Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234

User:93.35.3.18 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Semi-protected and two IPs blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592201806 by Vituzzu (talk)"
2. 16:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592341220 by Josh3580 (talk)"
3. 16:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "COMMIE CENSORSHIP??"
4. 16:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 16:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[1]

Comments:

• Comment: I did start a discussion on the article's talk page, inviting the user to discuss the issue. They have since reverted again, prior to this report being filed. Here is the diff of the discussion invitation: diff. Sorry it was so poorly worded at first, I switched from third-person to second-person mid-edit. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• By my count the IP and its previous incarnation have reverted four different editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Note. I semi-protected the article for one year. I blocked the reported IP and the other IP for one week each.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: novio )

Page

Jimmy Henchman (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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592274566 by STATicVapor (talk) New York Daily fucking scandal is NOT a reliable source"
2. 03:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592273795 by STATicVapor (talk) oh fergawdsakes allegations of murder are most certainly BLP issues"
3. 03:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592269956 by STATicVapor (talk) BLP Issues do NOT require discussion before removal"
4. 02:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592182401 by Rmhermen (talk) court documents ARE fobidden and that wasnt the only issue WP:BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jimmy Henchman. (TW)"
2. 03:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jimmy Henchman. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC) "/* WP:BLP issues */"

Comments:

Ignores talk page messages and continues to remove content backed by reliable sources such as Billboard and the NY Daily News. Has violated WP:3rr after being warned and continues to edit war after being reverted by two different users. STATic message me! 04:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note Just to note that the user has already raised the issue with the Admin's BPL noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jimmy_Henchman, and there are ongoing discussions as to whether the material is a BLP breach at Talk:Jimmy_Henchman#WP:BLP_issues.
  The user (RedPen) who has removed material, and then reverted when it has been re-included without discussion, has done so under WP:BPL which states questionable material "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"; although he has also started the discussions both on the talk page and BPL noticeboard
  As, of course, removal of BPL issues are exempted from the three revert rule (see: WP:NOT3RR), it would probably be better for you to discuss with the user and the administrators at the BLP notice board or talk page. --Rushton2010 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is the content was backed by reliable sources. Continuously removing sourced content without valid reasons after being reverted is NOT okay. Also as stated, the discussion is ongoing and in the middle of the discussion this edit war occurred. There was no consensus that the huge amount of content removed was BLP violations, so the user cannot claim that exception of the 3rr rule. Also the BLPN discussion was opened after the edit warring occurred. The user was warned about 3rr, yet the continued to revert without discussing until after this report was made, obviously fearful of block since they violated the policies we have in place. STATic message me! 04:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• No violation BLP removals are exempt from the 3RR. You need to resolve the discussion on the talkpage before you reinsert this material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• I saw this report late last night at a time when I usually don't take actions on Wikipedia, but I was disturbed by STATicVapor's behavior and misunderstanding of policy, so I want to now add some comments. First, BLP violations can be committed even when material is supported by reliable sources, but, here, the key issue was the reliability of the sources. Second, there doesn't have to be a consensus to remove a BLP violation for an editor to claim an exemption under 3RR. Third, WP:BLPREMOVE generally trumps other policies until there a strong consensus that the disputed material should be included in some form. Fourth, STATic's claim that TRPoD stopped reverting because of the filing of this report makes no sense. The last version of the article was effectively TRPoD's. He had no reason to revert again. Finally, STATic's conduct on the article talk page was not constructive. They repeatedly accused TRPoD of vandalism (STATic used some form of the word "vandal" six times in the discussion), which is obviously incorrect and undermines any productive arguments they may otherwise have.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23; we certainly seem to be on the same page. The policy is very clear that potential BPL violations should be immediately removed, and not re-added before there is consensus that the information is not a breach of policy; a quick glance at the article's talk page shows that there is not consensus yet (I agree with Bbb23, that Static seems to be assuming bad-faith, and their comments have not been conducive to discussion and achieving consensus - rather just accusations of vandalism). Although Static may disagree with Red that it is a BPL violation, I believe Red has been acting in good faith, and his actions have been inline with the relevant policies. I'll keep an eye on the talkpage discussions and try and keep things civil and productive. --Rushton2010 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I agree my behavior was not the best. However, in what world are LA Weekly, Billboard, NY Times, MTV, Village Voice and Baltimore Sun not reliable sources? I agree some of the content should have been removed, but the literal mass removal without due dillagence, and then the edit warring on top of that was not appropriate. STATic message me! 19:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Franek K. reported by User:Sobiepan (Result: 72 hours)

Few days ago he broke the 3rr on Lechitic languages (and West Slavic languages)

Lechitic languages

• 1. [2]
• 2. [3]
• 3. [4]
• 4. [5]

West Slavic languages

• 1. [6]
• 2. [7]
• 3. [8]
• 4. [9]

He has been warned but not blocked.

Shortly later, he changed and reverted several times my comments on a talk page, which was highly provocative and against the rules of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments and Wikipedia:Civility. 1. [10], [11] I have asked him to stop [12], [13], [14] with no result, he changed it again: [15]

Today he followed me to Slavic languages and reverted twice [16] , [17] (ignoring the ongoing discussion on Talk:Silesian language).

--Sobiepan (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1. result of edit-war from 21 January is warned for both: I and Sobiepan. Both leads edit-war, not only I.

administrator Kevin Gorman took care of us (a'la curator), former administrator Piotrus also help

1. later - 22 January, user Sobiepan enter to discuss large pictures. First I and user JorisvS [18], reduced the size of the graphic uploaded by Sobiepan. "Editing comments" is one but Sobiepan have no right to destroy the layout of page, too large graphics and separating lines are unacceptable. Size of Sobiepan's graphics have been reduced (graphics are not removed), separating lines can not exist because it is written posts directly to that text. We both (I and JorisvS) thoroughly explained what was going on. Sobiepan reverted all edits, can not be subordinate, makes it difficult to discuss. Administrator Kevin also removed them and warned Sobiepan [19].
2. Today reverted new change by Sobiepan, Sobiepan doing controversial changes with Silesian despite waged discussion (ignoring the ongoing discussion on Talk:Silesian language, discussion is still in progress) and introduces errors to article (Ref label|Silesian|a to Old Polish?, this ref is about Silesian). Generally, user Sobiepan still makes controversial changes, other users also reverted him but it does not help. User Sobiepan create new edit-wars, for example: [20]. His behavior is outrageous. User Sobiepan do not want to improve behavior, still working aggressively, difficult to work with other users. Please help. Franek K. (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Franek K. already started edit wars and pushed POV in the past [21]--Sobiepan (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

...I knew you'd give some old links from months. This is pathetic, man. In this way behave users in a losing position. I can thoroughly analyze your edits, surely there will be other your edit-wars but I do not want trolling as you and I want to constructively discuss and edit Wikipedia, not as you. Sorry, I do not want to go down to such a low level of behavior. Franek K. (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours Given the behavior of both Sobiepan and Franek, I've blocked both for 72 hours and strongly suggested they stay away from language related articles for a while. Both have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, but their repeated behavior after warnings is unfortunate. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Simplywater reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Christian Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234/userlinks, also editing as 76.98.253.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st edit: 21:14, 24 January, added to the first sentence: "[Christian Science] is a Christian denomination ..."

• 1st revert: 22:01, 24 January, added to the first sentence: "[Christian Science] is a Christian denomination ..."
• 2nd revert: 03:06, 25 January (several consecutive edits), added to the first sentence: "[Christian Science] recognized by the National Council of Churches as part of the Christian family, ..." and removed "Christian Scientists regard their religion as part of mainstream Christianity."
• 3rd revert: 19:10, 25 January (several consecutive edits), added to the first sentence: "[Christian Science] is a is a set of beliefs that adhere to the Christian tradition and practices spiritual healing."

• 4th revert but self-reverted: 19:33, 25 January, added to the body of the article (in the middle of a quote from someone else): "However, on November 21, 2011, theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon and then General Secretary for the National Council of churches, verbally acknowledged the Christian Science church as 'indeed part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ."
• Self-revert: 19:36, 25 January, removed "However, on November 21, 2011, theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon and then General Secretary for the National Council of churches, verbally acknowledged the Christian Science church as 'indeed part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ."

• 4th revert: 19:43, 25 January, added to the body of the article: "However, in more recent times main stream Christian churches have adjusted their views, allowing the Christian Science church to be a part of the National Council of Churches, their General Secretary theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon stating 'The Christian Science church is indead a part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ."

Comments

Simplywater is adding material sourced to a dictionary and a discussion on this website.

S/he was asked to discuss at 00:24, 25 January, 04:14, 25 January, 05:00, 25 January, and was warned about 3RR at 19:28, 25 January, but restored the material again at 19:43, 25 January. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Sue Rangell reported by User:Lightbreather (Result: No violation)

Page: Gun politics in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sue Rangell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:01, 23 January 2014 reverts [22]
2. 13:06, 23 January 2014 reverts [23]
3. 13:08, 23 January 2014 reverts [24]
4. 18:20 23 January 2014 reverts [25]

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

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

Comments: I think this editor is Wikihounding me. I am not an experienced enough WP editor to know how to show that, but most recently she followed me to the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) BLP and caused me (and the subject) a great deal of grief. See Robert Spitzer (political scientist) on WP:BLP/N, and SPA on Admin Newyorkbrad's talk page. She has been trying to get me banned or blocked for months, and it nearly "boomeranged" on her in November. I just want to be able to edit in good faith.

I've never submitted one of these before; sorry if I didn't fill out the form properly. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I thought 3rr was between the parties involved and admin, but since I see another editor has commented I have asked my mentor for help. Also, Sue was never my mentor. I did seek her help once, but that is explained in my comments in the "She has been trying to get me banned or blocked" discussion linked-to above. Especially my posts there from Nov 13-16 (2013).

Absolute nonsense. I have a 1RR rule that I have held to for seven years. If you take a look at the diffs supplied by the complaintant, you will see that they are just regular edits. One is a revert, and that is all I will do for 48 hours. This is a classic SPA account (editing Gun Control articles exclusively) that has narrowly escaped a topic ban on several occassions, for example it was heavily involved with the edit war that resulted in Saltyboatr's block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Soon after that, this account attempted to get several long standing editors topic banned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Ownership_issue_on_Federal_assault_weapons_ban_page.3F

This last one is a "Must Read" to get an understanding of this account's activities. The result boomeranged on her, and narrowly resulted in a topic ban for the second time: "There is no consensus for a topic ban. There is, however, clear concern among editors about Lightbreather's contributions, and many who oppose a topic ban do state that Lightbreather's edits are disruptive. Word to the wise: that no topic ban is agreed on does not, of course, mean that individual administrators cannot cite this discussion as a warning of sorts if they feel a block on Lightbreather for disruption is warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)"

Politically, I am on the same side as this SPA (I am Pro Gun Control), but these activities are so disruptive, and along with the ownership issues, I continually find myself siding with the pro-gun editors due to this WP:CRUSH behavior.

There is no edit war going on, the complaintant's own diffs show that. I have simply made some edits however that the complaintant doesn't happen to like, and now we are all wasting our time because of it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This is completely absurd. Lightbreather has been the disruptive editor pushing an agenda and waving a POV flag from Day One. She pretends not to understand what is going on and rehashes the same tired points again and again, hoping that other editors will throw up their hands and give up. I believe Sue Rangell was originally mentoring her or trying to help her, before Sue saw her for the basket case that she is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am getting ready to leave my desk for a few hours, but I would like to say, re: Sue's saying she has a 1RR rule that she had held to for seven years. 1. She also says right on her user page that she "click[s] the revert button a lot" (emphasis mine) 2. Recently (17 JAN 2014) another editor warned her about 3RR. To which she replied: "I'm not going to argue about it. I have a 1RR rule, so if you think I've slipped-up and done three reverts in 24 hours feel free to report it, I'll deserve it." And she called it "nonsense," just as she's done here. After she reported me as an "SPA" on the talk page of the admin overseeing that page, he told her "the article looks to me to be in pretty decent shape" (same link as SPA link I cited in my notice).

I will be happy to drop this if she'll just promise to stop following me around from article to article, "fixing" my edits. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing other editors isn't going to help, especially because this noticeboard isn't a "weight of opinions" thing. Your comment here does nothing to show that there is any edit-warring taking place, which is the entire point of this noticeboard. I think now's a good time to drop the stick. A series of consecutive edits that revert material counts as a single revert as far as what defines "edit warring". - Aoidh (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Are you the admin who is reviewing this? I've never done one before. I read the related pages a few times and proceeded as best I could. I thought it would be me, Sue, and an admin. I only "canvassed" as you say because I saw a comment by another editor. Also, I guessed we're supposed to comment freely, as Sue and Mike have done. I have to leave my desk now, but I will check in later. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. I see one revert at 01:20 and a series of edits, including one explicit revert, from 20:01-20:25. Consecutive edits only count as one, so I get two reverts. I don't see a 3RR, and the "1RR" seems to be self-imposed. Kuru (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Kuru: I see 9 reverts. Let's look closer: 172.129.246.164 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

1. 20:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (Undid revision 592065894 by Lightbreather The word Argument is too inflammatory)

   Actual: Also restored unsourced POV paragraph contrary to WP:BURDEN

   (1) Reverted revision 592065894 by User:Lightbreather

2. 20:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (Fixed Multiple issues)

   Actual: Removed 2 dated {{CN}} tags and one {{FV}} tag without addressing problems

   (2) Reverted revision 591951993 by Lightbreather

   (3) Reverted revision 591958764 by AnomieBOT

3. 20:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (for clarification)

   (4) Reverted revision 590722228 by Gaijin42

4. 01:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Reverted Lightbreather's revert, restoring POV and consensus. Repaired "Violence reduction debate" section)

   Actual: It was a rollback "restoring POV" version 592092475 by Sue Rangell [23:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)], which manually added back in a 3rd party editor's "Violence reduction debate" header name change.

   Comparison showing rollback which reverted these edits:

   (5) Reverted revision 592087780 by Lightbreather

   (6) Reverted revision 592089857 by Lightbreather

   (7) Reverted revision 592091239 by Lightbreather

   (8) Reverted revision 592099584 by Lightbreather

   (9) Reverted revision 592103613 by Lightbreather

• Comment Those are all "whole" not "in part" reverts. FYI. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted, consecutive edits only count as one. And while I applaud your creativity, your proposed counting by the number of edits that were undone by the revert is silly. I'm sorry if you're confused, you may want to the read the core policy related to edit warring before commenting further. Kuru (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

•  Comment: This is already closed. Please do not add new information to a closed report. If edit-warring has re-commenced, file a new report with new evidence. Even if there was edit-warring 2 days ago (which I'm not investigating), we don't do punishment - this noticeboard is to prevent current disruption due to edit-warring ES&L 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:184.58.24.163 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked)

Page

I Knew You Were Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "restored SOURCED and NOTABLE information"
3. 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592475900 by Lukeno94 (talk) Reverted vandalism as this is notable as it is not a mistake as sources clearly point out that is on every copy of releases and should be noted as such."
4. 13:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592474477 by Lukeno94 (talk) restored sourced information and reverted vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[28]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also is showing a tremendous lack of WP:COMPETENCE at User talk:Amire80, by claiming things are personal attacks based on their location, and that somehow a "Copy, paste and repost" method is not reverting. User is not new, and has a previous block for disruptive editing at this IP address. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also note the edit-warring of inaccurate and inappropriate messages/templates on my own talk page as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote "There were only three reverts not four Sorry. Copy paste and repost does not count as a revert you just do not like that I am winning as you are now throwing insults here as well asking if I a competence and I am, you just do not like that I will not bow to your will or play your game. Sorry but just keep piling on yourself as I said on my talk page all I did was "I did not revert anything or delete any summery all I did was copy the information post hit the edit button on the top of the page pasted it and hit Save page. That is not a revert." Also I removed the fourth as there is no fourth. Sorry." Lukeno did personally attack me in an edit summary where the statement he made is not allowed to be posted so yes I reported him to an admin and his continuing to insist that he has not personally attacked me when he has cause he did not like that I would not submit to what he wanted and I should not be blocked for edit-warring when I did not nor did I revert four times and I have removed the false fourth claim when there is no fourth revert. Just cause he does not like what I posted does not mean I have to suffer for his lake of WP:COMPETENCE. Thanks 184.58.24.163 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• And that is my entire case made in one edit. Thank you very much. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you feel good about yourself picking on 10 year old? 184.58.24.163 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I can't figure out what the IP's 10-year-old daughter has to do with anything. She supposedly cried because ??--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:184.58.24.163 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: Blocked - see above)

Page: I Knew You Were Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.58.24.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] Warning in edit summary, & also discussed on various user talk pages

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see below

Comments:

An argument that has apparently been going on for years, including by 184.58.3.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a Swifty sock, who promised to come back with a new IP to continue socking. I won't venture an opinion on the content dispute, but it doesn't excuse edit-warring. David Biddulph (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Aha, that explains a lot! There's an AN3 request filed by me as well right above this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

[35] User also refactored a comment in above mentioned talk page dispute. 212.139.247.133 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• And they tried removing one of the diffs from my AN3 request, so wait for them to try the same in this thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week (see report above). I didn't even see this one until after processing the first one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Irishfrisian reported by User:Apokryltaros (Result: page protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23 January 2014
2. 23 January 2014
3. 22 January 2014
4. 20 January 2014

I and other users have tried to warn and discuss Irishfrisian about its edit warring at Largest Organisms, but, the user has rebuffed all attempts, at several times, even lying about how consensus either did not exist or was allegedly in favor of its actions. [37], and at one point, even enlisted a sockpuppet in helping it attack another user, User:Op47talk, who made edits that Irishfrisian vehemently disapproved of [38] [39] [40]

All attempts at reasoning with Irishfrisian have been fruitless, as the user was either too busy attacking Op47 for making edits Irishfrisian disapproved of, or of it ignoring consensus: [41] [42]

Comments:

I'm requesting help in dealing with Irishfrisian, as the user is exhausting mine and other users' patience in its edit warring and steadfast refusal to do anything beyond revert back to its favorite version of Largest Organisms, and accuse other editors of "destructive edits"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've protected the page for a week; please rejoin the discussion on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, I fear that this will not solve the problem. Irishfrisian seems to wreak a bit of havock and then disapear for months on end. Thankyou anyway. Op47 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me but there edits were destructive and have made it exponentially harder to use that page I've tried to reason with them no if you saw the talk page you could tell that the only reason given for splitting that page was "it would be nice" while i gave many reasons for keeping it intact most of which ware practical or involved ease of use now that page is a bigger mess than it ever was but they refuse to listen Irishfrisian (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Three problems: 1) your definition of "reasoning with (the other editors)" revolve around edit warring and accusing them of vandalism, 2) you haven't given any reason for retaining your favorite version of the page beyond vague accusations of poor navigation and how terrible terrible it makes you feel, and 3) you keep mis-defining the term "destructive edits" as being edits that you personally disagree with and find offensive to your very soul. And it's extremely difficult to understand what you're trying to say when the only forms of communications you ever bother to do are edit-warring and personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

and you know thats not true and also your refusal to even consider anothers point of view and simply disgard it and your constntly belittling of me and my concerns makes you a rather frustrating and how were my acusations vague in any way if you look at the importance raitings of the daughter articles is lower than the original and also it takes two to edit war Irishfrisian (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't falsely accuse us of what you're doing, Irishfrisian. You're the one who belittles and attacks people by falsely accusing them of making "destructive edits" and threatening to have them blocked, you're the one who ignores everyone else's viewpoints by edit-warring and refusing to acknowledge other people's concerns beyond claiming you know what's best for the page.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, Irishfrisian, do you honestly think that, if I "knew (my) accusations" toward you weren't true, do you honestly think I would be this sadomasochistically inclined to waste everyone's time by filing a report on the edit war noticeboard out of spite? No. I filed this report here in the vain hopes that we can get you to come to your senses and stop edit warring and get you to help collaborate in improving the page.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Pichpich reported by User:85.202.40.145 (Result: Page protected )

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Comments:

85.202.40.145 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure you're doing the right thing here, Mr/Mrs IP? It's you who are violating the naming conventions requirements on the English Wikipedia, and you who are edit-warring to keep those improper edits on the page? WP:BOOMERANGS are not confortable ES&L 15:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree I have made some mistakes as I am new here but this user should be familiar with the Wikipedia's policy that clearly forbids making more than 3 reverts in such a case. 85.202.40.145 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Once you were personally told to stop, why didn't you stop? Are you aware that this is the English Wikipedia? Did you take 30 seconds to review previous discussions about the topic before making your change even the first time? Are you aware that being "new" does not absolve you from being blocked? ES&L 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said I made a mistake and I should take all responsibility for that, no matter how 'new' I am. However, you are not fair criticizing only me while this report is not against me, but other user. Can you please stick to the headline? Just because I am anon you assumed I have to be wrong and Pichpich's (whose username is offensive to me but I don't care since I don't know what policy on usernames the Wikipedia has) mistakes are not important to you. 85.202.40.145 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point: any time you file a report against another user, YOUR behavior will also be investigated. That's not optional - you are 100% to blame for this issue, and it appears that you've been aware that you should not make those changes for some time now - so it's a good time to drop the WP:STICK and back away with the repeat notice that any similar behavior will lead to an immediate block, no questions asked DP 16:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

This edit was reverted because it goes against a long standing consensus on the title of the page. These edits are clearly disruptive and the anon user refuses to engage in discussion on the talk page. Pichpich (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Then you ask for page protection or follow other WP:DR - it does not give you the authority to edit-war either ES&L 15:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

True. Blatant disruption is not outright vandalism and I should have followed a different path to resolving the issue. Pichpich (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I am not content with the result. Pity. I will conform to the decision though. 85.202.40.145 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Further similar edits in the future by the IP will lead to a block. Although WP:CONSENSUS can change, it's a requirement of our Manual of Style to use the English names in infoboxes and image captions DP 15:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note. 85.202.40.145 is fully aware of the name dispute as they have edited the article using a different IP and contributed to the name discussion back in August 2013. See 85.202.44.245 (talk · contribs).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Islandman89 reported by User:CrazyAces489 (Result: Protected)

Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti: Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IslandMan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]

I warned the user in the comments of the edits that this should be discussed in the talk page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Comments:

• Page protected for 4 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Devanampriya reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Here's an overview of the actions of all three editirs involved, including me. I can count

• 5 reverts by Devanampriya between 14:12, 22 January 2014 and 07:07, 23 January 2014
• 8 reverts by Devanampriya between 12:30, 21 January 2014 and 07:07, 23 January 2014

• 03:52, 14 January 2014‎ - 1st insertion of Yan - 1st insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 21:52, 20 January 2014 - 1st removal of Yan- 1st removal by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 12:30, 21 January 2014 - 2nd insertion of Yan - 2nd insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 12:51, 21 January 2014 - 2nd removal of Yan - 2nd removal by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 12:56, 21 January 2014 - 3rd insertion of Yan - 3rd indertion by Devanampriya [57]
• 14:58, 21 January 2014 - 3rd removal of Yan - 1st removal by Bladesmulti diff
• 16:02, 21 January 2014 - 4th insertion of Yan - 4th insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 18:42, 21 January 2014 - 4th removal of Yan - 2nd removal by Bladesmulti diff
• 21:13, 21 January 2014 - 5th insertion of Yan - 1st insertion by Joshua Jonathan (!) diff
• 10:01, 22 January 2014 - 1st addition of {{dubious}}-tag by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 14:12, 22 January 2014 - 1st removal of {{dubious}}-tag by Devanampriya (without mentioning in edit-summary) diff
• 17:29, 22 January 2014 - re-addition of {{dubious}}-tag by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 19:23, 22 January 2014 - 2nd removal of {{dubious}}-tag by Devanampriya (without mentioning in edit-summary) diff
• 19:43, 22 January 2014 - nuance to Yan by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 19:47, 22 January 2014 - 5th removal of Yan (+ nuance) - 3rd removal by Bladesmulti diff
• 19:55, 22 January 2014 - 6th insertion of Yan (without nuance) - 5th insertion by Devanampriya (with {{dubious}}-tag ) diff
• 20:59, 22 January 2014 - 6th removal of Yan - 3rd removal by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 05:51, 23 January 2014 - 7th insertion of Yan (without nuance) - 6th insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 07:05, 23 January 2014 - 7th removal of Yan - 4rd by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 07:07, 23 January 2014 - 8th insertion of Yan (without nuance) - 7th insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 17:03, 23 January 2014 - self-revert by Joshua Jonathan, in response to Bladesmulti diff

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Dharmacakra#Hindu origins
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Proposal for History-section
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Multiple disputes
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Vedic/Indo-European origins

Comments:
The "discussion" got far out of hand, resulting in a SPI by Devanampriya against me, Joshua Jonathan:

• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Dharmachakra
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dharmachakra
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Proposal for History-section
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Devanampriya keeps reverting at Yoga Page

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

REBUTTAL OF BAD FAITH REPORT FILED BY JOSHUA JONATHAN AGAINST DEVANAMPRIYA

This is nothing but a bad faith report and forum shopping effort based on vindictiveness.As the reporting editor joshua jonathan himself concedes, I already filed an ongoing SP/I against JJ due to evidence of his sockpuppeting. The SP/I can be found here. Via what seems to be a sockpuppet (HY), he already opened an ANI on me here (HY was rebuked by the admin for it).

There was a DRN that I filed in order to reach a civilized resolution here. Due to the apparent sock/meat-puppetry by Joshua, I filed an SP/I and followed the protocol. Because the sockpuppetry evidence is rather damning against Joshua Jonathan, he is filing this last ditch attempt (now) to avoid being banned or block for his abuse of wikipedia protocol and standards. I haven't made an edit on dharmachakra in days and have been focused on the SPI.

The irony is, Joshua Jonathan himself edit warred (as my edit summary comments here shows and diffs below) and already violated 3RR here--making his claim here laughable (pot calling kettle) and this entire report a waste of admin time. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 1st Time

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 2nd Time

Joshua Jonathan Bad Faith Poison Pill Edit

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 3rd Time

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 4th Time

• Both editors blocked. I blocked Devanampriya for 48 hours because they've been blocked before for edit warring. I blocked Joshua for 24 hours as a first-time block.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The four reverts made by Joshua happened in the span of 55 hours. I don't think WP:3RR applies here. --Rahul (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you're not counting some of Joshua's edits as reverts. You should read the definition of a revert. Joshua's last revert occurred on January 23 at 16:03. That means that any reverts that occurred after January 22 at 16:03 count. I believe there are five of those, making the total six. I didn't even look at Devanampriya's list above. I reviewed the history independently.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks Bbb. I'm kind of sorry I told Joshua to file; I didn't realize they'd both been warring and that this would bite him on the ass. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, I thought the block was on the basis of the diffs provided above. --Rahul (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Cebr1979 reported by User:68.33.142.75 (Result: Declined, then warned)

Page: List of X-Men members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Doop (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) X-Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cebr1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

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

Comments:The issue itself of Doop being a full member of the X-Men is still rather foggy, as in the comics themselves, it has never been fully stated in the text of the comic stories themselves that he's a full member, but rather left open to interpretation of the reader to assume that he's taken the membership, including the issue that the reported user is using as his source, or that he could just be working at the school, and only hinted at in solicitations and previews. I've been told in the past by other admins and users on this site that we cannot use such things as justification in edits. I've told this user such during the course of this whole thing in his talk and in edit summaries, but he has still reverted my edits right back, saying he has valid info and I'm am the one in the wrong.

The other issue here is the user has been rather uncivil and not assumed good faith in regards to my edits, rather choosing to accuse me of only using my opinion in regards to my edits, not reading the issues at all, and making things up to justify my edits, which you can see in the various edit summaries and in my talk page, the latter of which you can view here. I have also asked him to take this dispute to the talk pages, but he demanded that I do it instead, which I did, and he has yet to comment on it as of the time I am writing this report. I have tried to keep my tone civil over the course of this, not putting my opinion in any of my edit summaries and such when I first reverted the edits. I did get a little heated in his talk when asking him to keep things civil, and am close to breaking the 3RR rule myself, so I am coming here to get this resolved as talking does not seem to be working. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Your list of diffs is misleading. You included diffs of an IP - are you accusing the named account and the IP of being the same person? Also, you listed consecutive edits separately, even though consecutive edits count only as one revert. Finally, you failed to notify the user; I've done that. I suggest you use dispute resolution if you can't resolve the issue on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The user admitted as much that he was the IP address in his attacks on me when he said that I should not have undid "his" edits when I first undid those IP's edits. Is there not a way for admins to check and see if the IP address matches that of the user as well? Forgive me, but I am also confused in where I listed consecutive edits? I went through all the difs I listed, and they are all some form of him adding the Doop character onto the list after someone else's edit and not his own. Is it the edits from when he first added him that you are considering to be the consecutive edits? I'm just wondering so that I don't make this same mistake again in the future if need be. Thank you for your time, I'll try the dispute resolution this time. I hope I won't have to come back here again for this. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Can you please provide a diff where the user admitted they and the IP were the same person? There are two articles, and perhaps I'm missing what you're referring to. For consecutive edits (multiple edits without interruption by another editor), please read WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I should have specified, he admitted to it in my talk page actually, not on the actual articles. Going through the edit histories, you can see that I first undid the edits of the IP at 2:10 ([72]), and the user undid those edits at 3:30 ([73]), and then proceeded to send me the comment at 3:32 that I should not have undid the edit due to an issue listed "as I indicated in my edit".[74] Thank you. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
        • You pieced that together very well, thanks. I've left a request on the named user's talk page and asked them to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wolverine and the X-Men #1 & 17 both clearly state that Doop has joined the X-Men. I noted that in my edits, but this other just went ahead and undid them without saying any reason as to why, and then accused me of removing other info I never removed. If he or she feels the issue is "foggy" that's fine, he is entitled to his opinion, and I can see that he puts a lot of work into those pages and perhaps feels like he is their moderator but, he is not. To undo my edits when I listed where the info is from because of his personal interpretations is wrong. If you would like scans that prove my edits are valid, I would happy to provide them.

I also rarely make edits and did not know that wikipedia logs you out after so many days.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this other user's undoing of my valid edits without explanation and then making false accusations about me removing other info which I did not do would have been the beginning of the war (not notifying me beforehand being something you specifically mentioned to him above). There seems to be some "ownership" of the pages going on on his or her part, and that's not fair to other users (like myself) when wikipedia is a collaborative project. As I said, if you would like scans, I can provide them.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebr1979 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• As my defense to the points raised, I'm going to start off pointing out that in my very first revert of anything you did, I quite clearly stated in my edit summary why we've kept Doop in the Allies section instead of being a full member.[75] On the various re-undoings of the edits I asked you to please take it to a talk page before continuing the edit war [76][77], which you then refused to do and demanded that I take it there instead, [78], which I did, [79], and you have yet to comment on it while at least one other person has come in to agree with me. As for me accusing of removal of info, this is likely in reference to the Doop page itself. When I looked at that page's edit history, I noticed another user in the past had removed the entire power section without explanation[80], so in the process of removing the X-Men listing by Cebr, I also restored that section and noted as such in my edit summary, never claiming that cebr had removed it himself.[81] When the user came back and continually reverted that edit, he was removing the powers section once again, [82][83], while accusing me of making it up,[84][85][86]. And as far as the "ownership" accusation, up above I did say "we kept Doop there" because there are others than just myself who have talked about this and similar issues in the past. Also as stated before, I have started a talk section on this issue, and already had one agreement with me, and I have asked another member here who has probably been just as active as I have with keeping these pages up to date.[87] I have never claimed ownership of these pages, I just don't go to alot of them outside of X-Men related articles because there is just too much out there, so I've wanted to make this niche as good as I can because I am a fan. I have discussed many more issues on the talk page as well which can be seen throughout it's history and archives. If I was taking ownership, I wouldn't even bother with it. I have lost as many issues as I have probably won. But the fact at the end of the day with this one is, there was never a definitive yes from Doop, and it was left open to interpretation to the reader, which I have been told by many an admin and longtime user that we don't base edits on those kinds of things. This is not my opinion, this is what I've been told by those who run things around here.68.33.142.75 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That was too long. You did say that I removed the info from the Doop page. You said it more than once, you even said that I was continuously removing it and when I told you it was still there and I was looking it at right then and there, you even insinuated that I was wrong and looking at the wrong thing. You now claiming you noticed another user had done it previously and you were merely fixing that user's mistake is, quite literally, a lie. This is the first time you have ever mentioned any other user. As I said, I can provide scans of Doop joining the team... Can you provide scans of him declining?

Lastly, who are these "other admins" that have told you what classifies as valid documents? How come they were never mentioned before? How come your policies of previews not being allowed aren't mentioned anywhere in wikipedia's guidelines? Are you positive you were told this by admins or are you simply looking for justification now because, again, this is the first time you've mentioned this information. Information, I might add, that can't be verified.

In regards to "good faith" and whathaveyou, was claiming I deleted info I did not delete (more than once) and then backtracking a day later and claiming you were fixing someone else's mistake (which is not what you said yesterday), a display of good faith? I would think not.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"In the process of removing the X-Men listing..." I originally made three edits yesterday. I explained why I made those edits. You reverted all three edits WITHOUT explanation or acknowledgement that you had even seen my explanation. You simply reverted. Again. And again. And again. This talk page of yours was only mentioned AFTER you had reverted my edits without explanation. I told you to take it there yourself 'cause, quite frankly, I think you're the one that needs to talk about it. I would have discussed it with you but, was never given that respect. Instead, I simply got three e-mails saying my edits had been "reverted." You reverted my edits first and you did so more than three times. At least I tried talking to you. You just did it. And added in false accusations for good measure.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebr1979 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I would now like everyone involved to go check-out the Doop (comics) page edit history (where this started). User:68.33.142.75 violated the 3-edit revert rule before I did. The very rule that he's saying I violated and is the reason for his complaint which led to an edit war... He broke. First. Do I need to file a separate complaint against him or can we put this to rest now? Him breaking a rule and then getting all upset about it is pretty juvenile.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• And now you're twisting things around. I never said Doop declined, I said it was never clear that he accepted. I gave you an explanation on the very first revert about it which I showed above. It's not "my policy", it's what I've been told by other users over my years around here. I can't go back and pull up every single one because it's been a long time. Don't tell me I never gave you a chance to talk about it, I asked you several times to start a talk section because it was YOUR edit that was the issue here, and I explained things about the Doop page at length on your talk page [88], while you only addressed me with accusations of bias and making things up [89]. And lastly, the 3RR is when someone reverts stuff on a page MORE than three times, which I have not done because I could see that this was going nowhere with you, so I came here. I'm done explaining my side of this stuff here. I've done so several times now, with links to back up why it was done and showing it in what I hope is a clear manner. I'll let the admins handle this now. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You DID do it three times! Go check the Doop page! I (as 216.13.187.114 because I didn't realise I wasn't logged in) added X-Men as a team he had joined.

You REVERTED IT (and did some other stuff).

I (now going as Cebr1979) re-added it.

You REVERTED IT again.

I re-added it.

YOU REVERTED IT a THIRD TIME!

Just because your first revert was masked behind an edit you did to some other section of the page, still makes it a revert!

Like I said, go check! It's all right there!

Cebr1979 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Okay, we've now straightened out that Cebr1979 was editing as 216.13.187.114. Please don't edit again without logging in first. There's no rule against it, but it looks bad, especially when you're in the middle of a dispute because it looks like you're trying to escape detection. As for WP:3RR, 68.33.142.75 is correct. It requires four reverts in a 24-hour window, not three. As far as I can tell, neither of you violated 3RR, although you came close. However, not violating WP:3RR doesn't mean you can't be sanctioned for edit warring. So, consider yourselves warned. No more battling in the articles, and Cebr1979, stop screaming so much in your posts; it's not helpful. If you can't resolve your content disputes, then use the methods described in WP:DR to reach a consensus. If I see either of you resuming the battles on the article pages, you may be blocked without notice, even if you don't violate 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. Cebr1979 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Alien sojourner reported by User:Ithinkicahn (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Efkan Ala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alien sojourner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original version before removal of content by Alien sojourner: [90] (a look at previous history also shows his reverts to other users' restoration of information)
His new version consistently reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts of my restoration of deleted content:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]
6. [97]

Some diffs of the user's reverts and edit-warring with other users' restoration of deleted content and POV edits before my own attempts to restore from reverts (note occasional addition of POV terms like "fascist" and removal of sources):

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning (all within the last 2 days):

1. [101] (by another user for edit warring in the same article)
2. [102] (by me for edit warring in the same article)
3. [103] (by yet another user for adding his "own personal analysis" to the same article)
4. [104] (by another user for POV edits to another article)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

Comments:

The user seems to be bent on adding POV edits to this article, as well as removing sourced content and not engaging in trying to reach consensus on talk page (saying, quote, "I seek no consensus but the truth") and has been repeatedly warned by others for the behavior. Every edit the user has ever made has been engaging in behavior like this, mostly on this page and others. I apologize for engaging in his edit war; I will do so no longer after finding this noticeboard.

Furthermore, the user's idea of discussion on the talk page seems to be personal attack edits such as these: [106]

Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse this report. As mentioned by himself, Ithinkicahn also came to violate 3RR, but he was defending a stable version that seems to have consensus and I don't think it would benefit Wikipedia to block him for this, even though he ideally should have handled the sitation differently, as he also states himself. Alien Sojourner has in addition to edit warring also made very serious personal attacks at Ithinkicahn as this diff shows. Iselilja (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Given the number of reverts on both sides both users have come out with 24 hour blocks and would do well to learn what to do in disputes. Primarily, ask for the editor who broke 3RR to be blocked or the page protected WITHOUT reverting for a 4th time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity reported by User:ShawntheGod (Result:Withdrawn )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]

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

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

Comments:Over 3 reverts in the past 24 hours by Inayity and anytime I edit the lead of the article, he freaks out and reverts. He'll claim it's a 'radical change' or 'disruptive editing' even though my editorial has changed and some of my edits have been accepted. His reason for reversion is generally one not advised by Wikipedia and is usually: 'no consensus has been made on the talk page so revert', like on #2 and #3. He has awful punctuation and grammar, it can be hard to understand him at times. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In your example you have demonstrated an edit war between you and me, the content is not identical and the issues are also not identical [111]rmv of spanish-web as a RS. rmv a POV discussed by all editors as not helpful, I could go on.--Inayity (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please be aware who this person reporting is For Months you being pushing this POV, first under the WP:SPA Ip 70.126.19.148 and 70.126.13.113 and now under the new name ShawntheGod, Shawn or 70.126 has been told by numerous editors that his contributions are a problem.[112] He insist on inserting one line over and over again. This is not the first time he has reported me. As for Grammar maybe his is referring to the talk page, as for horrible sentence construction the prize goes to him. just one example. Mixing controversial edits with minor edits is an old trick, so apologies for wasting one minor picture update in the process.--Inayity (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Also Shawn you forgot to fill in the section where you attempted to resolve the issue. B/c his approach is to disregard the talk page and go ahead anyway. [113] Editors have told him this is not a good edit, yet he comes back and reinsert it. dec 2013 and for the New Year the POV edit. BTW, the source says nothing of the sort. --Inayity (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For some reason Inayity keeps linking diffs to edits I supposedly made weeks ago, not any new editorial from thyself. We're discussing edits in late January of 2014, not ones from supposedly I made that far back. I already discussed my edit plans on the talk page and he even acknowledged that himself. Here: [114] and I let him know my changes here: [115] he also mentioned "pushing this POV" but what is my POV? Is it to make it seem like the Moors were a group of dolphins from the Pacific Ocean? I'm not understanding this supposed "POV" of mine. Perhaps he can enlighten me? ShawntheGod (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And what's with taking the discussion else where? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Just responding to him, that's all. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, meant the other user as it happens _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

At Fortuna WP:3RRNO try and be specific. you are throwing comments around and I dont follow the rationale. --Inayity (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I expect not. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I was asked by Inayity to take a look at the issue. From the editing history, both users appear to have past 3RR, so I don't think any unilateral action is warranted. It's better instead to issue a simple warning/slap on the wrist to both parties, and allow the discussion to continue on the talk page in a civil manner. Middayexpress (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Both parties in the dispute have agreed to cease any edit warring and work it out on Talk Page first.--Inayity (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We have agreed to discuss the article in a civil manner and start clean, no more edit warring and all edits get discussed thoroughly or at least decently on the talk page. I don't think our views differ that much, but when we get into the moment it feels like we're completely on a different level. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Declined*The users involved have expressed their intention to cease edit warring and discuss on the talk page. -- John Reaves 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Johan92 reported by User:Mastpolo (Result: 24 hours)

Page: List of metropolitan areas of Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234/userlinks

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [116]
2. [117]
3. [118]
4. [119]

after the user was reported

1. [120]
2. [121]
3. [122]
4. [123]
5. [124]
6. [125]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

same edits from ip 190.235.102.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

same edits from another ip 190.239.45.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1. [129]. New ip seems to be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234/userlinks avoiding his blockade. --Mastpolo (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Johan92

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[130]

Comments:
I explained to Johan92 in many ways that his editions are wrong but the user tendentiously don't want to understand to keep in his edit warring see and keeps making wrong editions in the article. First he added the wrong data that corresponds to provinces and in his last edition he added wrong data correspond to cities and not to metropolitan areas of Peru. I request protection of the article because Johan92 keeps making his wrong editions. --Mastpolo (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The data that the user Mastpolo puts in article have no reference, however if I put that, I rely on figures extracted pages as INEI and UN , should be noted that there is no exact figure of the metropolitan population but we rely on the existing population in the city. Johan92 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Read this article Arequipa metropolitan area and tell us if some data is incorrect in it.--Mastpolo (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Item that you have created just now, perhaps you want to make fun of us Johan92 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No matter when it has been created neither who has created the article. Just tell us if some data in that article is incorrect. Why don't you want to answer that? don't avoid the question.--Mastpolo (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In references placed on the article in mention does not define the metropolitan population only indicates the population of the department of the provinces and districts, in addition to their references are old, however the references I put in my edits are July 2013 that is more accurate and current data Johan92 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

So you can't tell that some data in the article is incorrect, and it is because all data in the article is correct. And once again understand that the data you want to add correspond to cities not to metropolitan areas.--Mastpolo (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You also understand that the information you provide correspond to cities, not to metropolitan areas. Then tell me what is the difference between their data and my data?. Both we rely on the population of the city, the difference is that my references are more recent and are given by the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics Johan92 (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You understand the population that is in the article Arequipa metropolitan area is correct and correspond to Arequipa metropolitan area the data you want to add correspond to the article of the city Arequipa there put your data and source for 2013 not in List of metropolitan areas of Peru. The article has information with sources for year 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

and I understand that the information is correct just because you say so? Please sustaint your responses, and in your sources the metropolitan population no is indicated. Johan92 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Understand it is correct not because I say but you have to understand because the references that have support the article.--Mastpolo (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

stop spinning the issue and indicate the references to which it refers, that apparently no exist. Here is the link of the page from which I'm extracting my data: INEI p36 Johan92 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You stop adding incorrect information that belongs to citie articles, don't add it to article List of metropolitan areas of Peru. You can add your data and source in the article List of cities in Peru. Understand the article is of metropolitan areas not of cities.--Mastpolo (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. When a brand-new editor like User:Johan92 (created on 26 January) immediately gets into a big edit war it does not give us much optimism for the future. Johan92, it looks like you've continued to edit as an IP in the middle of this edit war. Mastpolo, you've been around a while so you should know how to use WP:dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexrybak reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:No action )

Page

La donna è mobile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592593867 by Michael Bednarek (talk)"
2. 13:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592633884 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592640492 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
4. 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592644810 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on La donna è mobile. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring and ignored a (cautionary) warning- to the extent of deleting it from his TP. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A user can delete a notice from their talk page once they have read it. --Inayity (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The significance of the comment was the user's ignoring of the notice rather than the deleting of it._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"To the extent of deleting it" is the part that is irrelevant, as removing the notice is taken as acknowledgement of seeing the notice. You're also right at 3 reversions; stopping just short of breaking 3RR just to ensure that the other editor breaks it so that you can report him here can be seen as WP:GAMING, especially when the other editor has started a talk page discussion, which you have ignored. Given the time difference between you posting the warning to their talk page, when they next reverted, and when they removed it from their talk page, it's also entirely possible that they didn't see the notice until after they had already reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be a shame if you showed as little faith as that, surely. The one undeniable fact is that the user has had plenty of opportunity to discuss the issue and stop warring, and done neither. As for my edits, do you suggest I edit a fourth time? And having watched someone (an editor of over two years standing I believe) breach 3RR, do you suggest I ignore it? It's also worth pointing that- as you say- they have probably by now read the notice, yet they have not commented here. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

However, it takes 2 to edit-war. Whenever you see one brewing, you're supposed to stop your actions, and follow WP:DR - if you allow yourself to edit-war (whether or not you cross the 3RR threshold) you risk being blocked ES&L 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DeclinedAt this point, the user has no excuse for not communicating as reasonable attempts at discussion have been initiated. Further edit warring will result in a block. There is, however, no need for admin intervention at this time -- John Reaves 17:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

John, can I just point out that the "reasonable attempts at discussion" were indeed initiated... two days ago, which he never responded to! I agree it "take[s] two to edit war;" it also takes two to communicate! He- not me- has now warred with three' other editors, and although of course I hate to say "I told you so"... he's now on his FIFTH revert of the day on that page. Six in fact, if you count the self-rv. See what I mean. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:EDITWAR: a self-revert is in no way a sixth revert, and self-reverting in the way he did doesn't really make that a fifth revert at all since they reverted their own edit and ceased edit-warring, so not only was that comment unnecessary, the duplicate report your filed below (really?) this one was as well. You were both edit warring, you both need to stop and use the talk page, and yes that includes you. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:STATicVapor reported by User:Rushton2010 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:03, 25 January 2014
2. 19:45, 25 January 2014
3. 03:57, 25 January 2014
4. 03:48, 25 January 2014
5. 03:03, 25 January 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:STATicVapor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [132], [[133]], Talk:Jimmy_Henchman#WP:BLP_issues

Comments:

User:TheRedPenOfDoom removed some information from the Jimmy Henchman article as he believed it to be a WP:BLP issue. He followed BLP policy in removing the material he believed questionable and then started discussions on the material at both: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jimmy_Henchman and Talk:Jimmy_Henchman#WP:BLP_issues. User:STATicVapor reinserted the questioned material before any consensus in the discussions, and then reported RedPen for 3RR violations as he removed it again. The 3RR was of course dismissed against RedPen (see: [[134]]) as he had followed policy and removal of potential BLP issues are covered by WP:NOT3RR.
The discussion on the talk page about whether the information was not the most productive, with Static repeatedly asserting bad faith, using the word "vandalism", there has been no proper discussion and thus nothing approaching consensus. I made a comment asking those involved in the discussions (I myself am not, having never heard of the person the article is about) to please bring the discussion back round to the material and sources in question, and avoid the bad-faith attacks against each other. Thankfully discussion seems to now be taking place, however, before that proper discussion kicked off, Static reverted and re-included that material two more times, making up to the 5 reverts within 5 occasions we see above.
I have tried to assume good faith and always hope things can be kept away from these administration noticeboards, but as seen on the talk page and on the RedPen edit warring report, Static seems unable to get beyond his view that RedPen is in the wrong. But at the end of the day, if you agree that the material was a BLP breach or not, it's removal was within policy; avoiding the discussion and ignoring policy by just re-inserting it, is not. As RedPen had made it clear it was a removal because he believed it a BLP breach, and it has been mentioned in the various discussions he had concerns, I find it very hard to see Static's reversions as anything other than edit-warring. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

given that there has been no edit warring in 24 hours, any actions taken at this time, other than a strong admonishment to abide by BLP, would seem like they will be punitive rather than preventative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The Jimmy Henchman article is fully protected one week. Use this time to sort out the claimed BLP violations. If agreement is reached, any admin can lift the protection. There was a previous 3RR report about this article a few days ago, and a large ANI discussion back in 2012. Even though the article subject is serving a life term he seems to have ardent defenders of his reputation. BLPN would be good but there don't seem to be any comments there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:JULIANFCASABLANCAS reported by User:FDMS4 (Result: Warned)

Page: Julian Casablancas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JULIANFCASABLANCAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (maybe also as 72.67.179.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to: [135]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [136] (as an IP, my guessing)
2. [137] (as an IP, my guessing)
3. [138]
4. [139]
5. [140]

Comments:

I am not the one reverting the reverts of User:JULIANFCASABLANCAS, I just noticed the case because I had all these reverts on my watchlist. Also, I did not warn User:JULIANFCASABLANCAS because I think that after 5 reverts, all without commenting, nobody can say that he didn't know he is acting inappropriately. |FDMS 11:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Warned both users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:86.141.217.115 (Result: Stale)

Page: Manchester Mark 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I apologize for my ignorance: I do not know how to link to a version before all the reverting took place. Please examine:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

or

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric_Corbett>

for clear evidence of repeat reversion without attempt at discussion by Eric Corbett, on 28th Jan 2014.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

I do not know how to provide what is requested. Examination of

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

shows ten reverts without discussion by Eric Corbett on on 28th Jan 2014. It was only after nine reverts that I read up on what constitutes edit warring and what to do about it. I apologize for my misbehaviour: in mitigation, I tried to persuade Eric Corbett to engage in discussion on the talk page and was unaware of WP:3RR.

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

I do not understand what this means.

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

I do not know how to provide what is asked for. Please examine:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manchester_Mark_1#Main_and_backing_store_description>.

and

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manchester_Mark_1#What.27s_wrong_with_this_description_of_storage.3F_.28attempting_to_resolve_disagreement.29>

for my attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page.

Comments:

I am not a technically savvy Wikipedia user, so I cannot provide all the information requested, nor do I understand exactly what is expected of me before lodging this report. However, it seems clear to me that Eric Corbett has violated WP:3RR and the evidence is clear to see on 28 Jan 2014 at:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

I too have violated WP:3RR. However, I was not aware of the rule, did try to engage Eric Corbett in discussion on the talk page, and desisted from further reversion as soon as I'd read up on the the three-revert rule.

86.141.217.115 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Stale Though both User:Eric Corbett and User:86.141.217.115 should remember seek dispute resolution and discuss rather than revert each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Gabby Merger reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

Page

Greek Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gabby Merger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "learn how to count...I did NOT pass "3RR", you hypocrite....because YOU are going beyond "3RR"... You started the damned edit-warring and reverts, not I. I'm SICK of you...I'm warning you now...your POV pushing will not stand on this article...." Comment: Please note blanking and changing of quotes in the reliable sources. This is a clear competence issue. Now she mangled the in-reference quotes and they do not correspond to the actual text of the books. She also blanked one reference, removing it completely: <ref name="Doniger1999">{{cite book|author=Wendy Doniger|title=Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA309|accessdate=2 September 2013|date=January 1999|publisher=Merriam-Webster|isbn=978-0-87779-044-0|page=309|quote= EASTERN ORTHODOXY, one of the major branches of CHRISTIANITY, characterized by its continuity with the apostolic church, its liturgy, and its territorial churches.}}</ref>
2. 05:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592748499 by Dr.K. (talk) it was already discussed in Talk months ago, you were wrong then, and now, and YOU are the edit-warrior...you go against WP policy of NPOV wording....tired of it." Comment: Please note blanking of quotes in the reliable sources.
3. 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "nothing was "refuted"......POV pushing is against WP policy. Not all agree that the Greek Orthodox Church stems directly from the Apostles...in that sense...and there's nothing wrong with NPOV wording....the edit-warring is YOURS...not mine..." Comment: Please note blanking of quotes in the reliable sources.
4. 04:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "NPOV.....been over this months ago.... This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a Greek Orthodox blog piece...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Greek Orthodox Church. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Longterm edit-warring and personal attacks */ new section"

Comments:

Extended content

Longterm edit-warring with personal attacks and religion/ethnicity-based insults since she started the warring in September 2013: (stop POV-pushing. This is an NEUTRAL ENCYCLOPEDIA...not a Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece. You're obviously Greek Orthodox (I can tell from your Greek display name). I'm simply making NPOV..."consensus" not required in following WP policy...), claiming she needs no consensus. She started again today after a break of 4 months. Uses edit-summaries for personal attacks. Keeps adding original research despite quoted reliable sources and without discussion on the talkpage. She is also blanking the quotes from the reliable sources. Keeps reverting and will not stop. I will seek dispute resolution and will not revert further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC) I just added a report at WP:3O. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC) She has now apparently rejected the compromise offered by 3O stating: Ok, finally get, grasp, and understand this point of fact. Read this carefully...It does NOT matter what "refs" you come up with that dogmatically state that Greek Orthodoxy is right from the first century. So? , and the citations have still damaged quotes and she has blanked Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Dr. K. has a habit of assuming. Where exactly did I "reject the compromise"? I did not say anything against the said compromise. I never do. But the point is that I will not put up with Dr. K. lying and trying to poison the well in people's minds, and distorting the facts. This is a big-time POV-pusher, and edit-warrior. The reverts started from him, against good-faith valid and WP kosher NPOV modifications and wordings. He doesn't even see his own edit-warring. And that's scary. And now claiming (for whatever reason) that I rejected any compromise, when I never said that. See what I have to deal with? I am mulling over the matter, and I never rejected any proposal that the other editor Mark gave. In fact, I thanked him for his consideration to this, and addressed some matters. Dr. K. keeps seeing things that are not there, and I'm really tired of it at this point. My only interest is NPOV wording and careful tone in WP articles...that's it. He puts bad motives on me. And I won't tolerate it. He sees things all distorted. My interest is NOT warring (and it would be nice if you backed off already, and stopped the bias-pushing already, but he can't seem to help himself on this matter.) This Greek Orthodox article, for example, makes the claim that "making the sign of the cross" can be traced right from the apostles...when so many refs and writers simply don't agree with that, so why should Wikipedia state that so dogmatically and definitively, as if it endorses or agrees with that view? I'm not saying that it didn't happen, in the wording, but just that it's "claimed" and the sources are provided. But again, the bottom line is that I did NOT reject Mark's proposal. And I wish Dr. K. could stop lying about me, or stop assuming about me, and just stop altogether. I doubt that will happen though. But this is just to set the record straight...because Dr. K.'s version of events is unbelievably twisted. For real. Regards. POV PUSHING by Dr. K. Logos Praxis sorry, this was discussed and settled months ago. POV pushing by this editor is so obvious. Look above at all the comments and words. I already went over this. The hard fact is that NOT ALL believe that the Greek Orthodox Church stemmed directly from "the apostles" or "the first century" in that actual sense. I'm only interested in NPOV wording and tone in articles, ANY articles. Please understand that fact. That's all that this is really about. Many scholars and theologians simply don't buy that, this idea that Greek Orthodoxy traces directly back to the first century and Apostles, and flatly disavow that position. Many Protestant scholars (such as Robert Morey) actually believe that Greek Orthodoxy is pagan and false. I'm not claiming that here, but the point is that many solid sources (this isn't even debatable) and refs do not hold to the idea that A) the Greek Orthodox Church comes directly from first-century Apostolic Christianity, in that actual sense, or B) that Greek Orthodoxy is even Biblically Christian at all. We can't ignore that, like he keeps doing, because of agendas or obvious bias. This article is NOT a Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece. (Take a general look in this link here...at what's on this edit history page, basically all of Dr. K.'s reverts of valid NPOV wording and mods, and his edit-warring are all seen there.... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_Orthodox_Church&action=history ) He talks about "consensus" on Talk? The problem is there was no real "consensus" on the article Talk for HIS position at all. Also, let it be understood that most people who edit that Greek Orthodox article seem to be Greek Orthodox members, so how unbiased is it bound to be, in regard to obvious POV wording of the idea of the "origins" or Greek Orthodoxy coming directly right from the apostles in the first century? NPOV wording is an incredibly important pillar of WP policy, not one or two editors insisting on a favorite wording, because they happen to be Greek Orthodox. My pointing out the he is Greek Orthodox is NOT a "personal attack". He is over-sensitive much, and sees "personal attack" everywhere, all the while stubbornly pushing his POV notions onto a neutral Wikipedia article. I got tired of that. It does NOT matter what "refs" you come up with that dogmatically state that Greek Orthodoxy is right from the first century. So? There are refs that claim otherwise. That's what "Dr. K." dishonestly keeps not getting, because of his agendas to push the idea that Greek Orthodoxy is the only true Christian church, or something. It's so obvious, it's not funny. (By the way, ake a general look in this link here...at what's on this edit history page, basically all of Dr. K.'s reverts of valid NPOV wording and mods, and his edit-warring are all seen there.... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_Orthodox_Church&action=history ) the only reason Dr. K. went here is because I warned him first that I would go here. And he is counting on Admins and editors not understanding that the real culprit and problem is Dr. K. His attempt to poison the well, by beating me here to the punch...and his hypocrisy about "edit-warring" is unbelievable...when he constantly reverts good-faith NPOV modifications, and goes to 3RR all the time. He whines about "personal attacks" only when I call him out on his obvious POV bias and constant edit-warring. This was discussed and wrangled over months ago...and he doesn't stop. Dr K will whine and claim "personal attacks", when I'm only bluntly calling him out on his obvious bias and POV pushing. Months ago it was the same thing. I'm not saying I'm necessarily perfect, in every word or syllable...but I'm only human, and I'm tired of him disrespecting my valid good-faith and WP-kosher NPOV edits and modifications. I'm really sick of it now. And WP policy is that there is NEUTRALITY IN WORDING AND TONE. That was lacking in this article in certain statements, sorry to say. There's nothing wrong with "some historians claim" or "it is believed" if refs for that belief are put in...so what? But the way it was worded before, and how "Dr. K." keeps arrogantly pushing and putting is NOT neutral at all. It's dogmatic and definitive. This really isn't even a debatable issue. The only ones on here that would claim that the wording before was ok ARE GREEK ORTHODOX PEOPLE THEMSELVES. And unfortunately, it seems that's most of the editors on here. Means nothing. WP POV neutrality is one of the biggest cornerstones and principles of Wikipedia, that overrules anything else. And it's been violated here. And I am sorry, but I won't put up with it this time around. You did the same nonsense in September, and YOU kept edit-warring...this time your POV propaganda POV nonsense will not stand. I warn you. I said that I report you if you keep it up. But of course, just how you posted "edit warring warnings" on my talk page, as if you weren't more guilty of it, you go here first. I'm simply calling you out on this stuff. You'll call it "personal attacks". I can't help it if your conduct is against WP policy and is frankly disrespectful and annoying. That's on you, not me. Also, claiming "weaselish" all the time is a big cop-out, to try to be able to POV push. There's nothing wrong with "it is believed" or "claimed" etc when refs are given for that. It's NEUTRALITY IN TONING. None of what I said was "refuted". That's only how you wish to see it, though it's hardly based on actual reality. Seriously. You think that your desperate argument against "weasel" even applies, when it doesn't. POV wording and tone and dogmatic statements, especially in contexts like this, are NOT supposed to exist on WP articles. Period. NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH STEMS DIRECTLY FROM THE APOSTLES. Many don't. Quite a number of theologians and scholars simply do not. Roman Catholics certainly don't (if they hold to the official position of Roman Catholicism and its own view of church history, that is.) Many Protestants don't. Not all non-religious historians do either. Saying that it was formed only in the 10th century A.D., etc. As far as actual genuine "tracings". Not all believe that doing the "sign of the cross" is a custom that came directly from the Apostles. Many scholars and church historians firmly reject that notion, in fact. Yet that notion was dogmatically stated in the article as unquestionable fact! So to say it dogmatically and definitely on a WP page is AGAINST WP POLICY OF NEUTRAL TONE AND OBJECTIVE UNBIASED WORDING. As I said to you months ago, this article is NOT a Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece. You're obviously Greek Orthodox, and you think you can do this nonsense forever, and get away with it. You need to think again. Months ago he wrote: "The views of the opposing dogmas have no relevance to the historical facts." That says it all. Frankly speaking, it shows that he's too much in the tank...he's way too biased. But the point is even if he believes that it's a "historical fact", he STILL can be neutral on Wikipedia about it. WP needs to be neutral, especially with controversial things like this. That's important. Otherwise the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia will sink, in other people's minds too much. What you keep doing is against Wikipedia policy, in two ways. You are pushing a view that not everyone agrees with (and is specious in many ways), and where there are other refs that disagree, and in fact some disavow strongly, and also, you keep EDIT-WARRING about it. There's nothing wrong with the wording "believes" and "claims". That's neutral wording, regardless of biased "refs". Not all "refs" agree with the dogmatic tone of it. He keeps doing this. And I myself said that I will report him this time. So he came here first. I did NOT violate 3RR, and the reverts and POV pushing were begun by him, not I. This whole thing is not even necessary. Because there's nothing wrong with "claimed" and "believed" with refs provided. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC) User:Dr.K. reported by User:Gabby Merger (Result: ) POV PUSHING by Dr. K. Logos Praxis the only reason Dr. K. went here is because I warned him first that I would go here. And he is counting on Admins and editors not understanding that the real culprit and problem is Dr. K. His attempt to poison the well, by beating me here to the punch...and his hypocrisy about "edit-warring" is unbelievable...when he constantly reverts good-faith NPOV modifications, and goes to 3RR all the time. He whines about "personal attacks" only when I call him out on his obvious POV bias and constant edit-warring. This was discussed and wrangled over months ago...and he doesn't stop. sorry, this was discussed and settled months ago. POV pushing by this editor is so obvious. Look above at all the comments and words. I already went over this. The hard fact is that NOT ALL believe that the Greek Orthodox Church stemmed directly from "the apostles" or "the first century" in that actual sense. Many scholars and theologians simply don't buy that, this idea that Greek Orthodoxy traces directly back to the first century and Apostles, and flatly disavow that position. Many Protestant scholars (such as Robert Morey) actually believe that Greek Orthodoxy is pagan and false. I'm not claiming that here, but the point is that many solid sources (this isn't even debatable) and refs do not hold to the idea that A) the Greek Orthodox Church comes directly from first-century Apostolic Christianity, in that actual sense, or B) that Greek Orthodoxy is even Biblically Christian at all. We can't ignore that, like he keeps doing, because of agendas or obvious bias. This article is NOT a Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece. It does NOT matter what "refs" he comes up with that dogmatically state that Greek Orthodoxy is right from the first century. So? It's still a POV view no matter what book you find it in. And there are also refs that claim otherwise. That's what "Dr. K." dishonestly keeps not getting, because of his agendas to push the idea that Greek Orthodoxy is the only true Christian church, or something. It's so obvious, it's not funny. The point that Dr. K. misses is that it does not matter what refs he drums up supporting his POV view, or what sources he finds, if there are other refs and scholars clearly claiming differently...it's still a POV opinion and view. And WP is not to endorse one dogmatic view like this over another... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greek_Orthodox_Church&action=history He talks about "consensus" on Talk? The problem is there was no real "consensus" on the article Talk for HIS position at all. Also, let it be understood that most people who edit that Greek Orthodox article seem to be Greek Orthodox members, so how unbiased is it bound to be, in regard to obvious POV wording of the idea of the "origins" or Greek Orthodoxy coming directly right from the apostles in the first century? NPOV wording is an incredibly important pillar of WP policy, not one or two editors insisting on a favorite wording, because they happen to be Greek Orthodox. My pointing out the he is Greek Orthodox is NOT a "personal attack". He is over-sensitive much, and sees "personal attack" everywhere, all the while stubbornly pushing his POV notions onto a neutral Wikipedia article. I got tired of that. I'm only interested in NPOV wording and tone in articles, ANY articles. Please understand that fact. That's all that this is really about. Dr K will whine and claim "personal attacks", when I'm only bluntly calling him out on his obvious bias and POV pushing. Months ago it was the same thing. I'm not saying I'm necessarily perfect, in every word or syllable...but I'm only human, and I'm tired of him disrespecting my valid good-faith and WP-kosher NPOV edits and modifications. I'm really sick of it now. And WP policy is that there is NEUTRALITY IN WORDING AND TONE. That was lacking in this article in certain statements, sorry to say. There's nothing wrong with "some historians claim" or "it is believed" if refs for that belief are put in...so what? But the way it was worded before, and how "Dr. K." keeps arrogantly pushing and putting is NOT neutral at all. It's dogmatic and definitive. This really isn't even a debatable issue. The only ones on here that would claim that the wording before was ok ARE GREEK ORTHODOX PEOPLE THEMSELVES. And unfortunately, it seems that's most of the editors on here. Means nothing. WP POV neutrality is one of the biggest cornerstones and principles of Wikipedia, that overrules anything else. And it's been violated here. And I am sorry, but I won't put up with it this time around. You did the same nonsense in September, and YOU kept edit-warring...this time your POV propaganda POV nonsense will not stand. I warn you. I said that I report you if you keep it up. But of course, just how you posted "edit warring warnings" on my talk page, as if you weren't more guilty of it, you go here first. I'm simply calling you out on this stuff. You'll call it "personal attacks". I can't help it if your conduct is against WP policy and is frankly disrespectful and annoying. That's on you, not me. Also, claiming "weaselish" all the time is a big cop-out, to try to be able to POV push. There's nothing wrong with "it is believed" or "claimed" etc when refs are given for that. It's NEUTRALITY IN TONING. None of what I said was "refuted". That's how you wish to see it, but it's not really based on actual reality. Seriously. You think that your desperate argument against "weasel" even applies, when it doesn't. POV wording and tone and dogmatic statements, especially in contexts like this, are NOT supposed to exist on WP articles. Period. NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH STEMS DIRECTLY FROM THE APOSTLES. Many don't. Quite a number of theologians and scholars simply do not. Roman Catholics certainly don't (if they hold to the official position of Roman Catholicism and its own view of church history, that is.) Many Protestants don't. Not all non-religious historians do either. Saying that it was formed only in the 10th century A.D., etc. As far as actual genuine "tracings". Not all believe that doing the "sign of the cross" is a custom that came directly from the Apostles. Many scholars and church historians firmly reject that notion, in fact. Yet that notion was dogmatically stated in the article as unquestionable fact! So to say it dogmatically and definitely on a WP page is AGAINST WP POLICY OF NEUTRAL TONE AND OBJECTIVE UNBIASED WORDING. It does NOT matter what "refs" he comes up with that dogmatically state that Greek Orthodoxy is right from the first century. So? It's still a POV view no matter what book you find it in. And there are also refs that claim otherwise. That's what "Dr. K." dishonestly keeps not getting, because of his agendas to push the idea that Greek Orthodoxy is the only true Christian church, or something. It's so obvious, it's not funny. The point that Dr. K. misses is that it does not matter what refs he drums up supporting his POV view, or what sources he finds, if there are other refs and scholars clearly claiming differently...it's still a POV opinion and view. As I said to you months ago, this article is NOT a Greek Orthodox propaganda blog piece. You're obviously Greek Orthodox, and you think you can do this nonsense forever, and get away with it. You need to think again. Months ago he wrote: "The views of the opposing dogmas have no relevance to the historical facts." That says it all. Frankly speaking, it shows that he's too much in the tank...he's way too biased. But the point is even if he believes that it's a "historical fact", he STILL can be neutral on Wikipedia about it. WP needs to be neutral, especially with controversial things like this. That's important. Otherwise the credibility and integrity of Wikipedia will sink, in other people's minds too much. What you keep doing is against Wikipedia policy, in two ways. You are pushing a view that not everyone agrees with (and is specious in many ways), and where not all refs agree with, and in fact disavow strongly, and also, you keep EDIT-WARRING about it. There's nothing wrong with the wording "believes" and "claims", if refs are given for that. That's neutral wording, regardless of biased "refs". Not all "refs" agree with the dogmatic tone of it. And I myself said that I will report him this time. So he came here first. I did NOT violate 3RR, and the reverts and POV pushing were begun by him, not I. This whole thing is not even necessary. Because there's nothing wrong with "claimed" and "believed" with refs provided. Gabby Merger (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Please continue discussing the issue on the talk page, but please ensure you do so civilly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kum01049 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

Page

 

User being reported

Kum01049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding this unreliable source (http://www.winentrance.com/general_knowledge/mg-ramachandran.html) to M. G. Ramachandran. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for spamming. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Hans Franssen reported by User:PLNR (Result: Stale)

Page: 2013 Egyptian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hans Franssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:38, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,367 bytes) (-18,620)‎ . . (Undid revision 592713275
2. 23:23, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,035 bytes) (-18,952)‎ . . (Undid revision 592711351
3. 23:16, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,035 bytes) (-18,952)‎ . . (Undid revision 592710628
4. 23:13, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,035 bytes) (-18,952)‎ . . (Undid revision 592709301
5. 23:01, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,069 bytes) (-18,674)‎ . . (undo | thank)

Not exactly dif links, but I hope it will do. (half hour span)

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

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

No as far as I seen, but the user Amrtarek requested him to "Stop reverting, discuss first" in edit summary.

Comments:

• I did not see that the user was warned. They've stopped reverting, at least for now. I issued the standard warning with a note in there and recommend no immediate action, unless they revert again. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • What Drmies said, it's stale now anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Greyshark09 and User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Oncenawhile (Result: Warned)

Page: Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Hi, I'm not here because of 1RR (this article falls under ARBPIA) but instead to ask for advice to break a slow-burn edit war - following the guidance at the top of the page referring to "the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I don't even think the editors involved have fully reviewed the edits they are reverting in their bulk multi-edit reverts, so this is really about behavior rather than content.

I have previously worked cordially and successfully on other articles with the other primary editor here (Greyshark). However I have been unable to make progress on this article for almost two months, as the other editor repeatedly insists on reverting back to an earlier version without commenting on my carefully considered individual edits. I have stopped editing the page for days or weeks at a time in order to allow adequate time for explanations of the continued bulk multiple-edit single reversions, but sadly this does not appear to have had the desired effect. What baffles me is that the article edits themselves are not particularly sensitive - the only really sensitive area has been permanently left on the talk page ([141]) until this roadblock is resolved. All I want to do is improve the article, taking into account the thoughts of all other editors. I feel the behavior of Greyshark, supported by Plotspolier, has in effect placed a brick wall in front of progress on the article. I have tried and tried to assume good faith, so I put it down to laziness on the part of Greyshark, particularly as the edits themselves are really not particularly contentious. It would be great if experienced editors here could help break the deadlock.

In the box below is the timeline of the interactions / roadblocking so far from my perspective:

Extended content

* 5+8 Dec - Oncenawhile makes 15 edits to the article, Greyshark makes 4 edits and Oncenawhile makes a further 3 edits. All very cordial, and the only point of difference was discussed at talk [142]. Although Greyshark stopped responding on the talk thread, and despite WP:ONUS, his edits were left in the article pending further discussion to avoid antagonizing the situation. 8 Dec - Greyshark notes that s/he wants to discuss amendments to the structure [143]. Oncenawhile, stops editing and answers on talk explaining the proposed further amendments intended [144] and asks for comment 26 Dec - After 2.5 weeks with no discussion from Greyshark, Oncenawhile makes 13 edits to partially implement what he proposed on talk 29 Dec - Greyshark makes one large revert, reverting almost all of the 13 edits made by Oncenawhile on 26 Dec as well as most of those made on 8 Dec. On the talk page Greyshark explains he had expected a self-revert by Oncenawhile following Greyshark's comment on 8 Dec. Greyshark reiterates s/he does not like the proposed new structure, but does not comment on the other changes s/he reverted. Oncenawhile stops editing again, and responds with a detailed comment having parsed through Greyshark's mass reversion edit [145] 6 Jan - After no response from Greyshark in over a week, Oncenawhile reverts the revert with the edit comment "Temporary revert pending response on talk (I presume Greyshark is on a short wikibreak))" 7 Jan - Greyshark reverts the revert, with a constructive response. Oncenawhile responds to the response in detail [146] 8 Jan - Oncenawhile makes two edits - one as agreed with Greyshark and the other an unrelated edit improvement, not touching anything Greyshark disputed 10 Jan - After 3 days with no talk response, Oncenawhile reverts the disputed part of Greyshark's response with the talk page comment: "Hi Greyshark, I have again reverted your reverts after waiting a few days. Happy for you to revert back on your return. It's just it impedes progress otherwise given the long delays" 10 Jan - Plotspoiler, a previously uninvolved editor only a few weeks back from an ARBPIA ban for "tendentious editing" [147], reverted Oncenawhile's revert without meaningful explanation. Oncenawhile asks Plotspoiler to review the talk discussion and consider self-reverting, with no response [148] 12 Jan - Brief exchange between Greyshark and Oncewhile, but with limited progress. [149] Oncenawhile partially reverts Plotspoiler's revert with the edit comment "There is a detailed talk discussion ongoing. i have reverted PS but also reverted my own last edit, since Greyshark has now replied. PS, we'd love to have you involved - please join us on talk". In other words, only the 8 Jan uncontroversial edits were reinstated, not the 10 Jan edit, pending further discussion. 14-19 Jan - Onceawhile makes a further 10 edits, as well as related talk page comments. Most are new edits, those covering old ground were intended to take into account Greyshark's concerns raised in earlier comments. 19 Jan - Greyshark reverts back to his 7 Jan version, in effect reverting right back to the beginning. The edit comment is "pls wait for feedback before continuing massive edits". No talk page comment is made. Oncenawhile reverts the revert. Plotspoiler reverts Oncenawhile. Onceawhile stops editing and leaves a comment on Greyshark's user talk. [150] 22 Jan - Greyshark makes four small edits. Oncenawhile reverts two (one by one) with detailed edit comments on each. Greyshark does not comment on any of the outstanding reverts which s/he has been asked numerous times to explain. 24 Jan - Oncenawhile reverts the 19 Jan reverts with the edit comment "Adding back edits made between 7 Jan - 19 Jan, removed by Greyshark without comment or explanation. It has been 5 days since Plotspoiler and Greyshark reverted again, without still no comment." 26 Jan - Greyshark reverts again, including reverting Oncenawhile's targetted reverts of Greyshark's small edits on 22 Jan, with the edit comment "mind the majority and wait for answers on talk page with specific suggestions rather than 3-4 pages of monologues (including my talk page)". Greyshark makes talk page comments which are not related in any way to the content in the reversion.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've warned the three users about discretionary sanctions. If it continues please let me know and I'll take further action, either on the article (such as 0RR) or on individual editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Etolpygo reported by User:Vzaak (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Etolpygo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]
4. [155]

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

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

Comments:

User is removing criticism of health-based claim. vzaak 12:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked User hasn't reverted since being warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:EeuHP reported by User:Lecen (Result: 1 month)

Page: Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EeuHP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [158]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [159]
2. [160]
3. [161]
4. [162]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164][165]

Comments:

There is a pattern in User:EeuHP's edits. He decided that he likes a picture and try to add it to an article regardless of what others think. The same occurred just yesterday in the Featured Article Pedro II of Brazil, where no less than three editors reverted EeuHP's edits.[166][167][168][169] No matter what people tell him, he doesn't seem to care. --Lecen (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response

The user Lecen has offered a distorted portrait of the situation.

The user Srnec changed the image of the article Peter III of Aragon [170] and I rejected the change.

We had an edit war, but then decided to talk. After several days, I offered a consensus with a new image [171]. He did not answer and changed the image. [172].

I returned the original image and asked him to answer my question.[173] But so Lecen (with whom I had a discussion in Pedro I & II of Brazil, already finished and where he also violated the rule of three reversals, you see here [174][175][176] or here [177][178][179]) restaured the edition of Srnec and threatened to sue me if I change it.[180]

--EeuHP (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the brazilian discussion, he refuses my offer to speak (that remains unanswered in my talk page) and he rejects my changes with weak and poor arguments. According to him, I can't put a featured photo in a featured article because that would take away value to the article. And he chases me when I try to put it somewhere else (see Brazilian Empire).

Besides, Srnec already replied me and we are talking again. Lecen's intervention has only served to open new editar, creating a angry climate and for denounce me here.--EeuHP (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. See the user's block log, especially the October 2013 block for two weeks. His edit warring yesterday at Pedro II of Brazil was even more blatant. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:206.45.85.82 and User:198.163.150.14 reported by User:Vetemekenshkodran (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Faton Toski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.163.150.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 206.45.85.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (same person behind same area IP addresses)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st revert
2. 2nd revert
3. 3rd revert
4. 4th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [182] and response

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

Comments:
This editor (two IPs, clearly same person, given the interests), keeps edit-warring even though the source is clear. In my opinion it is not as much the problem for a single sentence (which is sourced by the way), that he keeps removing, but his mentality to get his way and remove material from Wikipedia. I have reverted several of his removals today, and asked him to put a "cn" (citation needed), rather than remove whole passages (he is obsessed with nationalities of players, and doesn't want any ethnicity mentioned), but he reverts me at sight. On top of it he edit-wars. I tried to find a better source, but nothing: he reverts me again. My assertion, according to him, should not be in Wikipedia, and I am reverted as a result. --Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to nominate Vetemekenshkodran for edit-warring as well. If I'm guilty, so is he. I know that just because "I think I'm right" doesn't count for anything, but I'm just editing articles to a common standard of being properly sourced and containing relevant, factual content. 198.163.150.14 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted you once, and then my second revert offered a better source, since the first was a blog, so that was not a revert, but an improvement. You have four reverts, which break the 3RR. After your last revert I stopped dealing with you and reported you here. If you revert yourself back and recognize your edit-warring over sourced material, I will withdraw this report: your choice. --Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Although your edits were not technically "reverts", they did revert the content displayed on the article. 198.163.150.14 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Uninvolved) Actually, Vetemekenshkodran seems the one who is "obsessed with nationalities of players" and has been adding the ethnical origin in the lede sections. Besides often unsourced and only based on some guessing by name and surbame, it´s irrelevant for the notability of those people and it has been agreed by numerous long-standing editors that the subject of ethnic background of people should not have place in lede sections, specially not unsourced. Vetemekenshkodran is Albanian, and he has interest in adding the Albanian background to numerous players. I personally have nothing against it, but he has been doing it to other players and nationalities and that goes against all former recomendations at WP:FOOTY. Besides, that information is often found in the article body itself, so there is no need whatsoever for Vetemekenshkodran to be doubling the information and push it to the lede. A warning here against such edits should be sufficient here. FkpCascais (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

FkpCascais, FYI, the sentence that is being reverted and edit-warred is NOT in the lead.Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

But many of your recent aditions have been quite similar, exemples Puhalak, Farkas, Orsag, Takacs, Januzovic, etc. Its not the others who need to add citation tamplates, but it is you who needs to stop adding unsourced WP:OR to biographies. You are wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then this. You have that same information just in the next sentence. Your addition is unecessary and it has been pretty much agreed at WP:FOOTY that nationalistic additions of players ethnic backgrounds should not have place in the lede sections. He is a Nowegian international born in Sweden. We live in a globalised world and we don´t need to add everyones origins in the lede sections. We have the body of the article to add that information if sourced and relevant. FkpCascais (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue here: i.e. the IP's edit warring. If you have anything to say about my edits, please discuss in relevant pages. But anyways: 1. To clarify my edits to Serbian players of Hungarian descent: I asked the IP to put a cn template, not to remove, as I saw that he was doing it on a blanket fashion. 2. Valon Berisha's ethnicity is relevant to be in the lead, in view of his externations to play with Kosovo internationally: see my additions to the international section there. --Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Vetemekenshkodran is warned under WP:ARBMAC. He seems to be grasping at straws to dramatize the the connection of well-known football players to Albania. For instance here, for a player born in Sweden. This falls under the heading of nationalist edit warring. I'm leaving him or her an WP:ARBMAC notice. If this editor has had a previous Wikipedia account I hope they will make it known. Since the football project is well-staffed the effort to skew these articles is unlikely to succeed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ed I really don't understand how that edit is nationalistic, since it's the truth. Berisha's family moved from Kosovo before he was born, and he was born in Sweden. Later on, you'll be able to read that he is trying to represent Kosovo. How can that edit be nationalist edit warring? Also, you may need to know that half of Albania's football team are naturalized Albanians (born outside of Albania), so in this forum you may want to go after the edit-warrier rather than after a content issue, we can discuss content somewhere else, and I am able to prove all of my edits. And filing a report is the easiest thing in the world. --Vetemekenshkodran (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Robsinden (Result: Voluntary restriction)

Page: Arsenic and Old Lace (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [183]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Collapsing_film_director_navboxes.

Comments:
User is collapsing templates and edit warring the hell out of them at other locations too with no justification for overriding the default other than that they can and there is no policy against it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using my contribution list to follow my edits around Wikipedia to undo perfectly legitimate edits. There is no policy or guideline which forbids single navboxes from being collapsed, and yet Rob Sinden has reverted my collapses, without citing any reason for dong so, except his perception of "common practice". (And, I suppose, his personal dislike.) I made User:Writ Keeper cognizant of Sinden's behavior about 5 days ago. As a user who has been Wikihounded in the past, I do not take the possibility of harassment on Wikipedia lightly. I have advised Sinden that he should stop his behavior before it passed into the arena of harassment, but he continued nonetheless.

I ask that User:Robsinden be strongly warned for his harassing behavior, and told not to follow my edits any more. BMK (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Also note the incivil edit summary and the follow-up summary when this was pointed out to him by another user. BMK was also blocked only six days ago for this same sort of edit warring. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And the continued personal attacks too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you consider a description of your behavior to be a personal attack. Best look in a mirror, friend. BMK (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to look at your recent uncivil edits and ask why your conduct has been brought into question. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean "introspection"? Do it all the time, old man. Too bad you and your friends don't do the same. BMK (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't recognize The Rambling Man as an admin with any credibility regarding civil behavior, considering his behavior with Baseball Bug & Medeis and in the topic ban discussion. He's a disgrace to the Wikipedia admin community -- and I don't say that lightly, I have high regard for many Wikipedia administrators.

The question here comes down to this: is all behavior forbidden that is not explicitly allowed, or, as I believe, is all behavior allowed unless it is explicitly forbidden. The latter is a direct follow from WP:IAR, one of our pillars, and it means if Ronsinden and Lugnuts and other benighted editors wish to forbid me from making a certain kind of edit they must present a specific policy or guideline which forbids it. I have asked for this over and over again, and they cannot provide such a policy or guideline, because it does not exist. Therefore, the fault here is entirely on the other side - they are edit warring to prevent a policy-compliant edit, without discussion or concern for the arguments against them. They are intransigent, and are using every possible weapon to win their "battle" other than citing Wikipedia policy or guidelines. 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BMK, you are overriding the default settings of navboxes without justification or giving a good reason why. This has been discussed at the film project, yet you still seem to be making these edits against consensus. Where's the policy that navboxes should be changed to your personal preference? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, what you do and do not recognise and what you do and do not say lightly is not pertinent to your edit warring and personal attacks. And I have nothing to do with this other than to warn you to stop edit warring and attacking other editors or you'll be blocked. Again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM: I have nothing to say to you, and nothing you can say to me is pertinent. You are nobody to me. BMK (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sob. Now please stop edit warring and using phrases like ASSHOLE in edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, when you turn in the bit, jerk. BMK (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So, to be clear, you intend to keep edit warring and using phrases like "ASSHOLE" and now "jerk" until I "turn in the bit"? Good luck with that! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I intend to keep considering you as something less than an authority on civil behavior. Of course, as an admin, you can hlock me anytime you want -- you are armed, and I am not. In that regard, there may well be occasions where I pull on my forelock and bow reverntly while backing away, hoping not to be smitten by your staff of authority. But you can block me until the cows come home, and it won't do anything to earn my respect for you. You've lost that for the time being. Were I you, I'd be soul-stricken at my own behavior, and would have offered to turn in the bit voluntarily - but, obviously, you are not me, and you clearly feel just ducky about wielding your power after shaming yourself. So be it. BMK (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Robsinden, you misspeak. I have given very good reasons why, in a discussion with you, which can be found here. (Why do you misrepresent the truth when it can be so easily shown to be untrue? That's not very smart of you.) And, as I said in the discussion on the Film Project talk page, the Project has no jurisdtiction to forbid the collapsing of solo navboxes, that can only be done through a community-wide RfC. As we say in the recent Kafziel ArbCom case, WikiProjects have a limited scope of authority, and this does not fall within it. The casual discussion of a handful of WP Film members does not determine community consensus. If you feel strongly about this, your option is to open an RfC, which you have been advised to do, and have not done, relying, instead, on the strong arm method of reversion, and, now, reporting to EWN. BMK (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

All you demonstrate there is that nothing prohibits you from doing it. That doesn't mean you should make a unilateral decision to collapse any navbox you see. Have you considered why navboxes default to autocollapse, and are not pre-set to collapsed? I'd say that this was probably because autocollapse was chosen as default by consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so if there is nothing that prohibits me from collapsing solo navboxes, and I have given valid reasons in the discussion you conveniently forgot as to why they should be collapsed, then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in reverting them continously. If you disagree with the collapsing, you take it to the talk page and discuss, but you DO NOT REVERT because there is no valid policy or guideline which allows you to revert.

Considering Robsinden's admission above, I repeat my reqiesy for the closing admin to issue a strong warning to this editor (1) Not to Wikihound other editors by follow their contributions when there is no vandalism or disruption involved, and (2) Not to revert collapses on solo navboxes. BMK (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD, along with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Collapsing film director navboxes. You were making bold changes against the default settings, I disagreed and reverted, so you should have discussed. After you'd reverted a couple of times, I started a discussion at the film project, and it seems we have additional consensus, which you seem to want to ignore, override with your personal preference, and then ban any user that disagrees with you. If anything, you should be banned from collapsing navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rob, do I really need to speak to you like a child? The navboxes you reverted were collapsed by me, either a very long time ago, or when I expanded the article, so that is the status quo. (In this case of the articles I expanded, there was, no article in any practical sense until I expanded them 2 or 5 or 10 times what they were as sub-stubs.) -- OK? Now you come along and change that. That is the Bold edit. I Revert it, and the next step - your step, is to start a Discussion. The article remains in the status quop while discussion is ongoing.' Please take a moment to actually read WP:BRD. and you'll see exactly that language.

Next, as I've said repeatedly, and as you seem not to understand, a WikiProject does not have the jurisdiction to make the sort of determination we're talking about. Only a Wikipedia-wide community RfC can create the consensus needed to create the de facto guideline that solo navboxes are not to be collapsed.

I realize that you and Lugnuts and Clarityfiend and your cohorts would like to pretend that film articles are a thing unto themselves, but they are not. They are a part of the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, and you cannot create rules within the Film Project's purview when they are encyclopedia-wide issues. It just cannot be the case. BMK (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Consider the history of Arsenic and Old Lace. It seems you tried to collapse the navbox with this diff, which was quickly reverted with this diff. It had remained stable with uncollapsed navbox until this diff, so I'm not sure how you think WP:BRD doesn't apply to you, when the status quo is a non-collapsed navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at the history of {{Preston Sturges}}, back when that was a monster of a navbox (and included all the inappropriate actor links), it seems you were edit warring from the opposite side that you are now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Rob, you are incorrect. I created the Preston Sturgest template from scratch. I put in the state control that allowed it to be collapsed, and User:Aspects took it out (where is Aspects, anyway?), I put it back in later, and you took it out. You told me disparigongly that all I had to do was use the "state=collapsed" switch and it would collapse, but I told you that was not right, and you reverted me again. Then you discovered that I was right, and put the state control in (in a slightly different form), without ever acknowledging that I was correct, that the template wouldn't collapsed on command with a state control statement. So, the template I created was wrested from my influence first by Aspects and then by you, who called it a "mess" and changed its design significantly. Thanks for that. (How many templates have you created, BTW, and how many articles?)

As for "Arsenic and Old Lace", I collapsed the template in August, and was reverted by (once again) Aspects, who was following me around and reverting my film edits (sound familiar, Rob Sinden? Where, and who, is Aspects anyway? Why hasn't he taken part in this discussion?). So there was no "consensus" revert of my edit, just the work of a single, mono-maniacal editor. BMK (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@Aspects:. Why not ask them? However, as this is about your conduct, and you seem to have tried the same stunt with them before, maybe you don't want their input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BMK - please read WP:CONSENSUS and how it over-rides IAR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if there was a consensus, which there ain't. A handful of your buddies in the Film Project are irrelevant, when the issue is a community-wide one. BMK (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The template layout is the consensus. You're the only one who has a problem with it. You need to raise a RfC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's total bullshit, and I think you know it. A template is adjustable to the situation, it's starting state isn't something sacred, it's just the place to begin. Where the fuck do you get these ideas? BMK (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From consensus, Kenneth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that Beyond My Ken is modifying the default behaviour without consensus to do so. If you could engage in the discussion and explain why and gain a consensus to do so, that would be ideal. If you just wish to insult everyone by swearing at them, you probably won't get much longer to explain why. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is, are you an admin here, or an editor? BMK (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not, but I want an answer nonetheless. Are you here as an editor, expressing your personal opinions, or are you an admin, armed with a block button? Are you involved or not? No further re ponses to you until I know precisely your role here. BMK (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't care for your threats. This discussion is about your personal attacks and edit warring. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(1) I don't give a rat's ass what you "care for". (2) How can I, an unarmed civilian, "threaten" you? You got the freakin' tools. (3) Any Wikipedia admin is responsible for explaining his actions when asked If you think otherwise, perhaps an email to Kafziel might be worthwhile to set you straight. In this case it's a pretty goddamned easy question: Are you here acting as an admin or an editor? Are you "involved" are are you not? What could possibly be so hard about answering that? BMK (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

TRM may have "the tools" but he, and every other admin, is bound by WP:ADMINACCT. The evidence above would support any action. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to hear what TRM has to say, not you. I understand what you are, I want to understand what his role is here. BMK (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well maybe when you can be civil, you'll get your answer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe if you shut up he might answer, but I doubt it. He's realized that he was involved, but doesn't want to admit it, so he's left the premises. Not unexpected, given his history. BMK (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, it makes zero difference to this discussion, unless I intend to close which clearly I will not. It would be helpful if someone hatted this sideshow as it detracts from the obvious edit warring and personal attacks this user has continually engaged in today. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is it that you cannot be honest and straightforward and say "I'm here as an editor"? Is there some reason you feel you need to keep the tools "at the ready"? Are you planning to involve yourself with me in the same disgraceful manner you did with Baseball Bugs and Medeis, keeping the hidden threat of using the admin tools as an "ace in the hole" to browbeat me as you browbeat them? BMK (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your lure will have no effect on me, such trickery to play. And I've never held any tools "at the ready". Prove it, or pipe down. And do it somewhere relevant, which, incidentally, is not here. It would be helpful if this discussion got back on track, i.e. the edit warring and personal attacks of this user. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why BMK is playing "suicide by admin" right now? FFS BMK, cut it out. ES&L 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. BMK.

I'm far from being a fan of Robsinden, I frequently find him to petty and irritating admittedly, but Ken there really is no need to collapse the Capra template, he didn't direct that many films, and there's certainly no need to raise this sort of level of conflict over it. I really think you need to step away and chill out for a bit. Many of his Capra's films are certainly among my favourites! Arsenic and Old Lace is certainly one of best, and one I've long been meaning to expand, after Bringing up Baby of course, but this approach to editing and nonsense here attacking each other isn't helping anybody. It'll probably be me ending up doing the proper work on it anyway. I suggest that everybody simply steps away and gets on with something constructive..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. BMK.

That's a bit harsh - the only time we've crossed swords that I can recall was regarding the masses of redlinks left in the {{William Beaudine}} template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears that BMK has broken 3RR at Arsenic and Old Lace (film) and so far nobody else has. He is reverting on the collapse state of a template. He recently did a similar thing at The Great American Beauty Contest and got up to four reverts, though not within 24 hours. He was blocked for 3RR a few days ago. In my opinion User:Beyond My Ken can avoid sanctions by agreeing not to change the collapse state of any templates (for the next two weeks) without getting a talk page consensus first. If BMK makes this agreement then User:Robsinden may not have any reason to keep checking his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston - I agree to your conditions, and apologize to everyone on this page for my incivility and general behavior. BMK (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Generally I've found Ken to be a constructive and reasonable editor, but I agree that this conflict with nav boxes is not constructive and a time waster. Given the frequency of disputes over nav and infoboxes it really is about time that the formatting was changed on wikipedia and data controlled by wiki data and editors given the choice to suppress them in their preferences. Given how much work is need in most film articles including the great Arsenic, it really is sad to see that this sort of thing is getting so much energy and attention put into it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Per his comment above, User:Beyond My Ken has agreed to a restriction. He will not change the collapse state of any templates for the next two weeks. That should resolve the edit warring complaint, so no other action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:24.49.206.36 reported by User:SMP0328. (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Titles of Nobility Amendment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

After being warned not to continue edit-warring at Titles of Nobility Amendment, this anon resumed edit-warring at this article. SMP0328. (talk) 05:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Urfinze reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234/userlinks

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592985100 by Thomas.W (talk) i know it, but the fact is that there is no topic for discussion, i just slightly corrected the infobox to make it look more suitable and removed one"
2. 17:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592979833 by Serzhik (talk) stop spoiling please"
3. 15:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592959004 by Serzhik (talk) lol,whats your problem?"
4. 18:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592812013 by Serzhik (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Azerbaijani people. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring about content in infobox by an editor that has a previous history of edit-warring, including previous blocks for it. The editor has been pointed to the talk page, and has been informed about WP:BRD through edit summaries, but continues to revert. Based on content on the user's talk page they also ought to know what both edit-warring and consensus-building is. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Mzilikazi1939, User:Dougweller and User:Johnbod reported by User:WP Editor 2011 (Result: WP Editor 2011 blocked)

Pages:

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

Aesop's Fables (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported:

Mzilikazi1939 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: clean version of Aesop's Fables clean version of Aesop

Diffs of the user's reverts: Aesop's Fables

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7
8. 8

There may have been more; there were numerous unrelated edits in between and not all of Mzilikazi's edits had clearly explained summaries.

Aesop

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

...and so on. These might be a little bit out of chronological order.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Discussion 1
2. Discussion 2
3. Discussion 3
4. Discussion 4
5. Discussion 5
6. Discussion 6

Comments:

In May/June 2012, Mzilikazi1939's 1.5-year-long edit war surrounding the articles Aesop's Fables and Aesop came to an end after I noticed what had been going on, reverted the changes that he had been enforcing by bullying and argued with him on several different pages. He finally conceded defeat here, after his canvassing, lying, suggestions of article ownership and misleading complaints to administrators all failed. Note his description given for the edit logs is a misspelling of the Buddhist greeting "sukhi hotu".

After the Aesop/Aesop's Fables edit war, both articles remained in their clean states for 8 months straight until Mzilikazi decided to start the conflict all over again. This time, however, he used his original account by the name of Afkun. On 2 February 2013, he made the same illegal changes to Aesop's Fables that he had been trying to enforce via bullying in the first edit war. This was immediately reverted here but Mzilikazi returned to Aesop's Fables at once to enforce his will here, just like he had done for 1.5 years in the first edit war 123456...11.

In this second, 11-month edit war, Aesop's Fables has gone back and forth between the clean version and the hijacked version in exactly the same manner as it did the first time around, i.e. with Mzilikazi1939 and one or two other people regularly reverting numerous editors' attempts to save the article from their hijacking. The diffs are listed at the beginning of this report. However, unlike Mzilikazi's first edit war, Aesop remained untouched until just a few days ago. I reported Mzilikazi1939 for using a sock puppet here but User:Dougweller deliberately confused the administrators with grossly excessive amounts of clearly irrelevant information, most of which consisted of ad hominem arguments against me. Consequently, User:Callanecc said he couldn't make sense of it and Mzilikazi1939 escaped unpunished.

A few days ago, I reverted Mzilikazi's illegal changes to Aesop's Fables so he canvassed his first edit war allies at the 3rd and 4th discussions linked to above. Dougweller already noticed what was happening and didn't need to be canvassed. Haploidavey has presumably recognised the illegitimacy of his position and has thus abstained from the conflict but the other three of them have greatly intensified their efforts to hijack the two articles in question in the last few days; refusing to discuss their proposed change on the talk pages and instead cherry-picking bits and pieces from their first edit war (particularly Dougweller) in an attempt to convince everyone that they didn't lose. The facts speak for themselves; Mzilikazi conceded defeat in June 2012, the articles remained in their clean states for 8 months and then, with no discussion at all taking place until a few days ago, Mzilikazi started exactly the same behaviour in February 2013 that he did for 1.5 years in the first edit war, with Dougweller and Johnbod now reuniting with him a few days ago. This gang of three has been ignoring the attempts of myself, Aoidh and the numerous other editors to resolve the issue during the last 11 months. The discussion is going nowhere and therefore this issue requires administrator intervention.

• Blocked. I blocked User:WP Editor 2011 for one week for edit warring in both articles against consensus (re WP:ERA, for which they have been previously blocked) and for making personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Feysalafghan reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234/userlinks

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592834016 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
2. 18:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "i don't know what you are talking about but they say they made early inroads in indian subcontinent by going in Afghanistan but Afghanistan is not indiansubontinent but about Pakistan, Pakistan is part of the Indian subcontinent. i don't want editwar bro"
3. 17:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "Afghanistan is not in the Indian plate sir and is on the western side of the hindu kush mountains so that means that Afghanistan is not Indian subcontinent go look for the definitions of Indian subcontinent on internet."
4. 16:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning on 25 December 2013, Blocked on 14 January 2014

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I asked for full protection of the page yesterday to force both sides to the talk page but it was declined. Also I would like to note here that it is an edit warring report not 3RR. SMS ^Talk 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:PirateButtercup reported by User:Mmeijeri (Result: Protected)

Page: Ripple (payment protocol) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PirateButtercup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&oldid=592828983

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592851143&oldid=592850047
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=next&oldid=592851143
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=next&oldid=592851559
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=next&oldid=592851729
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592858668&oldid=592858080
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592835706&oldid=592833519
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592833519&oldid=592832930
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592832829&oldid=592832263
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592832263&oldid=592828983

And many others on the same day.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PirateButtercup&diff=next&oldid=592863668

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PirateButtercup&diff=592862226&oldid=592646346

and following edits

Comments:

Straightforward 3RR violation. User admits he isn't familiar with the rules, but doesn't feel like reading up. I'll be happy to apply BRD if he disagrees with my changes, but he like everybody else must abide by the rules and know that the rules are in fact rules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the reverts described above by mmeijeri, PirateButtercup also reverted five of my edits to the Ripple page today. I added them to the list above. All told, it's not a "straightforward" 3RR violation but an egregious one. Chris Arnesen 00:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that I believe he is acting in good faith, and also admit I posted in anger, which was maybe not the best course of action. I don't necessarily want to see him blocked, but I do want him to play by the rules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nearly half of the above were performed because the author chose to create subtitles with identical names to existing sections (rather than work within the existing sections). At first he seemed to be writing about the underlying philosophies, (under the category 'Concept'). This I believe would warrant such a redundancy. However, when he subordinated all of the existing categories to his categories by the exact same name...none of which were cited ...it became clear he had other motives. I undid one deletion regarding the control of Ripple as the person who deleted it claimed there was no mention in the reference...even though it stated that they "did not control Ripple". I undid another deletion regarding the legal section. The person responsible deleted it because he claimed it was irrelevant, when in fact it is very relevant. This was worked out on the Talk page....which is where it should have went before it was deleted. The talk page should have been the approach for all similar deletions. In short, hijacking an article by replicating category names and subordinating existing categories by the exact same name cannot be appropriate ... whether I know the rules or not. By that same measure, I suspect deleting direct and indirect quotes...from quality sources...that are pertinent to the article... without going through the Talk pages is not appropriate either. PirateButtercup (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I did announce my edits in advance, waited a while, no one objected and I went ahead explaining why I was making the changes, going in small steps that could individually be reverted. I don't mind if PB reverts, that's what BRD is for. But that's not the point, the complaint here is about 3RR which has little or nothing to do with content. I do object to wholesale reversion and ignoring the rules. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Uninvolved) Comment There does not appear to be edit warring, but some content disputes, certainly.
• 1. 18:42, 28 January 2014‎ by PirateButtercup restored 425 bytes removed 17:17, 28 January 2014‎ by Chrisarnesen
• 2. 18:46, 28 January 2014‎ by PirateButtercup restored 175 bytes removed 17:44, 28 January 2014‎ by Chrisarnesen
• 3. 18:47, 28 January 2014‎ by Chrisarnesen removed 1,007 bytes _{Note: summary not stated as being a revert}
• 4. 18:51, 28 January 2014‎ by PirateButtercup restored 230 bytes removed 16:48, 28 January 2014‎ by Chrisarnesen
• 5. 19:08, 28 January 2014‎ by PirateButtercup restored 1,007 bytes removed by Chrisarnesen
• Note that the number 3 edit by User:Chrisarnesen is dated 1 minute after the 2nd edit by User:PirateButtercup. It is not apparent whether User:PirateButtercup was aware of the intermediate edit when the number 4 edit (User:PirateButtercup's 3rd consecutive edit) was made. There is no evidence in that article's history after this of any opposition or objection to the several further edits by User:PirateButtercup. No specific edit was complained of on the talk page.
• What is User:Mmeijeri's beef? There is no discussion on the article talk page specifying any particular edit. The 3 posts by User:Mmeijeri on User:PirateButtercup's talk page do not specify what edit(s) is(are) being requested to be self-reverted, and tone of the complaints do not seem overwhelmingly friendly. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The number 3 edit by me was a removal of unsuitable references (replacing them with citation needed templates), a new edit completely unrelated to any other I had made on the page. My removal of 1007 bytes (edit 3) was NOT itself a revert. PirateButtercup immediately reverted that edit, adding back the unverifiable citations. Nor did he "self-revert" his reversion after myself and Agyle agreed that that the citations were not valid on Talk:Ripple_(payment_protocol)#Ripple_wiki_is_NOT_a_reliable_source The fact that my edit had a negative byte count is relevant; Buttercup reverted it. The main beef is that PirateButtercup egregiously disregarded the 3 reverts per day rule. Mmeijeri and I each made several independent edits yesterday, and PirateButtercup reverted many of them, way more than 3. I actually just noticed ANOTHER Buttercup revert from yesterday that I hadn't noticed previously because he did it "manually" and left the edit summary blank. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592856988&oldid=592853855 reverts https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29&diff=592828256&oldid=592826953 . Chris Arnesen 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – Three days. Judging from the comments above the participants are capable of discussing the issues when they have to. This protection will allow time for agreement to be worked out on the article talk page. If reverts continue (without discussion) after protection expires, blocks may be considered. If you have questions about the usability of sources (for instance, about using the Ripple wiki) you can ask at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We all get put on a timeout because Buttercup can't play nice? That's a worse outcome for the article than if we'd never brought this to the attention of the administrators in the first place. In that case I'd rather just try to work it out amongst ourselves. Much obliged if you could lift the protection. Chris Arnesen 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

After all the times that admins had to intervene at Bitcoin it is not surprising that Ripple (payment protocol) is in trouble as well. You guys are clearly capable of discussing the issues, so go ahead and do that. If you reach consensus on any single item use {{edit protected}} on the talk page to get an admin to make the requested change in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisarnesen: I just wanted to pop back in and say thank you for your reply. I agree that the red emphasised edit above was "NOT" a revert. Best wishes to everyone. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Amitc.iitg reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: blocked for 3 days)

Page

Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Amitc.iitg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Request you to stop being stubborn and do some research on the kind of information displayed on IIT pages(sister IIT (IIT Bombay, IIT Kanpur, IIT Kharagpur, IIT Madras, IIT Delhi, IIT Roorkee))"
2. 17:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Kindly refer to the page of IIT , increasing the information content of page"
3. 16:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Hampering the information content of the page, no promotional content has been displayed"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC) to 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593123091 by Epicgenius (talk)"
   2. 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Hampering the information content of the page"
5. Consecutive edits made from 13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) to 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593112211 by JamesBWatson (talk)"
   2. 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593112555 by JamesBWatson (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. (TW)"
2. 17:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. (TW)"
3. 17:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days. If the problem continues after that block, an indefinite block may be reasonable, since this is clearly a promotion-only account, in addition to the edit-warring issue. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Nfomamdoalfrlpsa reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 1 month)

Page

Arms Industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593245969 by Jim1138 (talk) stop Rv We've had this discussion"
2. 07:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592162772 by Bevo74 (talk) We've had this discussion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Started again after he got a 72 hour block for exactly the same reason. Please see comment by Kuru a week ago: [189]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We've had this discussion"

the source doesn't provide evidence to substantiate its claims and is also riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions. If you would like to release source or evidence to substantiate its claims please do--Nfomamdoalfrlpsa (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month for the resumption of edit warring. The next time should be indefinite. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kishok Nazriya reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Warned)

Page

Nazriya Nazim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kishok Nazriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) to 07:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
   1. 07:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuously tries to showcase illicit images of Nazriya Nazim, removing the legally used ones. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I got tipped off by the word "illicit", but maybe "poorly sourced" and "properly licensed" would be better terms here? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Not really an edit war issue but a copyright issue, as well as probable communication problems and promotional issues. I've warned the user on their talk page about the copyright violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and user:5.69.238.72 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Morph (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Brightline 3+RR on both sides. Not a major change, just trolling from the IP. I reverted once to a previous stable version, then was reverted in minutes by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who now alleges that I'm a sock of the IP! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked IP for 48 hours. Andy Dingley, please complete these reports properly. Hullaballoo reverted the IP's edit, not yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, there was an edit conflict involved; Andy and I both intended to revert the IP, I was just slower. My sock reference was meant to refer to the IP, who I suspect I'd spotted some time ago repeatedly vandalizing the Kerry Katona article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That's what I figured. I'm surprised Andy didn't see it. Maybe he was too busy reporting you. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:50.30.49.20 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

P. J. Patterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593018561 by Sven Manguard (talk) Source was given(SIPT). They are currently prosecuting Misick (ex-Premier (chief minister of the Turks and Caicos Islands))."
2. 16:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593018561 by Sven Manguard (talk) The source is verified. Who wrote that it was a crime?"
3. 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593137059 by EricSerge (talk) The Official source. Multiple governments has put this team is place."
4. 18:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593152871 by EvergreenFir (talk) Who wrote that a crime was committed. There is a confiscation Order(conviction)."
5. 22:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593323261 by EvergreenFir (talk) Court Order"
6. 03:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593349543 by EvergreenFir (talk) Queen Bestowed an Award"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on P. J. Patterson. (TW)"
2. 22:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring warning */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edits about court order */ new section"

Comments:

User just got off ban for edit warring today and proceeded to edit war on the same article. WP:NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Jakandsig reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [190]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [191]
2. [192]
3. [193]
4. [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195], [196]

Comments:
Jackandsiq, who has been previously blocked for and aroused community ire by edit warring, reverted four times in less than an hour. In addition to the material he actually disagreed with, he started removing thousands of bytes worth of content that I added to make a WP:POINT, but he was reverting to a virtually identical version each time. I reverted him twice; three other editors reverted him once each.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

 Checking... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Jakandsig for 5 days and TheTimesAreAChanging Warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:1houstonian reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page

Steve Stockman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1houstonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Current tenure (District 36) */ revert with citations please do not vandalise"
2. 04:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593385121 by GabrielF (talk)"
3. 04:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593387454 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)"
4. 05:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Current tenure (District 36) */ please do not remove sourced material showing the persons positions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Please stop reverting and talk */ sure"
2. 05:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* writing on a talk page */ new section"
3. 05:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steve Stockman. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Hearsay? */ new section"
2. 05:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Public Figure */ r"

Comments:

The editor won't engage constructively on talk page and has at least four reverts in the last couple hours despite both invitations to discuss and warnings. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:TheDude36 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Rick Joyner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TheDude36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593446788 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"
2. 16:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593448197 by Sean.hoyland (talk) VANDALISM VANDALISM"
3. 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593449443 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) I CREATED THIS PAGE! YOU ARE POSTING FALSE INFORMATION!"
4. 16:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593449873 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rick Joyner. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See talk page for additional warnings. See edit summaries for assertions of ownership. The editor won't stop reverting and discuss anything on the talk page. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Caprimanali reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Lurs. (TW)"
2. 17:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* February 2014 */ don't change quotations, use edit summaries"
3. 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Hamadan Province. (TW)"
4. 18:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lurs. (TW)"
5. 18:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Tofy Mussivand. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV edits across a range of articles. Probably a BLP violation at Tofy Mussivand[197] as no sources say the subject is Kurdish. Basically nationalist editing - as you can see I warned him for changing a quotation (to add Kurdish to it). Removed sourced text which didn't support a Kurdish pov. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Info:

The user has done the same type of edits on svwiki and is now blocked there. -- Tegel (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Geraldo Perez reported for editwarring at Rick Joyner by User:Grade X (Result: Locked)

1st 2nd 3rd 4th

Enjoy.

Grade X (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Please see ANI discussion about Grade X here: Wikipedia:Ani#Grade_X before taking action on this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• I reverted per WP:Edit warring#3RR exemptions #7 as WP:BLP violations discussed at WP:BLPN and on talk page and determined there to be as such. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected. Article fully protected for three days by Mark Arsten.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Voluntary break)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]

Comments:
User in question is reverting multiple different editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Characterizing these as reverts and blaming me for edit warring is a rather biased picture (the first revert was by Doc James, Jmh649 after I tried to implement the result of a talk-page discussion; he not only removed my attempt but restored a version that everyone had agreed was wrong). But I will refrain from touching it more as I said on the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Here are the recent Dicklyon edits after removing consecutive edits by the same person, using the 3RR helper tool:

1. 17:14, 30 January 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cardiovascular disease */ OK to mention and reference both sides in a topic with competing POVs")
2. 17:59, 30 January 2014 (edit summary: "don't censor alternative points of view")
3. 20:34, 30 January 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Jmh649 (talk): Restore ref to recent (2008, 2010) results. (TW)")
4. 04:38, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cancer */ clarify what small effects were reported")
5. 04:43, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Bone health */ clarify what they were looking at here")
6. 04:59, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Bone health */ why do people misrepresent sources so badly? fixing")
7. 05:03, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Bone health */")
8. 05:08, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ update again per sources and ongoing talk-page discussion that reverter seems unaware of")
9. 05:45, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cardiovascular disease */ say something more about ongoing studies; it's relevant that the report support and reports them")
10. 16:05, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ re-fix the fortmann quote to what applies here; don't suppress the information from the quoted sources")
11. 17:26, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "/* Cardiovascular disease */ a 2014 report should not censor others from the last few years, per WP:MEDRS")
12. 17:33, 1 February 2014 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Alexbrn: Alex, please restrain your censorship reflex and try to work this out on the talk page; I did not pick these refs have been in the article long before I looked at it. (TW)")

User:Dicklyon made nine reverts on February 1 alone. Though Dicklyon is not the only person reverting here, he beats the others by a wide margin. Everyone is well-intentioned, but it would be best if Dicklyon would agree to take a 7-day break from the article to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of these edits are good-faith attempts to improve the article in the direction that we had been discussing on the talk page. How can you characterize an edit such as this one that nobody objects to as a revert? I'm already taking a break from the article, as I said. I can make it seven days if you like, but I'd rather have you look into what's going on and say something appropriate the other three guys with the censoring reflex defending the status quo and making progress difficult. See the talk page discussion (not just the section that the doc linked, but several before and after). Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Dicklyon will take a voluntary break from editing the article. All of you know about WP:Dispute resolution and RfCs. If these issues are important enough to edit war about, they are probably worth discussing formally. EdJohnston (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: No action)

Users involved:

• 139.164.160.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.203.97.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

The matter was previous brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonaut (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 January, 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The second and third IPs appear to have stopped editing. I don't see any recent problems with the #1 IP. Report again if you see any abuse. This case was also discussed on Psychonaut's user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:88.104.24.150 reported by User:Technical 13 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Implicit opposes */ r"
2. 00:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593502212 by Technical 13 (talk) per [204] and lack-of-response theirin"
3. 02:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593521016 by Jackmcbarn (talk) IP hate, meh"
4. 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "oops"
5. 02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 593522253 by Jackmcbarn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC implicit oppose. (TW)"
2. 01:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on User:Jackmcbarn/PCRFC_implicit_oppose. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring "Archiving 4 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive234) (bot"

Comments:

My first revert of this user's post was a full WP:AGF assuming it was just a misplaced or test edit. The IP, told me it was not a test and reverted my undo of their edit. This quickly escalated into a full out edit war between this IP and another user which resulted in protection of the page being edited. Reviewing the contributions of the IP will show that it is obviously and vandalism only account and should be dealt with as such. Thank you. / Technical 13 (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"it is obviously and vandalism only account and should be dealt with as such"

Obviously.

Even though I've 'vandalised' nothing.

Meh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.24.150 (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi'd indefinitely as a user request in own userspace). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)