on subjects born in Yugoslavia and successor states, again this has been discussed time and time again and is carried out in accordance with wider conventions where-by you would have your name presented in Russian if born in Russia, Greek if born in Greece, Arabic if born within the Arab world, Hebrew if born in the State of Israel and so on. To be honest, these sit comfortably and cause no harm to anybody; they do not disturb the article and their inclusion proffers factual biographical information concerning their identity within their homeland. Further to this, I have been involved in discussions with multiple users on this matter since 2007 and consensus has been reached. I recently located these talks and if an admin wishes to examine them, I shall gladly provide them with my next post. I should also stress that the talks also concluded exactly how these should be applied, where they would sit, what forms we would use for which periods and the like. Please be aware however that resistence to Slavic spellings on subjects born in Yugoslavia has only, repeat only come from Albanian editors, and never from persons representing the other ethnicities of the former Yugoslavia (such as the Hungarians of Vojvodina all of whom have their names given in Serbian). Yes there have been cases where editors such as Zjarri (at present) have jumped up and down in protest of this but so far, no editor has produced a valid argument as to why local official language names should not be used. The only apology for an argument has been "oh he is not ethnically one of those to use that language". Such arguments are negligible and cannot be taken into consideration. Each article should be judged on its merits and valid arguments for removal of the Slavic spelling would be that new information has been gleaned that prove the individual was not born where the former source said and has never lived in the country and other such examples. Obviously I cannot remove the Persian names for Kurds born in Iran, just as other editors cannot go taking out the Russian spellings of subjects born there "simply because he is Chechen", it doesn't matter, his parents gave birth to him in Russia or the Soviet Union, not in the U.S.. Finally, I have been looking into this "Kosovo 1RR" business and have even realised with greater certainty exactly why it was not clear to me that this restriction is in place and again, I shall reveal this if asked to do so when questioned. I ask all admins to consider whether Zjarri's request is fair and I assure each one that I am a good-faith editor; I believe Zjarri and other affiliates want me out of the way so they can pursue their goals of POV-pushing in such a way that the contributions go unchecked. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You made five reverts in less than 24 hours i.e. 3RR. Four them had to do with content disputes and one was plainly wrong (which you didn't bother checking). You violated 1RR on Kosovo a few days ago and now you're claiming that your current 3RR violation and report have to do with other users wanting you out of the way (even though I've even defended your position in the past when you were reported[114]). Enough said.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, Zjarri, you have confused yourself somewhat. It appears that only this edit pertains to the Germany/Ukraine business, there was no edit war because the IP himself did not return to the issue. Meanwhile, my own pretext for deeming the edits inappropriate was unequivocal: a series of radical amendments of long-standing details and with no sources to support the claim made and not even a comment in the summary. When I saw the editor making other disruptive edits, it was not as if I could assume "well this one is all right", after all, dozens of established editors have contributed to the page and you'd think by now one would have provided the correct nationality. The remainder were cases of me cancelling non-constructive editing whereby the same user had been blanking the country of birth on the same article. Note that there was no breach of edit-war policy in that there were three each from both users, the fourth is when the action comes into question. I am confident that my actions would have been deemed acceptable in light of this development. Interestingly, that I believe is what has annoyed Zjarri so perhaps he should raise the issue with the admin who took the measure. In six and a half years of editing I have never known an established editor make such an emotional outcry in defence of a short-lived IP, hundreds of which come, see, get blocked then leave every single day. I question now whether Zjarri knows more about this "account" than he is revealing, I would ask that admins inspect this closely. Meanwhile, it appears that Zjarri is jumping up and down in protest because my edits are not in agreement with his. Save for the minor breach of 1RR on Republic of Kosovo which has been fixed and is soon to be closed, he has not provided a case of 3RR infringement - because there was only the second, third and fourth pertaining to one edit, you cannot class the first as being related, it was another issue. The admin who blocked the IP will have already assessed this prior to blocking the anonymous user anyhow. So it is clear that Zjarri is doing nothing more than sobbing over nothing. The fifth is also unrelated. Same article yes but not a cancellation of the same content. You claimed the Serbo-Croat spelling was dubious, in other words, you believe it to be spelt differently in that language. If so, you know what to do - change it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You're getting into NPA violations, so it'd be prudent to not continue such comments.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment added above since last remark from Zjarri. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no NPA - "sobbing over nothing" = complaining about nothing. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Observations for admins

Obviously we do not break people's messages. So I'll start afresh, Zjarri made the following remark:

• "The IP changed Dimitrenko's citizenship from German to Ukrainian and Evlekis reverted him immediately. Of course Evlekis reverted him without any fact checking" -- Zjarri then cites the following-
  • 1st revert: 22:54, 4 July 2012

According to this reliable source, I was correct in my revert. I think this is the only allegation of not "fact-checking" and you can see, the accusation has been refuted. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

How were you correct (did you read the source? It says nothing about his citizenship in 2008 unlike[115]). A revert can't become less of a revert. 5 reverts/less than 24 hours can't become anything less than that.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be aware that we primarily use English sources and I in turn do not speak German. Please also provde a citation where the IP produced this source to support your claim that I "reverted without fact-checking"because at the moment, this is a lost cause, I provided a source which proved my revert was correct. You may or may not know that some people are multi-national and hold several passports. This may have been a case where more than one nationality is required but without a reliable English language source to prove the IP's statement, coupled with an extant source already supporting the existing nationality being taken out, any editor would have done as I did. On principle, it is the current nationality that takes precedence, and the infofox certainly doesn't have a "2008 citizenship" caption. In cases where persons have represented other nations, the requirement is to list these things individually (e.g. France 2002-2008, Italy 2008-2011, Bhutan 2011-present), and nothing of this nature happened. Concerning my reverts, I believe the number of times I cancelled another editor's contributions yesterday was nearer to 50. Are you going to report me for this? The five you mention simply concern the same page but they were not the "same revert". Only three were on one matter. The top of this very page explains that it needs to go beyond three to breach the policy and even there they have no strict rules. Obviously if a user vandalises a page (ie. replacing all content with "hahahaha") and then restores his vandalised version, he may be blocked there and then; content disupte is what is given the "three life" allowance and some may argue that this is what it was. But whilst 3RR was not breached for one single issue, it has already been ascertained that the user that was being reverted was indeed making non-constructive edits in that he was blanking biographical information, QED. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

...An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. (Btw replacing a valid geographical definition with another equally valid one is hardly non-contructive but a matter of content/MOS dispute).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, you're up to two and the final one will now be put straight. There was no MOS issue, it was blatant disruptive editing. All the guidelines call for historical accuracy, Kosovo as a sovereign body is controversial anyhow, but ultimately we had a situation in which an editor was blanking the country of birth - so where is the "content" issue? If the edits were so constructive, why did the IP not stop and begin reasoning when it was brought to his attention FOUR times? The matter is dead and buried, it was dealt with when the admin blocked the IP and he explained his reasoning in the information post. If you have a problem with my edits, it must mean you believe in the wisdom of the IPs edits. If this is so, should you not be taking this up with User:Materialscientist? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to summarise Zjarri's grievance:

• 1st revert: 22:54, 4 July 2012
  • Justified here - source was already on page

• 2st revert: 22:57, 4 July 2012
• 3nd revert: 22:58, 4 July 2012‎
• 4rd revert: 22:58, 4 July 2012‎
  • Reverted edits confirmed as disruptive and therefore these contributions were appropriate - to suggest otherwise implies an editor has been blocked for making constructive edits.

• 5th revert: 17:37, 5 July 2012‎
  • This source proves the spelling was correct but so far the editor has failed to produce any argument as to what makes this dubious and what its alleged alternative form may be.

The editor's complaint is wholly invalid. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Declined Please stop - this is getting us nowhere. Yesterday Evlekis did violate 3RR (none of the reverts were blatant vandalism). However, that was about 24 hours ago so I'm not sure that a block right now will be helpful (and the edit war has calmed since). Having said that, if there are any further 3RR violations (on that page or anywhere else), I will block the user - consider this a final warning. I will also watch Luan Krasniqi and protect/block if necessary. ZjarriRrethues, I can see you have some issues with the long-term editing of Evlekis; if you want to deal with them, raise them at WP:ANI or WP:RFCU where a proper discussion with the community can be had. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TeeTylerToe reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]
• 5th revert: [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Talk page topic
diff showing opening of topic
diff advising editor of Talk page topic

Comments: Even if you don't count the first edit as a revert, the editor has exceeded 3 reverts. As shown above, I did everything to warn and advise editor of the problem. The editor did participate in the Talk page discussion but then stopped without reaching any consensus for inclusion of the material and went back to reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23's accusation links 5 revisions. The first is the initial edit that added a new section. I don't see how this can be described as a revert. The second one was the first revert, I reverted collect's blanket revert of my edit. The third was my second revert, I reverted Bbb23's blanket revert of my edit. The fourth was my third revert, I reverted Bbb23's second deletion of the new section.

So Bbb23's contention rests on the fifth revert...

The fifth is no revert at all. The only change I made is the addition of two references to articles. As per the discussion in the article's talk page I added links to media articles discussing Rubio's appearance on the daily show showing the notability of his appearance, and the notability of the things he said on the show.

Not only is Bbb23 hostile with reverting, Bbb23's also overeager to get innocent editors blocked.TeeTylerToe (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR says the editor must revert more than three times, not be reverted more than three times. This is unusual for Bbb23 from my experience. TeeTylerToe, you should assume good faith though, and not accuse editors of maliciously wanting to get editors blocked for no reason, especially when edit warring has been a problem for you before. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My response is technical and complex, but bottom line is TTT has been edit-warring despite being advised to stop and discuss, even if he hasn't performed more than 3 reverts. The addition of the material initially by TTT, for some, fits the definition of a revert - for some, it doesn't. The 5th revert is more complicated. It counts as a revert technically because there was an intervening edit. However, that last sequence was confusing because I think that Fat&Happy mistakenly restored the wrong version and then corrected that after TTT added the last part. So, in a sense TTT's last two edits could be construed as only one revert, not two (I didn't realize that until after TTT posted the above response). As I said, we're still left with edit-warring, no matter how the sequence is interpreted, and an unwillingness to find consensus on the material. The hostility and "innocent editors" accusations are just silly and distracting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding references does not meet the definition of revert laid out in the 3rr page. I would like to ask what definition Bbb23 is holding me to.

Now I'm being attacked for "accusing myself" of being innocent of something that I'm demonstrably innocent of...

As for the accusation of edit warring, how is there supposed to be productive discussion on the talk page of a section that was never part of the article more than an hour or so? Assuming that Bbb23 and I have to agree on some fraction of the section to be reinstated so that people can discuss it, Bbb23's stated proposal in the talk page discussion is that the content of the section on the daily show interview should be integrated into the article, and that the statement that there was a contradiction in two statements rubio made in the interview should be removed. That said, how can this be discussed productively if the article shows no indication of any form of it?

And regarding Ian.thomson's comment about the "problem"s in my past, what burden do I carry for defending edits made in good faith from hostile reverts by editors that were made in demonstrable bad faith, particularly when in each case I was vindicated? Not only did the revert overeager editors harm the articles in question, but they wasted their own time, my time, and they created a fair amount of conflict, when all they needed was the restraint to add a citation needed tag, instead of revert an edit hostily, showing that they did not treat my edits in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeTylerToe (talk • contribs) 21:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is single-minded repeated insertion of material into a WP:BLP which has been removed by multiple other editors. Noted this as I was adding another edit war warning on TTT. This is not exactly a close call. Collect (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a close call at all. The accusation is patently false.

When editors such as Collector, Bbb23, and Fat&Happy blank even additions they partially agree with they exclude not only the majority of wikipedia users, but also wikipedia editors from the process. Let's say I hadn't reverted the first blank by Collector. Then it would just be Collector and I arguing. Collector would be arguing that it was too long, it had too many quotes, and that it contained too much information. I would be arguing that Collector is wrong on each count. I have participated in the discussion of how best to present the information, and I have edited the section in question to reflect that but Bbb23 is more interested in creating conflict than coming to a consensus about the article. Now editors such as DBigXray are attacking me ignorantly for something I didn't do.TeeTylerToe (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It is 24 hours since Tee TylerToe's last edit at Marco Rubio which makes this case technically stale. If the reverting has stopped, no action appears to be needed. If he reverts again, admin action is possible. Regardless of whether he crossed the line of 3RR, TTT appears not to have consensus for adding a specific block of material. If he still thinks it belongs, he should convince others on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally dislike stale results here, but in this instance, I think the result was well-considered and wise. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh good, the system is broken and Bbb23 is a serial accuser. I guess what's important is that Bbb23 didn't lose at another game of wikipedia, although now even the things there was consensus on won't be added to the article.TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Lexico reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: no action)

Page: Liancourt Rocks dispute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lexico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version edited to: [123]

• 1st revert: [124]
• 2nd revert: [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Liancourt Rocks dispute#The Three Kingdoms period

This article is 1RR restriction. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked User:Lexico to undo his last revert, to avoid breaking the 1RR that was imposed per article probation under WP:ARBLIANCOURT. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked It appears he acted on said advice. Kuru (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:‎MDEVER802 reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: article protected)

Page: Federal Correctional Complex, Oakdale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎MDEVER802 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&oldid=500872128
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&oldid=500873252
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&oldid=500873748
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&oldid=500874644
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale&oldid=500874409

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Correctional_Complex,_Oakdale

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

Comments:

Editor is a novice editor who is adding copyright photos and disturbing the format of the chart I created for the article. I have tried to remain civil and requested that he discussed any proposed changes on the talk page to no ado. This will result in edit warring and I would like to request the assistance of an admin to help remedy this dispute.He is vandalizing the article REALLY bad--XLR8TION (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you compare the "Notable Inmates" chart before and after, the original content was kept. I just added more detail, which is not vandalism. Also, I did not change the chart format. The first column is for the Inmate Name, second is Register Number, third is Status, and fourth is Details. MDEVER802 (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the photo I added was from the website of a US Government Agency (Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the US Department of Justice) (http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/oak/index.jsp) so it is in the public domain. MDEVER802 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected This is a simple content dispute. I see no "vandalism", and the photo has an explicit claim of PD. To avoid blocking one or the other, or both, I have protected the page for a week. MDEVER802, please join the discussion on the article's talk page. The expectation is that both editors will come to a consensus before continuing the edit war. Kuru (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Is XLR8TION an administrator in charge of the page? I'm asking because he seems to think he is, especially given his last addition to the article's talk page.MDEVER802 (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:32cllou reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: no violation)

Page: Prostate cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 32cllou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [126]
• 2nd revert: [127]
• 3rd revert: [128]
• 4th revert: [129]
• 5th revert: [130]
• 6th revert: [131]

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

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

Comments:

The first is a text addition, not a revert. I am fixing incorrect and dated info, adding short specifics, and adding TED /Ornish. jmh649 reverts. The lead is short but more factual.

The second notes in reply to his Q to see Teahouse in summary that I'd been told TED is OK in wiki. jmh649 reverts and incorrectly stated I'm using popular press. I did not put that NYT in, he and Yobol did and I just accidentally put it back in in this edit. Sorry I guess that's a me revert and I went to jmh649's talk as requested.

The third is a revert. jmh649 reverts.

The fourth removed the NYT and TED as requested by jmg649. Yobol reverts.

The fifth removed inaccurate diet info. No change to lead. Yobol reverts.

The sixth is a revert. Yobol reverts.

I count three reverts me, Yobol has three, jmh649 three. Please read the two versions and judge motive and user benefit. Yobol and jmh849 act as one, as they have before in same articles. Note they tried to prevent me from using the 2012 USPSTF findings july 3. Know that I will slow down and do fewer edits in the future. Please ask Yobol and jmh649 to respect verifiable updated high end The United States Preventive Services Task Force in 2012 info instead of old vague "controversial" and NYT popular press when it absolutely is NOT in dispute scientifically. Please note the tag team behavior of Yobol and jmh649 july 7 and july 3. You might look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:32cllou#TED_talks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:32cllou#July_2012 and article history edit summaries for our discussion of content changes. The "attempt to resolve" link jmh649 provided to you here is not where he wrote to me, is only between Yobol and jmh649, and quite minor compared. jmh649 asked me to reply to his questions on his talk not the article talk.

Please rule on permissibility and value of TED. http://www.ted.com/talks/dean_ornish_on_healing.html See 12:38 into the TED talk. Very user friendly and verifiable. I think the short specific known harms should be in the lead. More detail should be provided in text below lead. I can use these Journal findings (three in the first link) http://www.pmri.org/research.html#prostate-study http://www.prostate-cancer.org/pcricms/node/115 http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295%2800%2900974-2/abstract http://www.goldjournal.net/article/S0090-4295%2805%2901152-0/ to support verify the TED / Ornish presentation. But the TED is very user friendly get more visual impact of info faster, and I would like to have that in the articles too. Why would Yobol and jmh649 object? Again, I checked in Teahouse and the page jmh sent me to to check that I could use that TED.

Maybe these (please also see PSA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate-specific_antigen) articles need to be seen by many senior editors. Please judge user benefit. How do I do that? Does my statement above count as a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring report against Yobol and jmh649?32cllou (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation I came to largely the same conclusion after reviewing your six edit series before reading the entire report here; I just can't get to four reverts. I also don't care that two editors are "acting as one"; it may simply be a good indication that consensus does not favor your edits. As this is 12 hours old, I'll presume that all three editors will refrain from further reverts instead of protecting the page. I can't help you with, or rule on, your content questions - that is up to you and your ability to change the existing consensus on the article's talk page, or at the applicable content guideline page (in this case, WP:MEDRS. Kuru (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your involvement. Wiki guidelines permit the use of TED presentations as primary, which I will also support with published journal articles.32cllou (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The guideline for medical content is that secondary sources should be used. Primary sources should not be used to refute secondary ones. Sources should be from the last 5-10 years. Note that review articles are NOT the same thing as peer reviewed articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 20:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Medeis (Result: article protected)

Page: Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

The entire talk page comments amounts to this editor versus everyone else. A typical comment of his commanding others to cut crap out of the article includes:[140]

Comments:

The article deals with a series of Zombie-like incidents reported in the news in the summer of 2012. One single editor has opposed the vast consensus of other editors that the article should be expanded by mentioning other reliable incidents. Red has tried to have the article deleted, has written and edit warred to maintain a lead sentence saying that the phenomenon does not exist, has fought the addition of any new material, even wanting to delete edit page comments, has issued commands to editors to "remove crap", and after recently warning another user of 3rr, and having been warned by me of 3rr, violated it as shown with the diffs above. The ownership behavior is blatant, as is the contempt for consensus and the emotionalism and the attacks it engenders, Work towards an expanded and in depth treatment of the matter is being harmed by an single editor with a behavior problem. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can you let us know what a "Zombie-like incident" is? As far as I'm aware, the successful reanimation of corpses through witchcraft has yet to be demonstrated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article. I did not create it, and have had only a very, very minor role in editing it. I resent the implication that I am somehow responsible for the subject matter which you choose to ridicule. Assuming you are American you will not be unfamiliar with the Miami zombie. In any case, please go to the sources, don't come asking my opinion. The dispute is over the warring and ownership behavior, which is what I expect will be focused upon, not the subject or one's opinion of it. μηδείς (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I and all Wikipedia en content policy clearly support all of TheRedPenOfDoom's edits in the list above. The IP's attempts to replace policy violating content repeatedly (without even an edit summary has only edited to this single issue - its first edit was a revert without an edit summary - diff an edit they repeated twice more diff, diff) should not result in the blocking of an experienced user - or, even the reporting of at a noticeboard for his efforts/contributions at that article in attempting to remove clear policy violating content. The article is total nonsense - the crap should be cut out of it until it doesn't exist at all. It should be deleted asap - Youreallycan 12:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no violation here. The changes being made by the IP amount to vandalism by removing sourced content and replacing it with made up stuff. QU ^TalkQu 13:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Update - the SPA IP has returned to the issue - and reverted a content removal I made - diff - In the citation supporting the content there was no mention of Zombies at all - the IP replaced it was a comment, "its zombie behavior" as such if uncited its WP:OR - I left the IP a note about this on his userpage - Youreallycan 14:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected I don't see the overt vandalism claimed; I see a tremendous amount of confusion over a really, really ill-defined article. Since there are many reverts flying around, maybe taking a few days off and making an attempt at a renewed discussion on the article's talk page to define what constitutes "zombie-like" (as opposed to simply "a gruesome crime") might help. If that doesn't appear at some point, Youreallycan's prophecy seems likely. Kuru (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I had been waiting till after the holiday weekend to ping User:Taroaldo who had stated that xie was going to be working a drafting a new focused topic sentence [141]. If they are no longer interested, would you suggest an RfC to see if people can come up with a reliably sourced focused topic or going straight to another AfD? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mamalujo reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: )

Page: William Morgan (anti-Mason) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mamalujo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 66.74.166.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: June 23 (IP)

• 1st revert: June 27 (IP)
• 2nd revert: June 28 (IP)
• 3rd revert: June 29 (IP)
• 4th revert: July 2 (IP)
• 5th revert: July 3 (IP)
• 6th revert: July 3 (IP)
• 7th revert: July 4 (IP)
• 8th revert: July 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: today after 8th revert

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

Comments:
This diff shows a strong possibility that the IP listed above is Mamalujo, logged out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can see a reasonably good case for the connection between the account and the IP, but I don't know if its really conclusive enough to be actionable without a checkuser. Considering there hasn't been another edit since the warning, would it make more sense to refer this to SPI? Monty₈₄₅ 18:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  SPI won't generally confirm a connection between an IP and an account. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  Also note that Mamalujo and .103 edit warred over the same cat on Gabriel García Moreno, the IP repeatedly reverted the cat on Umberto I of Italy, and it reverted once on Roberto Calvi as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Noetica and User:‎Tony1 reported by User:Dirtlawyer1 (Result: no violation)

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: ‎Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contrary to recently established consensus on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, Users Noetica and Tony1 are engaged in a tag-team edit war contrary to the letter and spirit of WP:3RR. If they have not already collectively violated 3RR, then the next reversion by either of them should constitute a definitive breach and violation. Both have been explicitly warned on their user talk pages, Noetica here and Tony1 here. Here are the tag team reversions by the subject editors:

1. First reversion by Noetica: [142];

2. Second reversion by Noetica: [143];

3. Third reversion by Noetica: [144];

4. Fourth reversion by Tony1: [145]; and

5. Fifth reversion by Noetica: [146].

Edit-warring and reversions by Noetica on related MOS page:

1. First related reversion by Noetica: [147]; and

2. Second related reversion by Noetica: [148].

Talk page note by Art LaPella regarding talk page consensus here.

Uncivil response by Tony1 to talk page 3RR warning here.

Noetica and Tony1 are experienced editors who have a long history of MOS edit-warring and tendentious editing on MOS pages, and manipulation and stonewalling of MOS talk page discussions in order to maintain their preferred changes to MOS previously made without consensus, including the ones that they are currently attempting to defend through their present edit-warring. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Noetica's two reverts of June 20 and two of July 5 were in response to unilateral MOS guideline changes by JHunterJ. Dirtlawyer has joined the fray, in making edits per JHunterJ's non-consensual version, on another MOS page, which Noetic also reverted. It's unclear why the dirtlawyer warned Tony. Discussion is ongoing. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarification: "JHunterJ's non-consensual version" is the consensual version prior to the unilateral addition of the prohibition by an IP in June 2011. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation I'm not seeing an actual 3RR, which requires four reverts within a 24 hour period. There is no "collective 3RR" rule that I am aware of; your inclusion of an editor which made one revert to the page does not help the credibility of this report. Clearly, there needs to be more discussion and less reverting on that page. Kuru (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed today that Dirtlawyer failed to notify the parties that he was reporting. Another editor has notified them after it closed as no violation. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:LANA5588 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 24 hours, page semi-protected)

Page: Raven's Progressive Matrices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LANA5588 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
113.190.195.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
113.190.178.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [149]

• revert 1: diff
• revert 2: diff
• revert 3: diff
• revert 4: diff
• revert 5: diff
• revert 6: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 113.119.195.152
LANA5588

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Asked in user's talk page User_talk:LANA5588 and User talk:113.190.195.152

Comments:
LANA5588 posted to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Advertising claiming advert. Was answered by Beyond My Ken diff and reverted again.
I asked twice why he was reverting. No answer. Also no edit summaries

Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The three IPs & LANA5588 seem to be the same person. History entirely removing that one link. May be one or two more IPs. Jim1138 (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jim1138 that LANA5588 and the two IPs are clearly the same person, and should be considered as such forthe purpose of this report. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I said "three" IPs the third only reverted once, so should have said "two" IPs. Jim1138 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked the named account for 24 hours; I agree that the account and IPs are clearly linked. I've also semi-protected the page to prevent the dynamic IPs from continuing the edit-war. MastCell ^Talk 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ojeda jp reported by User:Xeltran (Result:Blocked 1 week for WP:NPA )

Page: Calamba, Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ojeda jp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: link
• 2nd revert: link
• 3rd revert: link
• 4th revert: link
• 5th revert: link
• 6th revert: link
• 7th revert: link
• 8th revert: link
• 9th revert: link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
User Ojeda jp has been exhibiting characteristics of owning the Calamba, Laguna article. After a series of bold page moves without discussion (separate page move protection filed here), he has not replied to any of my messages in his talk page. On the contrary, the other editor has resorted to personal attacks by placing messages in the guise of barnstars in my Talk page (see this and this and in the article's Talk page (see here). Please note that user Ojeda jp has not also been communicating entirely in English. Seemingly unsatisfied, Ojeda jp also posted remarks at an uninvolved editor's talk page (see here).

• Comment Ojeda jp (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC) I am not owning the page of calamba . I am just protecting it from an outsider,not a native but more than that not a true Filipino citizen. He has no right to edit the page of place where he is not. I am not speaking in english because i just wanna know if he is a true filipino or a Fucking K_R_A_. One situation is that he edited the page of Cagayan de oro city. He was just a fool to degrade one's place for them to made control of it. He is the true seemingly owning the page and he made control of it. I and my colleagues belive that Xeltran is not a true Blooded Filipino. So he has no right to question and edit what makes our city beautiful because he is not one of us unless he is just having a good time moron and bastard.
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week ethnically-based personal attacks (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kkm010 reported by User:Favonian (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Enrico Fermi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [150]

There has been much discussion about how to label Fermi's dual citizenship. The old version was the result of this, but apparently not to Kkm010's liking.

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert
• 3rd revert
• 4th revert
• 5th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this version of their talk page contains several warnings concerning edit warring and related matters.

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:‎223.17.7.181 reported by User:Yobol (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Anesthesiologist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎223.17.7.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

• 1st revert: [152]
• 2nd revert: [153]
• 3rd revert: [154]
• 4th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:

IP is edit warring nonsense material from a humorous study into the lead as if it were a serious study. Yobol (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 05:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Belchfire reported by User:MastCell (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 17:59, 7 July 2012

• 1st revert: 18:26, 7 July 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 2nd revert: 19:39, 7 July 2012
• 3rd revert: 21:33, 7 July 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 4th revert: 04:55, 8 July 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has three previous 3RR warnings (12 June 2012, 30 June 2012, 1 July 2012) and one recent block for edit-warring (3 July 2012).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Current talkpage revision; see final thread.

Comments:
I would prefer to assume good faith on the part of admin MastCell, but it's difficult in light of this edit summary: "rm extremely misleading use of source - the CBO estimated that the INSURANCE COVERAGE portion of the Act would require $1.1 trillion in spending, but states in the cited source that these costs would be offset by other provisions of the Act", which simply does not match the reality of what is stated in the rock-solid and widely acknowledged source (a CBO report) and clearly demonstrates partisan political motivation. The opening paragraph was constructed per WP:LEAD via consensus on the Talk page and there should be no problem with reverting an undiscussed removal of material supported by references. Quite frankly, MastCell's edit smacks of vandalism. Belchfire (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

48 hour block. The fact that you think MastCell's interpretation is wrong does not excuse edit warring. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Doktorbuk reported by User:Boleyn (Result:Both users warned appropriately)

• User being reported: Doktorbuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Articles in dispute:
  

Nottinghamshire (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On a host of articles, including Nottinghamshire (UK Parliament constituency) (see User talk:Boleyn.) Doktor believes that there is no chance of these articles being created, so wikilinks don't need to be added. I've pointed out that I've created hundreds or possibly thousands of these articles, and others are also doing so, and that all MPs should have a wikilink. Has reverted my tag three times on Nottinghamshire (UK Parliament constituency) and seems to be planning to do so to dozens of other pages. Very uncivil. Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Boelyn has been told that over-linking, especially encouraging excessive red-linking such as their edit at Cambridge (UK Parliament constituency) is dissuaded by policy, but they continue to revert and edit war. Very uncivil doktorb _words^deeds 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Has now done 4th revert at Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency) Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And you are 3RR'ing too. Shall we tit-for-tat all evening? You have been told that over-linking and red-linking is dissuaded by policy and you continue to encourage editors to do so. doktorb _words^deeds 15:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not 3RRing - as far as I'm aware I haven't reverted edits more than 3 times - if I have, please let me know which article this is, and I'll undo it. Boleyn (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this, this user has continued to go beyond 3RR on dozens of pages (see his user contributions). I'm not going to spend time reverting this (although it has undone hours of my own work and made it difficult for me to continue my project creating articles on MPs). Ive concentrated on creating articles from Lincoln, so this user can see what my project is, and that the redlinks are quickly turing blue. However, I think it shows a great disrespect for WP, its policies and my work to be as aggressive as this user has been, to go beyond 3RR etc., and would like these edits reverted, so people are aware that more wikilinks are needed in these articles, so all MPs can have their own articles. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a surprise that both parties seem to think they are immune to a charge of edit warring so long as they don't exceed 3RR on any one article. I've written to both warriors and asked them to promise to make a pause in the war for 24 hours. This looks like a case of WP:BRD run amok. We ought to be well into the 'discuss' phase of BRD by now. There is a page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies where this could be discussed, and there are lots of other ways of starting a discussion to bring in third parties. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rather than moan, would someone actually like to show a link to where overlinking occurred? WP:REDLINK says it's ok to include a redlink once to an unwritten topic from an article ... and as sitting MP's apparently meet the definition of notable from the start, I'd rather not dig for myself here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Overlinking clearly hasn't occurred, and as you can see from Lincoln, which I've been working on this afternoon, the redlinks are quickly being made into articles. It's accepted that all MPs are notable, and that constituency articles have lists of MPs, fully wikilinked. Recently, the lists where extended back further, so a lot of links are still to be created. EdJohnston, I tried to start a discussion at Talk:Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency), the 1st article he rv me on, and informed him of this - last I'd checked he hadn't commented there. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am loath to dig my heels deeper into this whilst the result would appear to be a block. As such, I promise not to revert Boelyn and will try to enter into a conversation at a later time to resolve this issue. Whilst accepting that the position at the moment is one where both parties are under threat of blocking for edit warring, I accept the heavy wrist-slap. I believe Boelyn should not be mass tagging articles and should not be creating mass red-links, and broadly speaking now, Wikipedia should not treat all politicians as automatically notable. But like I said, I'd rather stand in another part of the house party sighing heavily into my pint than squaring off with one of the guests, so consider this editor one chastised. doktorb _words^deeds 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Both users Warned. Doktorbuk should already know that policy/practice does not get changed by edit-warring about it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I feel really let down by this. As I stated here and on the 3RR, I have not been reverting and as far as I'm aware, all of my hours of edits have been wiped by Doktorbuk - I haven't restored them, but I'm really upset about this, as I feel that he has bullied, gone past 3RR, not entered the discussion I tried to start at his talk page and Talk:Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency) (the initial article in contention). He marked his initial reverts as minor, with no edit summary etc. I'm just trying to create articles on people seeing as inherently notable and am having this made far more difficult. I'm really upset that no action seems to be being taken to restore the edits, at least the ones where he went past 3RR, and I'm not sure I'll bother keep trying to continue this project, despite spending hours on Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency) so you could all see where the redlinks to MPs are heading. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Boleyn, where Doktorbuk has now stated that he plans to remove my redlinks to MPs. Can someone please help? Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is continuing, please see User talk:Boleyn. Boleyn (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this was given a result, Doktorbuk has reverted my edits on Devizes (UK Parliament constituency), Preston (UK Parliament constituency), Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency) and City of York (UK Parliament constituency). These have been reverted (for now) by User:Avanu, and discussion has continued at my Talk page. Can someone please help? Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• FFS, stop posting all over the place about this. The above incident is closed, period. You EITHER open a new one OR advise me OR advise the other admin who was involved, NOT ALL 3 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:116.120.84.244 reported by User:Nug (Result: 24 hrs)

Page: Maret Ani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 116.120.84.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Comments:
This IP has also been edit warring at Kaia Kanepi too. --Nug (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor who has been asked to help on behalve on the IP before this report was done. The problem here is a bit more complex than it looks. A group of Estonian editors has been working together in order to implement an unconsensual edit to most Estonian related biographies. It all goes around the fact that they change the country of birth in the infobox for people born in Estonia during the Soviet Occupation from (Estonian SSR, Soviet Union) to (Estonia). While the rest of Wikipedia uses historical accuracy for place of birth (exemple, Adolf Hitler was born in Austro-Hungary, and not modern Austria, or, George Washington was born in British America and not modern United States) this group of editors has decided to highjack all Estonian-related biographies and replace Soviet Union with Estonia. It all becomes even more clear when one sees that the Estonia article itself clearly states that the independence was restored in 1991, thus makes no sense to link Estionia as a place of birth for people born before 1992 during the Soviet Occupation and when Estonia was part of the Soviet Union.

Now, the problem is that when some user comes and removes the unestablished edit, he is confronted with a group of editors to keep their edit in place and do their best to avoid breaking Wikipedia:3RR. Even so, from what I see, many users particiated in this edit-war, and more than one broke 3RR, however User:Nug reported this one probably because he as well participated in the edit-war and reverted the IP.

I left a message to one of the participants of the edit war (here) and I left a message to the IP on his talk page, advising them all to seek consensus. I am not defending no one from being sanctioned if an administrator finds that appropriate, however I am sugesting that these group of Estonian users should stop edit-warring constantly in order to keep a much contested unconsensual edit. This has been going for some time and has become disruptive. WikiProject Football had already been having problems with them making the same edit and changing the consensus for football-related articles. The users claim some "special case" for them, as seen here, and also some distortion of facts, as for exemple here, where the user claims that Estonia was "merely occupied" (as if "merely" would change an historic event), so in none of them I see a reason for them to have an exception in order to edit contrary to what is widely established troughout Wikipedia.

PS: I just noteced that despite having left warnings earlier on his talk page, User:Nug has not notified the IP about this report here, as recomended by the policies. I notified the IP. FkpCascais (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was called away for dinner and missed that step, this IP is now notified. --Nug (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked both the IP and User:Jaan, see next report below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaan reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24hrs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]
• 5th revert: [169]

Page: Maret Ani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 1st revert: [170]
• 2nd revert: [171]
• 3rd revert: [172]
• 4th revert: [173]
• 5th revert: [174]

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

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

Comments:

I am not involved in this article, I got there from a report above made by user Nug. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just reverting vandalism, which is legal according to the policy. I am an editor involved with editing Estonia-related articles since 2007, and just followed a consensus that had been developed on Wikipedia. Take any wikiarticle on an Estonian person born in the Soviet Union and possibly its talk page for proof. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Good faith edits are not vandalism. And those were good faith edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably I was wrong but they sure seemed like vandalism to me. This was the first time during my five year experience anyone ever stepped against the consensus, let alone an anonymous IP at such violence. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What consensus would that be? Nothing has been decided here. And noone ever made an active effort of attracting users to establish consensus. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus demonstrated by the fact that just about 100% of Estonian BLPs have that style. --Nug (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Nug, but the word "standard" as you use it below is much better suited for that purpose. There is no WP:CONSENSUS on the use of this standard, which this 3RR-edit warring clearly shows, and the lack of discussion on the MoS Baltic states related articles page. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite the low number of participants in that discussion you linked, you cannot say there was no consensus, your proposal "Use the name of the settlement with its current name and sovereign state" is in agreement, since it is a settled fact in international legal scholarship that sovereignty never passed to the Soviet Union. Only Russian "patriotic nationalists" think otherwise (the Russian "liberal democratic" camp agree with the international view). --Nug (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A talk page with two drafts, little discussion, and an article page with no conclusions, does not witness of consentual decisionmaking. I is really that simple to me. But, I do agree with you on what you write below: "Formalising this style would go some way to fixing future issues." Exactly, let's have this discussion. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 12:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs to be discussed. --Nug (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been IP vandals in the past, Jaan probably believed this one was also vandalising these pages, not an unreasonable belief given that User:Darkness Shines also reverted the IP here and here. All Estonia BLPs, must be hundreds, have the place of Birth as listed "Estonia", it has become the standard form. In fact there was some discussion about formalising this style [175] by creating a regional style guide for the Baltic states similar to Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. Formalising this style would go some way to fixing future issues. --Nug (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you are omitting the fact, that User:Jaan in particular has been setting the standard by "fixing" all the mentioned Estonian BLP's and some Latvians as well. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 10:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That is simply untrue. Maret Ani has had "Estonia" right from the beginning [176], has had most other BLPs. I am shocked that you are capable of spinning such tales. --Nug (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

An article that has Estonia right from the beginning does not need "fixing", I think we can agree on that. What tales? If you go back a year or so you will see that User:Jaan has implemented WP:OPENPARA, which is okay, but has also fixed all "Estonian SSR's" to Estonia. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is true at all. As far as I can tell those changes from "Estonian SSR's" to Estonia was simply restoring it back to the status quo that existed prior to occasional attempts to "fix it" by changing it to "Estonian SSR". --Nug (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Estonian SSR was never a legal sovereign power over Estonia, ergo listing the Estonian SSR as anyone's birthplace is effectively POV pushing the legitimacy of Soviet occupation and a common vandalism tactic. Making out current Estonian officials to be Soviet progeny is a common anti-Estonian attack tactic against Estonia-related articles. Blocking Jaan puts this sort of POV provocation on an equal footing with reputable content. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked both Jaan and the IP, 24 hrs each. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC) ]

User:Readin and User:N-HH, reported by User:99801155KC9TV (Result: declined)

Page: Category:Vietnamese expatriates in Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
Readin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([177]; [178])
N-HH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([179]; [180])

Previous version reverted to: [181] [182][183][184][185]

• The 1st revert: [186]
• The 2nd revert: [187]
• The 3rd revert: [188]
• The 4th revert: [189]
• The 5th revert: [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As aforementioned.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None.

Comments:

Nipponese Dog Calvero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([191])
丁琍 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([192])
Readin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ([193])
The User:Nickhh/N-HH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
([194]; [195]; [196])

• The User:Readin and the User:Nickhh/User:N-HH have both been aggressively making controversial reverts, against almost ALL known Taiwanese-related category-edits by the administrator Good Olfactory, as if it is some sort of a vendetta. My main question is, why are the two of them continuing the same edit-war started by the User:114.44.168.214, a suspected IP sock-puppet of the indefinitely-blocked vandal, Internet troll and sock-puppeteer User:Nipponese Dog Calvero, and carried forward by his other now-indefinitely-blocked sock-puppet, "User:丁琍"?

• I think that there is little doubt that the User:Nickhh/User:N-HH is some sort of a general "edit-warrior" and a controversy-monger, looking for controversies as band-wagons to jump upon, although I might be, and can be, wrong, of course.

-- KC9TV 13:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I should dignify this with a response. Those edits are by different editors, sometimes months apart. Why are you templating and reporting people for single reverts made last year? Why are you templating and reporting me here for a single revert on the page cited, the logic for which, along with similar edits made on several other category pages, was explained on Good Olfactory's talk page and at Talk:Taiwan? I'm not edit warring or acting aggressively in any way, or taking up the baton from some other editor/sockpuppet I've never heard of until now, I'm just rectifying a manifest error across multiple pages. N-HH talk/edits 13:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a general consensus for that, and from there a mandate, or a "baton", as you would call it? Rather doubtful, indeed. -- KC9TV 13:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation This is a bit of a mess. You appear to be angry at two editors over a nationalistic content dispute. I don't see any real edit warring; just one round of reverts each that can be resolved through discussion. If there is some concern that these accounts are related to the blocked sockpuppeter, then WP:SPI should be used, but I don't see it at all. As the reporter has been blocked for disruptive editing, I don't see anything else to resolve here. Kuru (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:81.206.241.162 reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: warned)

Page: Syrian uprising (2011–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&action=history

Anon IP's contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/81.206.241.162

not only edit warring but vandalism too:

diff 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&diff=501269684&oldid=501267035

diff 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&diff=501271284&oldid=501271049

diff 3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&diff=501274263&oldid=501272691

diff 4 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&diff=501275909&oldid=501274816

Sopher99 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned I see no warnings for 3RR, or even for the recent disruptive edits (just an old warning for blanking). I'll leave them a note. Kuru (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DMD453 reported by User:Dalahäst (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Anesthesia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DMD453 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anesthesia&oldid=501251250

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anesthesia&diff=501305303&oldid=501268365
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anesthesia&diff=next&oldid=501308221
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anesthesia&diff=next&oldid=501311031
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anesthesia&diff=next&oldid=501313730

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADMD453&diff=501313371&oldid=501165276 (not strictly a 3RR warning, but informs the user of the edit war and the reason their edit does not belong in the article)

Note: User:Yobol did indeed warn the user officially; I didn't see his edit in the history for whatever reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADMD453&diff=501315555&oldid=501313371  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnesthesia&diff=501308564&oldid=494063493 (User:Yobol attempted to communicate with the user on the article talk page; the user did not reply there, nor to the messages left on their own talk page)

Comments:
The edits in question were described by myself and User:Yobol as adding undue weight to a particular medical specialty within the article, as well as sounding somewhat like an advertisement for it. Regardless of those two issues, the content is most definitely copy-pasted from any one of a number of sources (the text exists in several places, which a quick Google search will reveal); thus, it should not be added to Wikipedia.  dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 23:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Materialscientist (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Hanckock reported by User:Armbrust (Result: 31 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [197]

• 1st revert: [198]
• 2nd revert: [199]
• 3rd revert: [200]
• 4th revert: [201]
• 5th revert: [202]
• 6th revert: [203]
• 7th revert: [204]
• 8th revert: [205]
• 9th revert: [206]
• 10th revert: [207]
• 11th revert: [208]
• 12th revert: [209]
• 13th revert: [210]
• 14th revert: [211]
• 15th revert: [212]
• 16th revert: [213]
• 17th revert: [214]
• 18th revert: [215]
• 19th revert: [216]
• 20th revert: [217]
• 21st revert: [218]
• 22nd revert: [219]
• 23rd revert: [220]
• 24th revert: [221]
• 25th revert: [222]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [223]

Comments:

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: )

Page: Wikipedia:Article titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Born2cycle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:11, 7 July

• 1st revert: 20:19, 7 July
• 2nd revert: 22:36, 7 July
• 3rd revert: 16:14, 9 July
• 4th revert: 17:48, 9 July

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:56, 9 July (note: no edits yet after this warning)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 01:25, 8 July

Comments:
See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't want to pull the trigger just yet, but unless Born2cycle can give a very good explanation I'm minded to block for 24 hours here. I'll think on it for a little while, and other comments would be appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed - I'd like to see his reaction to my warning before acting. While he's been around here long enough that he should know what constitutes an EW, he doesn't seem to have been explicitly warned recently. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • And that reaction was since when is restoring stable wording "edit warring"? and opening an AN/I thread to get the "stable version" restored. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• I just found out about this by looking at Sarek's edit history. Am I not supposed to get a notice about this?

  Anyway, folks, as I explained at the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_restore_stable_precision_wording_at_WP:AT AN/I thread I just opened a while ago (I would have responded here earlier had I known about), I was cooperating with Dicklyon on finding some compromise wording. When I was reverted by Sarek, I decided to revert back to the stable wording.

  The "first revert" is not a revert, but an edit in what I thought was a cooperative process (note that I'm accepting some of Dick's changes, but not all). The "second revert" is not a revert, but a restoring of longstanding stable wording after my own cooperative edit was reverted by Sarek to a version that contradicted longstanding important wording. The "third revert" is the first actual revert. The "fourth revert" is also a revert, but again trying to get back to stable wording.

  Also, I'm confused as to why Sarek warned me to stop "edit warring" on my talk page, and then before I did any more edits, filed this anyway.

  Here is what I did on the talk page to try to resolve this there: yesterday today --Born2cycle (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Will you agree not to do any further reverts for a while, as the matter is discussed? That ought to render any 3RR / EW concerns moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

He made that agreement here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment: He has apparently agreed to revert any further on ANI. He also needs to remember that nothing on Wikipedia is "stable" and reverted to a "stable" version can therefore not occur. Everything - policies, articles, templates, etc are all in evolutionary phases. Returning to a "stable" version is not acceptable, unless it fixes something "broken" (such as template changes often do). Any more such reversions anywhere will be considered edit-warring, and will be treated accordingly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course (and again), I agree to stop reverting, but I'd like a suggestion on how to remedy the situation, as we've moved away from the longstanding stable version with an important clause, with very little actual discussion and the involvement of only a handful of editors. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that this last has the appearance of trying to continue the edit war by proxy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:King Shadeed & User:DCGeist reported by User:Spshu (Result: Pages protected)

Pages: Major film studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Film Studio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: King Shadeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DCGeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Template:Film Studio reverts all by User:King Shadeed Previous version reverted to: [224]

• 1st revert: [225]
• 2nd revert: [226]
• 3rd revert: [227]

Major film studio Previous version reverted to: [228] User:DCGeist

• 1st revert: [229]
• 2nd revert: [230]

User:King Shadeed

• 3rd revert: [231]
• 4th revert: [232]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User:DCGeist

King Shadeed

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [233]

Comments: I have insisted on have sources for those studios considered to be mini-major which was brushed off by DCGeist.
Then User:King Shadeed starts an tangent argument about DreamWorks Studios (which I brought up to head off such a tangent) instead of address the main issue.

I have cited WP:OR in regards my edits in the mini-majors section versus theirs.

I have also been treated by User:King Shadeed as if I don't know anything.

Spshu (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking at this. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected - both pages are protected for 3 hours. Although King Shadeed did violate 3RR, all editors were involved in edit warring and it would give an unfair advantage to block only one. I would advise the parties involved to discuss the issues on the talk page, and consider dispute resolution if necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Urklistre reported by User:Indrek (Result: Protected)

Page: 16:10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Urklistre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [234]

• 1st revert: [235]
• 2nd revert: [236]
• 3rd revert: [237]
• 4th revert: [238]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [239] (can't post diff because it's the first revision)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [240] Diff 2: [241]

Comments:

Indrek (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 48 hours. I see there's a talkpage discussion going, which is why I don't want to block anyone here; if it resumes after the protection expires, then I'll block, but I'll see if putting this on ice for a while does the trick. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• It may be relevant to note here that I've submitted a request for a third opinion, due to the dispute having reached an impasse. Since User:Urklistre has indicated intention to resume edit warring when the temporary protection expires, perhaps it would be a good idea to extend the protection, to see if a third editor can manage to bring the dispute to an amicable consensus? Indrek (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:213.181.206.9 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Munnar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.181.206.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [242]

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:213.181.206.9#July_2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Munnar#Renoval of unsourced POV etc

Comments:

Justification :That fourth one was not reversion as claimed by Sitush. It was just addition of a portion after discussion on talk page here, not complete reversion. 213.181.206.9 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• It was a revert of something that I had specifically mentioned when I opened the discussion on the talk page. It is evident from your response there that (a) you had read my note and (b) you are not unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies etc. Blimey, you even know of {{Advert}}, which is not one that is particularly common. Why not just self-revert your edits to the state that it was in yesterday when I issued the 3RR warning? - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The fourth edit was a revert - WP:3RR includes partial reverts of edits. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Lsufalcon reported by User:Scientiom (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: Version before edit war: [247]

• 1st revert: [248]
• 2nd revert: [249]
• 3rd revert: [250]
• 4th revert: [251]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [252]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [253][254]

Comments:
This user has been trying to push across a change of theirs without receiving consensus on the talk page for the change, and seems to be ignoring the fact that they need this to implement their change. --Scientiom (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Justification: The change I was making is within bounds of the Rules of Wikipedia. I would not just change a page without a reason. Scientiom is incessantly defiant against the changes, and keeps reverting back to the incorrect application of the Rules. My changes are anti-biased. He seems to favor a biased form of the article. Lsufalcon (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Italpr2000 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Charlie's Angels (2011 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Italpr2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Vandalized the Charlie's Angels page by changing the final episode title from "They Are Not Saints" to "Angels Never Forget". This guy is very close to starting an edit war. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. This user has not violated 3RR and it doesn't look like vandalism to me. Please consider discussing the issue with the user on the article's talk page, and use dispute resolution if necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Josh26E reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Transdev York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [255]

• 1st revert: [256]
• 2nd revert: [257]
• 3rd revert: [258]
• 4th revert: [259]
• 5th revert: [260]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [261]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [262] and [263]

Comments:
Josh26E has been edit warring across a number of other articles as well (including this disruptive edit), and refuses to listen to other editors on matter such as WP:NOT. His only attempt to discuss things with other editors is this personal attack. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, he's apparently a sockpuppet of Josh24B, as far as I can tell. Ian.thomson (talk)

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely as a sock puppet -- Selket ^Talk 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:178.107.150.13 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Argaman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 178.107.150.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [264]
• 2nd revert: [265]
• 3rd revert: [266]

(All articles in the ARBPIA topic area are covered by a 1RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [267]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk, but on the user's talk: [268]

Comments:
This is covered under the topic-area wide 1 revert rule. When informed of that rule, the IP performed another revert (no 3 listed above) nableezy - 20:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:92.23.134.225 reported by User:Elizium23 (Result: Warned)

Page: Knights of Columbus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.23.134.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [269]
• 2nd revert: [270]
• 3rd revert: [271]
• 4th revert: [272]
• 5th revert: [273]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [274]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Knights_of_Columbus#Cristero_cover_controversy

Elizium23 (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Warned User had been contacted but not explicitly warned about 3RR violations. I have warned him. If it happens again come back here or contact me. -- Selket ^Talk 17:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DD2K reported by User:Æðð (Result: reporter blocked 31 hours)

Page: Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [275]

• 1st revert: [276]
• 2nd revert: [277]
• 3rd revert: [278]
• 4th revert: [279]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted to resolve issue on my talk page.

Comments:

--Æðð (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Æðð has been reverted by multiple editors for removing reliably sourced content without justification and certainly without consensus. These aren't just automatic reverts either. Several editors, including DD2K, have discussed the content dispute on the article's talk page, but Æðð has not participated in those discussions and persists with reintroducing his edit. If this editor continues removing the content, I too will be joining other editors in reverting his nonsense. John Shandy` • talk 22:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 houra that is, reporter has been blocked 31 hours for edit warring without any attempt to discuss. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fz62 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Palestinian Media Watch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fz62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [280]

• 1st revert: [281]
• 2nd revert: [282]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [283]

Comments:
The article is under 1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA area.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - user was given a chance to revert and yet did not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenario reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Sogyal Rinpoche (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 17:38, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying */")
2. 07:07, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
3. 07:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */")
4. 09:19, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
5. 11:18, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")

• Diff of warning: here and [284]
• This editor has finally found the talk page -- but the reverting is continuing nonetheless. There's quite a long history of it; I've considered reporting previously for edit-warring (though slower than 3RR), but now we're well into 3RR territory. The edits involve use of blogs as sources, in clear violation of WP:RS -- something several of us have been trying to explain to this editor.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:SplashScreen reported by User:Hahc21 (Result: )

Page: Lady Starlight (DJ) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SplashScreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [285]

• 1st revert: [286]
• 2nd revert: [287]
• 3rd revert: [288]
• 4th revert: [289]
• 5th revert: [290]
• 6th revert: [291]

The link to the article history for a more comprehensive look: [292]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [293]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: All parties involved have been discussing the matter on the deletion page for the article, without a clear resolution: [294]

Comments: The article is at AFD, so all content is preferred to syat so the voters will have the change to read and analyze the information. SplashScreen started deleting content from the article claiming BLP and when i warned him that he is involved on an edit war against several other users that has been restoring the content, he claimed NOT3RR as defense. The main goal here is to reach a solution to this edit war spanning more than 20 edits adding and removing content in over 1 hour. It is important to note that i'm not involved in the war in any way. Thanks. —Hahc21 22:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to specifically point out that removed sourced content I added to the article. This isn't the place, but they additionally brought in personal jabs at two edits on the AFD page. Statυs (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• I reverted edits that saw the addition unsourced content relating to WP:BLP. This is allowed via WP:NOT3RR. It was Status (talk · contribs), by readding the content with little to no explanation, who edit warred (as he has a pluralistic block history for). SplashScreen (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I reverted you reverting me adding new content into the article. You clearly want as little content as it in possible so it gets deleted. As for the CN tags, I quickly realized I was wrong and let you remove them. Statυs (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• No. I clearly want as little unsourced and libelous content in the article as I can so Wikipedia can continue to function without the threat of legal action. "Quickly realized" - no dear, you took a good few reverts. Funny that you can "quickly realize your mistake" and that's OK, but my protection of BLP ends up here. SplashScreen (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please check the AFD page, where I say that having them is not correct. Again, only one of my edit summaries say: "Cn templates are acceptable in an article." My revert was in response to you removing content that I added to the article. If you just removed the content with citation needed, I wouldn't have needed to revert. Statυs (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, so these users don't get along, but it takes two to edit war, so why is Splash the only one reported here? Whether his reverts were in line with BLP or not is debatable; what's not debatable is that neither of these editors bothered to take it to the talk page.OohBunnies! (talk) 22:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• SplashScreen was edit warring against two people who were trying to add sourced content into the article (apart from the CN, but that was just discussed; I admitted being wrong about it). He was reverting their additions. 22:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• And they were reverting him, including reverting copyedits in their reversions of his reversions (it's really Status I'm thinking of). His edits were not vandalism, so their reverts are not exempt either. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: Splash claims that his removal of content was justified. Status says it's not. They both edit warred instead of taking it up on the talk page. Two to tango, two to edit war. Hahc, I know Status seems to be your friend, but if you can't act fairly when dealing with these problems, let someone else deal with it. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually i was waiting for someone to reach that conclusion. I didn't mentioned Status intentionally since he has some history over edit warring and positions are different. Status and Tomica, just like this user Tokyogirl79, they were adding sourced content. Anyway, i noticed all of them about this report, so they are correctly involved in such. Thanks. —Hahc21 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

When exactly is a removal of sourced content justified? I was trying to expand the article to prove its notability (which I did on another article Splash nominated for deletion, Jennifer Lopez: Feelin' So Good), and seems as if he was not having any of that. How is this myself vs. Splash, when I wasn't even the only one who was in this? Statυs (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

When the content is poorly sourced, irrelevant, a violation of BLP policy...there are plenty of times. And no, it's not just you v. Splash, it's all of you vs. Splash and it's ridiculous. OohBunnies! (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was also included in the case; Splash removed a lot of content from the article, something that shouldn't have been done when the article is at AfD, plus he was removing some reliable sources also. We were trying to stop him and he edit warred us. — Tomica (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear. I'm not claiming Splash is innocent. None of you should have been reverting each other like this. None of you. You've gotten in trouble for revert warring before, and I'm pretty amazed that it's happened again. There are no rules against editing an article while it's at AfD, and whether or not Splash's edits were an attempt to get it deleted, well, that's debatable but there might be some truth in that. Splash is too aggressive about wanting these articles deleted. But the rest of you, the "other side" as it were, you're not behaving maturely either. Everyone's bickering every time you attempt to discuss things on talk pages, vague accusations of shady behaviour...it's just ridiculous. At this rate people are just going to get blocked, or topic banned, or interaction-banned or something else that should be needless. You need to stop behaving like this. OohBunnies! (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

SplashScreen is completely transparent. The AFD was originally closed as keep, and then he complained to the one who closed it to reopen it. Then, a user mentioned some of the content was copy and pasted from another source, so he tried to get it deleted with speedy deletion. It was contested, twice. Then, another user comes in, removes the copy and pasted material and adds sources. Then, he removes some of it (in which he was mostly correct in doing, such as sourcing Wikipedia, IDK why that was done). I was then, in an attempt to save the article for deletion (which I like to do from time to time), expanded the article. He kept removing information I was adding into the article. He also, additionally, which I found odd, removed the "external links" section of the article. Looks to me as if he additionally did that so a "contents" section would no longer appear on the article; making it look like it has nothing on it. So, yes, it is quite clear that SplashSource is dead set on the article being deleted and will do anything to do so. He appears to be this way in multiple AFDs he begins. On a separate article I created and he nominated for deletion, he tried to discredit a source because they had a little grammar mistake. Statυs (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"The AFD was originally closed as keep, and then he complained to the one who closed it to reopen it" - completely OK per WP:DRV. "a user mentioned some of the content was copy and pasted from another source, so he tried to get it deleted with speedy deletion" - as per WP:COPYVIO and WP:SPEEDY. "He kept removing information" - per WP:RS, as blogs are unreliable. The external link was removed per WP:OVERLINK. "On a separate article I created and he nominated for deletion, he tried to discredit a source because they had a little grammar mistake" - irrelevant here or anywhere. SplashScreen (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Robert32439 reported by User:Hello71 (Result: Semi)

Page: Brad Birkenfeld (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robert32439 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A simple glance at the history of the page in question and User talk:Robert32439 is I think enough evidence to warrant this. In particular, see the following diffs:

• 02:14, 5 July 2012 (Undid revision 499640120 by 188.62.188.34 (talk) Undid sabotage by Swiss IP)
• 02:16, 5 July 2012 (Undid revision 499471578 by 188.62.188.34 (talk))
• 02:20, 5 July 2012 (Undid sabotage by Swiss IP)
• 11:11, 9 July 2012 (Added back POV check that was removed by Bbb23. The wholesale edits by Bbb23 are not neutral but contain a biased view and omissions of previously referenced material.)
• 12:24, 10 July 2012 (Reverting to version by LindseyW827 because of gross censorship and omissions by Bbb23)
• 11:38, 11 July 2012 (Reverting to version by LindseyW827 because of gross censorship and omissions by Bbb23) - not User:Robert32439, but likely his IP

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning by Nageh: [295] [296] [297]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning by Bbb23: [298]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [299]

Comments:

I have not personally warned the user, but two users have in the past. This seems to be (have been) a longstanding NPOV and most likely even COI issue which has either sprung up again or merely been noticed recently. Hello71 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon slight further investigation (i.e. I actually checked the contribs this time), it would appear that Special:Contributions/Robert32439 is purely a WP:SPA dedicated to furthering UBS and related entities thereof. Hello71 (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

See also WP:BLPN#Brad Birkenfeld. From what it says there, it appears that some experienced editors have been trying to clean up the article but that Robert32439 and some IPs have been undoing their work. Active reverting of a contentious BLP article by brand-new IP editors who'd don't use Talk suggests to me that semiprotection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday, I opened up a SPI report here. At the time it was based on an IP immediately coming in after Robert to revert with exactly the same edit summary Robert used. This was the IP's only edit. The IP's edit was also after I advised Robert to stop warring and to discuss whatever his issues were. I also opened up a discussion on the Birkenfeld Talk page to provide a forum for Robert to do so. He did not - and has not - responded, either to the post on his Talk page or the post on the Birkenfeld Talk page. After those edits, more edits were made by User:Luca97, a brand new account (created on July 11) who made 3 edits to the article. The effect of these WP:SPA edits was to undo a major rewrite I did in response to the BLPN post by Drmies. Regardless of what happens here, I intend to restore the article back to before these edits (as no one has discussed the issues justifying the reversion to before my (and others') edits. I also intend to add Luca97 to the SPI report to see if there is a relationship between him and Robert (the IP was obvious, Luca not as much).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected. If Robert32439 continues to revert the article without using the talk page, he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by Magog the Ogre (talk) (Result: No violation)

Page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• 1st revert: this revision (diff from previous, reversion of my edition).
• 2nd revert: this revision (diff from previous,).

• Diff of warning: N/A, Darkness Shines has stated he doesn't want me on his talk page.

Darkness Shines is on indefinite 1RR parole, a condition he agreed to when he was unblocked at one point.[300] (Importantly, the community didn't bother to impose it again on him only because he had already agreed to this). While he claims this was a "personal attack", it was in fact an important part of the testimony I've given in front of ArbCom (the very case itself is about his troublesome mindset and editing tendencies, so to omit something because it is offensive defeats the whole purpose). —Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are no violation here except one by Magog of making a heinous personal attack. First diff is my adding an {{RPA}} template, this does not remove content and is not a revert. The second diff is the only revert. It is troubling indeed to see an admin edit war a personal attack back into a talk page. Calling an editor a bigot is not evidence, it is spiteful and low. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

  The addition of the template removes the text from the page. This is in fact a removal of the WYSIWYG, which is a de facto revert. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it hides the text only. it does not remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

To the reviewing admin: Darkness Shines has a habit of wikilawyering in such a way that it benefits him. This is par for the course. And giving him a "warning" this time is useless, because he's had dozens of them and always ignores them. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You'll also notice the one thing DS has not done is admit any wrongdoing; deferring a block is usually done because a user has admitted fault and states s/he will not do so again. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would I admit to wrongdoing when I have done no wrong? It is you who is trying to game my 1RR restriction here in violation of WP:NPA in a lame attempt to get me blocked. I had but one revert, that is not wikilawyering it is a fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• The personal attack has now been redacted[301] by an arb clerk. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe that this report can be closed now, as the revert has been justified by an arb clerk. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• No violation Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Moviebob and User:212.69.46.83 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)

Page: A Scanner Darkly (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moviebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 212.69.46.83 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Previous version reverted to: [302]

• 1st revert: [303]
• 2nd revert: [304]
• 3rd revert: [305]
• 4th revert: [306]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [307]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:A Scanner Darkly (film)#Plot length

Comments:
As soon as the IP address was given the uw-ewsoft warning, this SPA account begin conveniently editing in its stead both on the article and on the talk page; both IP and account have a singular focus on this article, making the same edits on the article. - SudoGhost 19:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am reverting it to the superior version - sudoghost seems intent on vandalising the page by uploading inferior content. I'll stop reverting when he / she / it stops vandalising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.46.83 (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are going to have to review WP:NOTVAND, then. Regardless of whether you are right or not, you may not edit war. I concur with SudoGhost that the summary you inserted is overly excessive in length.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if my edits were "inferior" and not in line with WP:FILMPLOT, they still wouldn't be vandalism under Wikipedia's guidelines. The similar edit summaries from the IP and the named account further demonstrate that they are the same person. - SudoGhost 19:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Immediately after the block expired, they're still edit warring. - SudoGhost 22:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I semiprotected the article and warned User:Moviebob. He and the IP appear to be the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:PRProgRock reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result:Indef )

Page: Spy vs. Spy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PRProgRock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [308]
• 2nd revert: [309]
• 3rd revert: [310]
• 4th revert: [311]
• 5th revert: [312]
• 6th revert: [313]
• 7th revert: [314]
• 8th revert: [315]
• 9th revert: [316]
• 10th revert: [317]
• 11th revert: [318] (editing from IP 24.237.107.43)
• 12th revert: [319]
• 13th revert: [320]
• 14th revert: [321]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (from another editor): [322] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (from me): [323]

Comments:
I've been watching this one for a while, and editor PRProgRock is out of control. This editor has been told by more than one editor that thy need to use valid references and that the editor's personal opinions are not good enough - and yet PRProgRock continues to ram his versions through, edit-warring on this articles, as well as Masala chai and Bone (comics). However, the greater issue is that this editor was (until recently) indefintely blocked for exactly the same actions, and only had his block lifted on June 3, provided that "any further trolling, vandalism or sockpuppetry would lead, without warning or discussion, to an immediate and permanent block from editing". His use of editing without logging in constitutes sock puppetry, in my opinion, in addition to the rampant edit-warring and his complete lack of an ability to collaborate with others. Please deal with him.

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)