Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive212

User:Geebee2 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Locked)

Page: Killing of Travis Alexander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Geebee2 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

• Page protected. I locked the article for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Engineman reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Repeatedly adding the (bolded) text to the following section: "such an engine might also be called a apark-ignited (S.I.) engine, gaseous-fueled engine or natural gas engine."

This is uncited, it's also an error. For those unfamiliar, we have articles on gas engine, spark-ignition engine and gasoline engine (that's the same as a petrol engine for the Brits). All three of these engines are closely related, but distinct. Gas engines are one form of spark-ignition engine, but they are an uncommon form and the terms are just not used, or usable, interchangeably.

Yes, we might call a particular engine a spark-ignition engine, we might also call it a Cummins or Ford engine, we might even call it a bright orange engine. Any of these could be true in some circumstances, but that doesn't mean that the terms become general synonyms for each other, such that they're usable as such in an encyclopedia. I don't understand the editor's mindset here: possibly they don't appreciate encyclopedic wording? The fact that not all spark-ignition engines are gas engines (in fact, very few of them) means that a phrase that's casually acceptable one way round is far from usable the other way round, when we're trying to write an encyclopedia. Maybe they're confusing gas engines and gasoline engines, where sloppy wording does regularly label them as spark-ignition engines, as a shorthand distinction from diesel engines (and again, that's not a statement that's up to encyclopedic robustness).

There's no real discussion of this. There's a Google dump at Talk:Gas_engine#Spark_ignited, but if you can make sense of that, you're doing better than I am.

I'm at 3R. Can someone else please explain that this is either incorrect (ideally, if there are any engineers around, and I appreciate that content issues are outside AN/EW), or at least that a claim like this needs citation, not a proof-by-edit-summary of "I work in the industry".

Given the poor spelling and unintelligible bulk pastes, I'm also wondering if this might be the return of the indeffed Wdl1961 (talk · contribs)?

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation The first edit doesn't count as a revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86 reported by User:InedibleHulk (Result: Both editors warned)

Page: WWE Raw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmericanDad86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [20]
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [21]

Comments: Editor seems determined to add new unsourced/unreliably sourced section devoted to one particular, very recent episode of WWE Raw, over 1,036 others. This undue weight has been reverted by three other editors, and supported by none. It was also brought up here He is now on a mission to tag and delete all unsourced material and anything he considers undue weight, though he didn't care about that before his edit was denied. I've tried several things to help better incorporate his work, by Wikipedia standards, but he refuses, prefering to attack my editorial character. He was warned that he would be warned several times, then when he was formally warned, he instantly deleted them. And almost as quickly edited WWE Raw again. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's what happened. InedibleHulk didn't want my sourced edit here, [22], added into the article. The edit relates to how last week's Raw was critically acclaimed as one of the greatest episodes by a majority of professional wrestling critics and mainstream media sources, such as "The Baltimore Sun" and "The Sun." For that reason, given the mainstream sources in question, naturally I thought it was notable.

Inedible starts out by saying my edits have to go because they aren't using independent sources outside of the "WWE." When he found that he was mistaken and that my material ONLY used independent sources, he revised his complaint to instead fuss that it was an "undue weight" problem (as shown [23] and [24])

Mind you, this material was three short paragraphs long, the first two paragraphs being four lines each and the last being one. To support his arguments, he repeatedly presented me with this WP:UNDUE. I continually tried to tell him that this policy he presented me with didn't specify what exact length is and is not undue, but this comment seemed to keep going in one ear, right out the other, as he simply replied WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE, WP:UNDUE. And with that simple statement, he took it upon himself to flat-out remove my material repeatedly.

I responded to all this by pointing out to InedibleHulk that the vast majority of the Raw article was both unsourced and filled with sections far in excess of mine that ought to be subject to this "undue weight" policy and removal since my sourced material of only three short paragraphs was being judged by him as undue and swiftly removed. As just a few examples of the enormously long and largely unsourced material, see here: [25] and here [26]. These sections run for eons, are unsourced, and don't even have anything to do with their headings, etc. Given these examples and the slews of additional examples that abound on the article in question, I questioned InedibleHulk as to his single-minded interest in removing my sourced material of three short paragraphs while having no interest in the rest of this loaded, unsourced material taking up nearly all of the Raw article.

In response, he stated that he had no problem whatsoever if I wanted to trim any unsourced info (as shown [27]). But this was all talk as the moment I began trimming away at the article's unsourced material, he took issue and began reverting on me repeatedly (as shown here [28]).

To get me to stop removing unsourced material, he then attempted to campaign to me personally on my talkpage. And he campaigns with me by stating how Wikipedia policies don't need to be followed all the time, telling me that in fact he's used to flouting and disregarding Wikipedia policies as if there's nothing at all wrong with this (all as shown [29]). I was totally thrown off by these remarks because the whole reason we were having this editing dispute was due to his hounding me about an undue weight Wikipedia policy that he claimed I was violating. It almost seemed as though the user was trying to force me to accept a double standard in which his desired edits didn't have to follow Wikipedia policies while mine did.

I decided to entertain his campaign and discuss the matter over with him in detail. We had a long drawn-out and relatively civil debate on InedibleHulk's user talk page (as shown Here). As you can see, that long-drawn out debate on his talk page concluded with me having to make the compromise in order to keep the peace, that is: (A.) I agreed to cut down my information and place it in a section of the article of his choosing (B.) I refrained from trimming away at the heavily unsourced material within the article in respect to his wishes (which as you'll note, I left alone yesterday and the day before). So, basically, I agreed to be the bigger man.

I cut my material down to three lines and place it in the section of the article that he has requested. He wasn't done there, however, and continued to make further little irksome demands that I just kept accepting to try and keep the peace. For example, despite cutting it down, he then complained I needed at least five sources in addition (as shown [30] and [31]). Anyways, after I've done all this to appease him, he finally approves with a few more gripes about two of the four sources I provided [32]. I handle those gripes and move forward.

Then there's no communications between us for a few days and all is peaceful at the WWE Raw article. Then all the sudden out of absolutely nowhere just this morning, InedibleHulk returned to the WWE Raw article and: (A.) trimmed the three lines I had shortened my material down to all the way down to one line, complaining that it was still undue weight (B.) that 2 of my 4 sources didn't suit him; and (C.) followed up by telling me on the talk page that I was "misleading" for using the word "consensus" in my edit summary from the other day when I added the version of the edit that he and I had agreed on. Also in his comments to me on the RAW talk page, he fusses about how I used the word "per consensus" as opposed to "as per consensus" in an edit summary, complaining about my grammar; and caps this off by telling me he's "scolding" me. (all as shown [33], [34], and [35].

That's the point at which I realized this user was just looking for trouble and that trying to be the bigger man was futile. I communicated to him that he needs to learn how to talk to me and that he will not "scold" me as he put it. I let him know that I was done with the hypocrite, unreasoned, and nitpicking behaviors and antics as well as his talking down to me. I informed him that the edit was going back to the way of the consensus that was reached when we stopped talking for days. I also have picked back up on my cleanup of the article since trying to be the bigger man with him and leaving it alone didn't work. I placed a tag at the top of the article that said the article has serious issues, lacks citation, and has undue weight issues.

InedibleHulk has responded by referring to me with profanities and incivlity, calling me "bitchy" among other things (as shown here [36] and [37]); he's reverted my user talk page with his warnings, which is against wikipedia policy, as shown here [38]. Also, InedibleHulk has a slew of reversions which I can present you with as well. The user seems to be spoiling for trouble and trying to compromise and be the bigger man with him doesn't even work. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Those diffs don't show any obvious violation of 3RR. Indeed, one of them goes back way to April 11. Really, I don't think this belongs on the 3RR noticeboard. There's obviously some issues here that would be better served being discussed at dispute resolution or WP:RFC. A short-term block wouldn't help anything and may only exacerbate the tug-of-war here. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this place for 3RR and general edit warring? I didn't intend this as a 3RR thing. There are a few noticeboards I could have put this on, this seemed suitable. Maybe not. Not necessarilly asking for a block, but for someone other than me (or my "Wikifriends") to explain what's wrong with this. I don't seem to be getting through to him about a lot of things, and having to constantly address them is getting annoying. A request for comment could be an alright idea, if someone else commented. If it's just me and him, it's going nowhere it hasn't already been. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"Not necessarilly asking for a block, but for someone other than me (or my "Wikifriends") to explain what's wrong with this. I don't seem to be getting through to him about a lot of things, and having to constantly address them is getting annoying." If you're looking for more feedback, then dispute resolution/RFC sounds like the way to go. You both seem to have problems with each other that go beyond edit warring, e.g. arguing over various policies. I doubt that any outcome on this discussion would serve to fix things. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned both editors that if they edit the article at all during the next 7 days, they may be blocked without notice for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:50.72.177.136 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Semi-protected one week)

Page: Kurgan hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.72.177.136 (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. [39]
2. [40] (followed by a weird spate of reverting and self reverting, I think intended to make a WP:POINT
3. [41]
4. [42]

That's 4 within 24 hrs, but there were a few more right before those 24 hrs too:

5. [43] 6. [44] 7. [45] 8. [46] 9. [47] 10. [48] 11. [49]

That's 11 reverts in a little more than 2 days. Against multiple editors.

Also editing as this account [50]

Some choice edit summaries and comments:

• get bent. vandalism undone.
• nope. let's have an edit war.
• Encyclopedia Britannica reference suggests that Marek and AnonMoos are trolling asshats LOL!
• adding the sentence before that quote to add clarity for you teenage assholes. lol. oops sorry. i mean dumb pigs. lol.

Ay, just look at the talk page - lots of gross incivility, immaturity, and ranting. This person is impossible to talk to. [51]

the Kurgan Theory proper is NOT popular among those with brains and a PhD to match. (Sorry if this sounds pompous but to hell with it. This discussion is like arguing with insane fundy Christians who don't grasp basic logic let alone evolution.) And you are ignoring Kohl which I cited just to carry on with your POV about what "POV" means. I got your number: You're a failed linguist bedazzled by an obnoxious neopagan outlook by a pop-culture author to annoy people on Wikipedia with your misunderstandings and to get back at society. ROFL! You can "interpret" consensus however your little heart wishes, but the academic references and legitimate facts I cite have long ago invalidated Gimbutas's relevance in either linguistics or archaeology. She is an overpraised quack in my opinion and her theory, as I said, was *never* possible unless you buy into the one-language-one-culture fallacy of racist quacks. Her revisionism discredits both the sciences and feminism but it sure sold books. So this wiki-POV of yours just shows how Wikipedia can never move beyond 1990 user interface design and a barrage of unreasonable, unbending, policy-obsessed controlfreaks.

Hahaha. Really? You don't know? Come on, you crazy "anon" clown. It's just like when the archaeologist Hawass was anointed Vice Minister of Culture of Egypt by a corrupt ousted president: modern politics, modern politics, modern politics. Did you really think that if someone receives praise that it has to do with historical accuracy? How gullible. That just proves the point that I'm sitting here talking to a teenager. Hahaha, thanks for the fun conversation but you are thick

Lol, there is nothing more sour than a lonely couch potato who CLEARLY devotes his whole life to his AnonMoos profile page bragging to everyone about their would-be academic credentials who pushes neopagan POV like a crackpot.

Wow, bringing up **60 years ago** just to argue that she is "widely accepted" in the **here and now** by your decreasing group of neopagans does nothing for your credibility as a... well what are you exactly? An "anon moo", I guess. Okay, fella. Slow down. Take your antidepressants.

AnonMoos, who assures me he has oodles of degrees and yet who has clearly invested many long jobless hours of work into his Wikipedia image, will have to adopt an increasingly paranoid and infophobic stance to preserve the sanctity of the paganist teachings locked within the windmills of his mind.

Nope, that's you, troll.

Lol, cool story, bro. ... You are a nothing. Please get that right. I will pray for you, Wiccan. :o)

And that's him just getting warmed up. There's plenty more of that on the talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

• Page protected. I semi-protected the article for one week. The IP editor who is edit warring is dynamically assigned an address. Blocking one would serve little purpose, although they are editing other articles (I didn't review them, though).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

External links in Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) (Result: Protected)

There is edit warring at Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with respect to numerous embedded external links. Attention of uninvolved administrators is needed for counsel and possible protection. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I semi-protected the article for 5 days. There appears to be possible sock puppetry associated with the two new and warring accounts. I noted it in my protection basis. You might want to follow through at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:CodeCat (Result: Locked)

Page: Campaign for "santorum" neologism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
This user has been repeatedly undone edits over a longer period, often bordering on POV pushing and making claims about the nature of the article that have been dispelled in earlier consensus. In other words, ignoring consensus and discussion because he is obviously right? CodeCat (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The edits have been per WP:BLP and the last one was a clear attempt to reach compromise language. Even zso, I did not violate 3RR even if you count compromising as a "revert." CodeCat did not even notify me of this as required, by the way, and the issue is whether calling Santorum's words "anti-gay" is a fact or is an opinion. I suggest that it is an opinion, and that asking for a cite dfor such is required by WP:BLP in the first place. So -- no bright line violation. No "long term edit war" as that is just a silly aside here (I have all of 5 edits on it on well over a full year -- calling that an "edit war" is asinine). And the issue as to whether a contentious claim requires specific sourcing is still at issue -- noting that Nomo has been vocal is assertions that such do not require strong sourcing at WP:BLP/N most recently wrt Shepard Smith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)

Nonsense. This article has become a coatrack to insert BLP against. Collect's removal of uncited text was perfectly acceptable.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Regardless of the merits of the different positions on the content, the edit warring has to stop. If it doesn't, I'll lock the article. As for the warring, everyone should be on notice that I am not going to accept a BLP exemption for anyone's reverts - it's simply not strong enough to justify the reverts. @Collect, you are the only one at three reverts. So, you must stop or you risk being blocked. If everyone calms down and discusses the issues on the talk page, fine. Otherwise I'll take action.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - and I appreciate you have asked the others to stop as well. Collect (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it hasn't even been established that this article falls under BLP policy since it's not about a person but about a campaign. That the campaign is directed against a person is another matter, but there doesn't seem to be much in the article relating to Santorum or Savage as people. CodeCat (talk) 22:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note, everything on Wikipedia falls under BLP, try not to forget it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I'm uninvolved in this dispute; it only came to my attention because of a post at WP:BLP/N. While I don't condone edit-warring, I think that there is a good chance that this is indeed a BLP violation. Please see my initial thoughts here.[60] Wikipedia tends to err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP issues and I would say that WP:BLP is more important than WP:EDITWAR or WP:3RR.
So, what I am suggesting is that before issuing blocks against editors removing possible BLP violations, we should first consider removing the offending content and locking the page, so that the dispute can be worked out on talk pages. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm considering locking the article, but it's unclear what the "offending content" is. I understand that for some there are BLP issues imbedded in the content dispute, but as I said above, I don't see the BLP issues strong enough to either exempt someone from edit warring or for me to choose a version of the article to lock.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for 3 days so that the content dispute may be worked out without further edits to the article. Expecting that editors would act as if the article was locked was too problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User talk:75.118.133.246 reported by User:Spencer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Greater Cleveland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.118.133.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]
5. [66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Greater_Cleveland#Largest_Metropolitan_Area_in_Ohio

Comments:
The IP has been reverted multiple times by 4 different users. Spencer^T♦C 22:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

User:68.13.80.89 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 24h)

Page: Collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.13.80.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

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

Comments:

Straight-up POV pushing and edit-warring to include Truther agenda. Also warned for 9/11 AE. Acroterion (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

5 reverts, no sign of stopping. Acroterion (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:201.211.229.223 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result:Blocked as proxy)

Page: Collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 201.211.229.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [74]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [75]
2. [76]
3. [77]
4. [78]

• Now working from User:200.201.138.122. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Comments: IP is likely linked to [80]. Any reviewing admin should look at both ranges. Shadowjams (talk) 04:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked as a proxy by another admin. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Contaldo80 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Page protected)

Page: Mehmed the Conqueror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 11 April 08:48
• 12 April 08:28
• 12 April 11:57
• 12 April 16:01 (with spurious accusation of "vandalism")
• 16 April 09:02
• 16 April 14:34
• 17 April 12:14
• 17 April 13:02

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Ongoing ANI discussion; notification [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing WP:DRN discussion

Comments: This is a long-term POV agenda issue. This user has a long-standing history pushing poorly sourced and tendentious material about the sexual behaviour of historic Muslim ruling figures into their articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I categorically dispute the charge of pushing a POV agenda. There is no evidence to support this. Not do I have a history of pushing poorly sourced material. I try diligently to use sources that meet WP standards and criteria. The material I use is not deliberately partisan. I accept that some editors (and administrators) find discussion of issues relating to sexual orientation uncomfortable or controversial, but that does not mean they should not be considered. In addition I would like to make a counter report about Fut.Perf. whose style I find bullying and who has been personally abusive without provocation, and who has accused me with no cause of not knowing what a harem is "after all these years", being "historically ignorant", and using "weak sources". I confess to expecting somewhat more balanced from someone fulfilling the important task of administrator. I have tried patiently to apply WP rules to discussion of the article [{Mehmed the Conqueror]] about getting a balance between coverage, reliable sources and avoiding bias. I am disappointed that this particular administrator seems to have missed the nuances of that. If the suggestion is that I am delibrately targeting muslim historical figures to pursue a personal agenda then the claim is simply laughable. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous case, demonstrating the persistence of the same issue – incompetent and distorting use of low-quality sources in pursuance of a sexualization agenda – in an extremely similar case, three years ago: Talk:Ali Pasha#Sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely terms like "incompetent" and "distorting" are deliberately provocative, aren't they (not to mention insulting)? As an administrator isn't it more prudent to use more balanced language when debating an issue? Wikipedia is, after all, manned by volunteers who give of their time to make it as successful as possible, and who don't generally work well when subject to criticism and abuse. Isn't there guidance about remaing courteous somewhere? That the edits were "incompetent" is surely only your opinion - you have no evidence to support that argument. That Ali Pasha was muslim is neither here nor there - my editing of articles is not motivated by religious bias or hatred if that's what you're implying. And what on earth is a "sexualisation agenda" when it's at home? I make no secret of showing an interest in the history of homosexuality. But I am only interested in covering those issues where I come across robust sources that support such an inclusion. I'm hardly working with fringe material. I note you've also chosen not to pursue a complaint against the other editor involved in the Mehmed II discussion, who clearly is interested in ensuring very favourable coverage of the subject, whatever the cost.Contaldo80 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also strongly urge others to look at the talk page for Ali Pasha in support of my case. I tried there to be consensual, even handed and conscious of WP rules. In contrast Future Perfect dismissed gay academic journals as not “real history” and used profanities when frustrated in the arguments. There is also the suggestion that Future Perfect is strongly interested in the politics and history of south-east Europe, and I would want to be reassured that as an administrator he/she is being neutral in their approach.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Contaldo80 (talk • contribs)

No violation of WP:3RR. On the other hand, User:DragonTiger23 clearly violated WP:3RR. It's interesting that Future Perfect at Sunrise didn't report him.--В и к и T 14:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected, see below. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:DragonTiger23 reported by User:Wikiwind (Result: Page protected)

Page: Mehmed the Conqueror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DragonTiger23 (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. [82][83] (several consecutive edits) 09:11, 16 April 2013‎
2. [84] 10:09, 16 April 2013
3. [85] 11:05, 16 April 2013
4. [86] 05:51, 17 April 2013 4th revert in 20 hours

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

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

Comments:

Comment: DragonTiger23 is a POV pusher. He is removing every mention of homosexuality from articles about Muslim ruling figures, but at the same time adding unsourced or poorly sourced material and LGBT categories in articles about Christian ruling figures. See [89][90][91][92]. He probably thinks that homosexuality is some sort of "insult", so he wants to "smear" Christian rulers and to "clean" articles about Muslim rulers. He should be indeffed for this.--В и к и T 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So much false accusations, are these all sockpuppets of each other, I have nothing against LGBT or adding LGBT to Muslim rulers, But I have problem with falsifying history and pushing POV with selective sources. This is not even about LGBT but how a an Ottoman ruler Mehmed II supposedly was raping numerous boys and this is based on a few Byzantine sources. I have explained all my point of view, the sources very long on the talk page, but people just ignore that. So the issue is raping not LGBT, and my contributions to some other royalty was based on sources, they removed this by calling them weak sources and then threatened me because I edited those pages, I only wanted to see their reaction but since they don't allowed to be added to "some" persons but insisted in adding to others, then we can ask the question who is here pushing POV? DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether to include disputed material or not and I didn't edited the page, so I'm not involved. I reported you because of edit warring and violation of WP:POINT.--В и к и T 17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The same pattern: adding poor citations or simply no sources at all I'm experiencing in another article from same user. In this edit [[93]] DragonTiger23 performs a revert and gets rid of the recently added 'sources' tag, however the specific section still doesn't a single source (not to mention the battleground mentality in his edit summary).Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, why are you trying to cover up Greek massacres against Turks, Wikipedia is neutral where it is allowed that massacres against everybody will be included. So giving information about massacres of Turks by Greeks is not a crime here, maybe in Athens it is, I don't know. If you would be neutral you would see that I have written that article entirely based on sources, most of that article is based on a report written by a neutral western commission who toured the area for investigation. But you just come and (before reading the article?) add POV, why are you trying to cover it up? Nobody denies here massacres against Greeks. And now you are falsely accusing and complaining here against me, who has here the battleground mentality?DragonTiger23 (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected I see a lot of edit warring from multiple people, so this seems to be the best option. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a problem with this solution. On the face of it, it seems the sensible thing to do. But the difficulty for me is that the page now protected excludes the material on sexual relationships. This is the outcome that DragonTiger23 and Future Perfect at Sunrise want to see. There is no incentive on them to engage in discussion about why they believe the sources to be unsuitable (indeed Future Perfect seems to show no interest in elaborating initial cursory comments; and no-one has given any input into the dispute resolution page). When the page protection expires if the other side has failed to engage in debate then surely I should be able to restore the material in question? My guiding light has been WP guidance - if no rules have been broken when including the material on relationships then surely there can be no grounds for leaving it out? I would also like advice on how to hold Future Perfect to account for the fairly liberal use of personal insults directed towards me please. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC

See meta:The Wrong Version. The purpose of the protection is not to preserve their version, but to encourage all participants in the dispute to discuss the issue on the talk page instead of edit warring. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok - thank you. I'll assume good faith then that the others editors will be willing to engage in polite discussion, and support their arguments. My concerns about Future Perfect remain though. I note that they are an experienced editor and know the system much better than I do; but that they also have a track record of using highly discourteous language against other editors. The insults directed at me were not warranted. I want to be reassured that administrators on Wikipedia abide by the same rules they themselves are called upon to enforce. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am not pushing POV at all, I am against falsifying and distortion of history. I am only removing the addition of Contaldo80, where he uses few non neutral biased accounts to state that Mehmed raped numerous boys and at the end he only adds a weak refutation. So he is pushing his own POV by cherry picking sources to give credibility to this claims. Future Perfect said he was source abusing, which seems to exactly describe his behavior. I have already tried to explained in the Talk page, but Contaldo80 seems to be aggressive against everyone who doesn't agree with him. He tried to discredit me numerous times by accusing me of having pro Ottoman Turkish agenda. DragonTiger23 (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:JohnClarknew reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Both 24h)

Page: John Le Mesurier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnClarknew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95] - as JohnClarknew
2. [96] - as JohnClarknew
3. [97] - as JohnClarknew
4. [98] - as 65.112.235.2
5. [99] - as JohnClarknew, after this discussion was opened. See also the follow-up comment on my talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] & [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's talk page: [102] and on my talk page: [103]

Comments:
I have tried to stress the need for using reliable sources in all articles, especially an WP:FA. The user appears to think that as he is adding his own name to the article is does not need it and is prepared to edit war over forcing unsourced additions into an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours JohnClarknew has indeed violated 3RR. However, you yourself have made the following reverts:

• 20:20, 17 April 2013
• 08:29, 18 April 2013
• 20:21, 18 April 2013
• 20:39, 18 April 2013

Managing to avoid 3RR by 19 minutes just reeks of WP:LETTER. This, along with some incivility (e.g. "THEN PUT IN A FECKING SOURCE!!!" on your talk page), has convinced me to give you a block as well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz reported by User:Gwickwire (Result: Indef, later unblocked)

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

---

Page: User talk:AutomaticStrikeout (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104] (random revert put here to show the reverts being made)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, but Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talkpage has some discussion about this which K.W failed to respond to satisfactorily.

Comments:

Not over 3RR yet, but this is classic edit warring without explaining policy they feel is being violated. Please note that a collapse does not violate TPG in the literal sense as it is not changing the meaning of any of the comments, only making them smaller and less visible. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They've also now warned an editor for doing something one time. If (and when) they revert again, I'll add that. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I was also warned by Wolfowitz for this. I have since removed the warning, knowing it was done hostilely. TCN7JM 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I also recieved an identical warning for this when I tried to discuss this issue with Kiefer, despite my direct announcement of my intention to revert. I also removed the warning. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Page protection seems unnecessary now as it disallows people from talking to AS if they so need to (for some odd reason or another), and K.W is indef blocked. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Nick (indef). Personally I was getting ready to issue a block for a shorter duration myself, but not a bad block in the context of his history of disruption. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Not a bad block? It's a terrible block. Three editors gang up on another editor to collapse his comment and he gets blocked? Ryan Vesey 00:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Hang on, an indefinite block for a 3RR violation? WTF? It certainly isn't a bad block, it's a bloody awful block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  I agree that I would not have pulled out the indef; however, as for whether to block, the answer for me is yes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Then the answer for me is that you're just as culpable as the admin who made this ridiculous block, and I hope that you're both open to recall. Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  Just to remind you both that an indefinite block is simply a block that can be any length of time - it doesn't need to be for ever, it could be a few minutes in length, if Kiefer can be persuaded to resume productive editing, instead of getting so hung up on a comment that, in all fairness, he probably shouldn't have left in the first place, it can be lifted by anybody at any time. If it wasn't for the various issues swirling around about outing of editors and such like, that discussion on unblocking could be held on his talk page, sadly, it will need to be via e-mail, either to myself, to another administrator or to the Arbitration Committee. You know this anyway, but since it tends to promote wildly cranky conspiracy theories otherwise, I've no previous interest in Kiefer or these various off site things that go on, it was brought to my attention that there was an issue with Kiefer causing disruption on a talk page and when given the option to walk away without being blocked, Kiefer decided to ignore my comments and remove them, remove other comments, continuing this disruptive behaviour that has seen him blocked many times in the past. The fact the previous block in December was indefinite but didn't last for ever points out that it's entirely possible to reach a compromise and it's certainly good to see four months of block free, fairly trouble free editing. I don't forsee any sort of situation where Kiefer remains blocked, but the ball is firmly in his court and he knows what he needs to do to be unblocked. Nick (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I am pretty sure I did no such ganging up against Kiefer and neither did GW or TCN. We tried to talk to him, but he would rather send us final warnings. I dont think we are the ones trying to harass, in this situation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• You guys are being ridiculous, if you collapse someone's comments and they disagree with you, don't collapse them again. End of story. Kiefer said he didn't want his comment collapsed, nothing in policy says you can collapse them, so drop the stick. If Kiefer ends up being blocked, the editors taking part in the coordinated alliance of edit warriors also need to be blocked. Ryan Vesey 00:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Except I'm pretty sure that's not why he was blocked. He was blocked for harrassing Gwickwire and for being disruptive in trying to communicate with us. TCN7JM 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• The comment was pure disruption meant to anger AS and anyone who saw it, and meant to demean him. It was a stupid comment which K.W shouldn't have made, and was not conducive to the expected environment on the talkpage of an editor. It was collapsed (which wasn't against any policy/guideline at all), and K.W proceeded to out a user and be incivil and rude when asked for an explanation. That's disruption at it's finest (well, worst). gwickwire^talk_editing 00:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  You're the one who should have been block indefinitely gwickwire; you're nothing but trouble. as I'm sure your admin friends will discover in due course. Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I wonder if you'd endorse similar views for me too, Malleus? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Woah, hold up. What exactly did Gwickwire do here that warrants any kind of block, including an indef? TCN7JM 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Ryan, AS left a direct message stating that his talk page stalkers may remove any comment found not benificial, a position 4 editors have already endorsed for Kiefer's comment. Also, I think the block is more about how he dealt with this issue (reverting, his talk page responses, and his warnings to the three users) than his original hatting. I personally wanted to just figure out the policy in question, and would have self-reverted had it been actually a violation. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, my problem here is that Kiefer left a comment, and three editors ganged up on him to get him blocked. Instead of recognizing that, an admin cleared Kiefer's talk page and left an indef block notice with no rationale. Ryan Vesey 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You say that as if we were trying to get him blocked. We simply wanted to know what kind of policy we were breaking. Kiefer never told us and was just being purely disruptive. TCN7JM 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, we did not ask for a block. Nick blocked Kiefer himself looking at what happened. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You should know as well as anyone that there was no constructive purpose to that comment. Kiefer did it only to disrupt and try to hide the real problem from being brought up (and now has incorrectly claimed elsewhere that they've been "personally attacked" in the hatting). It was pure disruption. gwickwire^talk_editing 00:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Look, my problem here is that Demiurge (correctly, IMO) hatted Kiefer's comment which he reverted. Now when I tried to talk to him about it, he was not at all helpful. Instead, he was evasive. Because of which I decided to revert, and announced this on Kiefer's talk page. Upon which I was met with a "Last warning". Would you consider that ganging up? Who do you think is doing the harassing here? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kiefer caused some trouble since he chose not to be communicative; however, he was in the right in this situation. See WP:TPO which says "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection" Emphasis mine. Kiefer objected to the hatting of his post. We are to avoid editing other people's comments as much as possible. You ganged up on him when the three of you re-hatted his comments against policies of avoiding editing others' comments. You gamed the system of 3RR by spreading the reverts among yourselves and then reporting Kiefer. Nick was in the wrong when he made his first threat to block Kiefer. I cannot confirm what happened after that, because it was removed; however, it certainly wouldn't have happened if everybody had followed policy. Ryan Vesey 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You say it as if we have planned it amongst ourselves. We did not. It was three independent reverts.

I wonder what you have to say to Kiefer threatening to block us. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hatting. This is going nowhere and just getting more and more hostile. TCN7JM 01:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC).
(ec) Streisand effect. Hatting to keep the discussion to the actual thread. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know who oversighted 3 versions of that page? I am not sure why it was done. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Nick did it because Kiefer was harrassing Gwickwire. TCN7JM 00:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Harassment that went to the point of WP:OUTING. I'd ask that we refrain from making further comments on that (Streissand effect and all) and remember to use editors full usernames with no modifications if there's some resemblance to a real name potentially. gwickwiretalkediting 00:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC) How do we know he was if it's been oversighted? Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC) He was. [I am not sure if you believe my word, but even if you don't, there is enough evidence of his behaviour in his warnings et al] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) You may be quite certain that I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Gwickwire, change your freaking username if you're going to call it outing if someone modifies it, sheesh. Ryan Vesey 01:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC) I'm under no obligation to do so, but I probably will sometime soon. They still deliberately separated it to out me and harass me. gwickwiretalkediting 01:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC) We need a stipulation in WP:OUTING that if morons people reveal who they are, they have outed themselves and can't accuse anyone of outing. Should I go around screaming WP:OUTING every time someone calls me Ryan Vesey. Ryan Vesey 01:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Calling gwickwire a moron is a personal attack, Ryan. Why is it all of these discussion turn out to be so hostile? TCN7JM 01:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)You make it obvious your username is a name (real or not, doesn't matter). I have mine in all lowercase wherever possible, and there are multiple explanations (a play on the superhero Quickwire using the common q-g switch in slang today) that would explain my username. Therefore it isn't obvious, nor outing myself. Calling me a moron is a personal attack, albeit a minor one. Please strike that now. gwickwiretalkediting 01:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Guys. Stop. Please. This subpart of the thread is a non-issue and must be hatted immediately. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) If your name is a play on the superhero Quickwire, stop complaining about outing when someone misspells your name. Ryan Vesey 01:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have temporarily bypassed my self-imposed lock out to return here and make one thing very clear: Kiefer is not to edit my talk page. Period. Under any circumstances. I want his comment left hatted. I explicitly stated that my talk page stalkers had "full permission to liberally remove any comments from this page that are not beneficial." Consider the definition of beneficial and then consider that Kiefer's comment has led to a chain of events resulting in his indef-block. I don't want it (his comment) removed in this case because it has already been replied to. It should remain as it is, hatted. Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bluerules reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: PP 72h)

User being reported:Bluerules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): He is at it again. He is still continuing to become a disruptive editor as seen in Olympus Has Fallen on how the cast should be ordered and continue to violated consensus. This guy has a history of blocks in the past, including the most recent one. Here are the diffs on there.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [109]
2. [110]
3. [111]
4. [112]

There is no consensus. You said it yourself that the cast order should follow the ending credits. That's what I'm making them reflect. Bluerules (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Both of you are at it, but not at the level required for blocking. I have protected the page for 3 days in the hopes that you two will work out your differences. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Btadrian2001 reported by User:Jimmy_Bergmark (Result: Warned)

Page: Dialog Control Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Btadrian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [119]

Comments:

This is my first try to create this report, hope I got it all right. Jimmy Bergmark (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. The editor has been adding a WP:SPAMLINK to two articles and then edit warring over it. However, they were never warned. They've now been warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Spc 21 reported by User:Armbrust (Result: Both blocked)

Page: 2013 World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spc 21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Comments:
Two of my reverts were made because you added badly worded English on to the page. If you didn't have to have last word on every snooker tournament article the problem would not have started. Spc 21 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Armbrust has reverted the work of different editors 4 times already. I may also be in the wrong as I have reverted the page. Armbrust was warned a few weeks ago for the same reason as can be seen here when he reverted this page a total of nine times. Spc 21 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to the reverts? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked. I blocked both editors for violating WP:3RR: Armbrust for 2 weeks and Spc 21 for 48 hours. The durations are equal to their last edit-warring blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, Armbrust only reverted three times and Spc 21 four times, but Armbrust has got the much longer block on the sole basis that he was blocked for two weeks a year ago. The fact that Armbrust brought the case to ANI strongly suggests he probably wasn't going to continue reverting, so I think the extended block is slightly excessive in this case. The snooker world championship starts this weekend and the two most active snooker editors are now blocked, which isn't ideal. May I suggest reducing both blocks to 24 hours, and restricting both of them to 1RR (except in cases of clear vandalism) on this article for the duration of the championship? If either of them violate that then they are both out until the end of the championship? Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Armbrust reverted 4x. His filing of the report and his comment asking for diffs of his reverts show very little insight into the policy he's violating. Spc 21, who filed a retaliatory report (I combined the two), shows just as little understanding of what they're doing or how disruptive it is. Nor did I regard Spc 21's personal attacks (vandalism, poor English) against Armbrust favorably. As for the amount of time, Armbrust has a horrible record of edit warring in this area. It's true that the last block was not recent, but it wasn't a year ago but 8 months and there's a string of blocks preceding it. If they want to be unblocked, show some understanding of what they did wrong, and promise (believably) that they will stop editing disruptively, they know how to request an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Qwerty786 reported by User:Evlekis (Result: No violation)

Page:

User being reported: Qwerty786 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
This is a sensitive article and deep within the ARBMAC area. Bilateral developments took place today (19th) which this user has taken upon himself to report on several articles information to the effect that Serbia has recognised Kosovo despite no such declaration having been made. Several editors have communicated with Qwerty on his talk page and on the talk page of the article as well as in other places but this hasn't prevented this user from making four changes to the above article all to push the one point he was primed to make with his original contribution.

• Original tendentious contribution
• [120] First restoration
• [121] Second restoration
• [122] Third hint at "independent country" club for Kosovo
• [123] Finally, he interferes with this long-standing piece which he twists to sell the original "Serbia recognises Kosovo" viewpoint.

Conversation to explain the circumstance to this editor has taken place here and here, not to mention on his talk. Take notice of the slimy POV-driven remarks this editor produces in his justification posts. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on what was in the agreement I posted a conclusion but not one that was explicit and will wait to edit an article or talk page on this topic until the very soon and near explicit comment of recognition comes which is guaranteed. I will just wait until it is explicit to ever edit another one of this articles. It shouldn't be too long like a few weeks or months but whatever. I ban myself from editing these articles until the inevitable is explicit- totally and completely explicit! I ban myself from all Kosovo related articles. Qwerty786 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

All right don't go bananas, nobody said "ban yourself editing Kosovo related articles". If you say you won't push that point any more I accept that and am happy with it, and can recommend that this discussion is closed immediately. I am not a monster. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Per above. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:Venus_fzy (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:

Speedy close. There has been no violation of 3RR from any editor within a 24-hour frame. I am personally on 1RR sanctions and I did by mistake make an error of reverting within 24 hours[130] because I became confused by the time in Britain where I am and UTC which is being used on the system, it threw me off course. Upon realisation I immediately cancelled my own contribution[131]. My next revert passed the 24-hour deadline and no revision by me since that edit constitutes a revert. The suggestion that I am editing from the anonymous account is unfounded but I believe if further interest in this case be taken, focus should switch to Venus fzy who is very knowledgeable for a new user with this campaign. He was the author of the article he takes objection to and is part of a nexus (one IP and one duff account) pushing for a severe breach of naming conventions within ARBMAC territory. Note that approval by User:Bliss 1.618 here does not constitute a "consensus" for this deliberate violating of WP policy. The editor has made no edits outside of this subject so his agreement cannot be taken with the same authority as something involving more seasoned editors on Kosovo subjects such as User:WhiteWriter or User:Antidiskriminator. Take notice that I have attempted to explain procedure to all editors involved, particularly following WP:AT which is the governing factor here: [132]. The opposition evidently rejects wider consensus, WP:AT and common English as proven here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation But everyone should stop edit-warring over the names. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Protecting the page pending further discussion wouldn't be a bad idea. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Right now, people seem to have agreed to stop edit warring, so that is not necessary. However, I may protect it if the edit warring resumes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. No fear from me! :) I cannot make a change to that page for some hours so my hands will be clean (except if making copy-edits which don't interfere with the disputed content). Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

User:R. fiend reported by User:Alansohn (Result: )

Page: White Horse, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: R. fiend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [133]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [134]
2. [135] at 20:53, 4 April 2013
3. [136] at 11:18, 7 April 2013
4. [137] at 11:27, 7 April 2013
5. [138] at 11:32, 7 April 2013
6. [139] at 11:05, 8 April 2013
7. [140] at 08:38, 10 April 2013
8. [141] at 16:37, 10 April 2013
9. [142] at 20:58, 10 April 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

User:R. fiend has advocated that any material regarding White Horse Circle cannot exist in Wikipedia based on the results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle, a discussion that took place eight years ago. As I have pointed out to R. fiend, Wikipedia policy allows for merging content from deleted articles into other articles and creating redirects. R. fiend has repeatedly deleted content from the article for White Horse, New Jersey even after the material was repeatedly expanded and additional sources were provided. He has also marked the redirect at White Horse Circle for speedy deletion, even after the deletion was challenged with an appropriate explanation. Other edits made by User:R. fiend include such pointy edits as "The only notable aspect of White Horse is a rotary" at White Horse Circle and "Flemington is also home to Allen St., which runs north-south, starting at North Main St. and ending at Court St. in the south." at Flemington, New Jersey. I have attempted to explain my position based on the use of sources, but User:R. fiend has threatened to continue edit warring (see here for "In the meantime, as I pointed out, we have a clear consensus that states, to paraphrase 'fuck that shit'. So don't be surprised if I remove it again.") and followed through on his threat. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Added additional revert. User:R. fiend has seen this 3RR notice, he just assumes that he'll get away with it by repeating his belief that an AfD from eight years ago of another article has relevance here. Alansohn (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Added an additional revert, as the edit warring continues in the face of rather clear consensus for retention. The fact that User:R. fiend refuses to address his policy violations here doesn't bode well for a solution that doesn't involve administrative action. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Added two more reverts. Alansohn (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is quite clear. An edit war, where one party may well have a good point content-wise but uses inappropriate means to drive the point home. The other party has, unfortunately, allowed themselves to be dragged into it and while it is true that R. fiend has one revert more than Alansohn, both are guilty of edit-warring (seriously, Alansohn--a frigging roundabout? Seriously, R. Fiend, an anxient AfD is to decide a content question here?). Both of you should be blocked, but I'm not about to block two valuable longtime contributors just because they happen to act, in this one article, like complete turds. Next admin, if you block either one of them, or both, per EW or 3R or BOOMERANG or WHATEVER, you are correct. But will that do any good? Drmies (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Can I just say that the reason I cite an (I assume you mean "ancient") AfD in this case is because it is literally all we have to go on. A significant consensus of users clearly stated that this is trivial minutiae that is not worthy of an encyclopedia (that and common sense, which states you don't devote 40% of a town's article on an insignificant intersection). If there was any sign of a change in consensus on the topic we'd have a completely different situation. But we don't, and aren't likely to, as I've noticed WP seems to have gotten less tolerant of trivial cruft like this over the years, in that many articles that failed to reach consensus for deletion back then have been renominated and deleted with little opposition more recently. Alansohn seems to think deletion is merely moving content from one article to another until no one notices anymore, rather than actually honoring a consensus about what is or is not encyclopedic. If there is a consensus that the old AfD is not longer appropriate, and this material is a significant part of White Horse, NJ, then I will by all means back down. But right now Alansohn is saying that one other person person on the wiki agrees with him, therefore consensus. That's not how it works. And I'd like to add that we have about 8 reverts over the course of about a week, which isn't a 3RR violation on anyone's part, so blocking either of us seems unjustified. Maybe some good will come of this and we'll get more eyes on this article and we can see if there's a consensus one way or the other. Right now no one seems to be looking at the article at all (which is hardly surprising, as it's basically an article about a rotary). -R. fiend (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes you can, but it's better placed on the article talk page. Start an RfC if you like. I wouldn't block you for 3RR but for edit-warring. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
      • No one looks at that talk page, so it's hardly a great place to try to get a discussion going. (Or if anyone does look at it, it's likely because they're rotary enthusiasts, who don't represent general opinion on Wikipedia.) An RfC is a shitload of red tape for something as banal is this one article, especially when there's already been an established consensus (an old one, yes, but a consensus nonetheless). If an RfC can set the standards for traffic circles and the like on all pages in which they appear (which seems to be not many, and generally confined to NJ, but there are certainly other examples) it could prove useful, but I don't know of that's going to take off. In the meantime, can someone give me some reason why a 8 year old consensus would be void when there's been no visible change in the state of affairs since then? -R. fiend (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
        • This is not the place for content discussions. You know where the place is; you've been here long enough. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• To rebut both of R. fiend's contentions:
  • 3RR - This is a 3RR violation. R. fiend made four blind reverts from 11:18, 7 April 2013‎ to 11:05, 8 April 2013‎ (within the bright line of 24 hours) and three more blind reverts on April 10. On several occasions I added sources and additional material to further demonstrate notability, and other editors have opposed R. fiend's actions, while all of R. fiend's reverts all went back to exactly the same point.
  • Consensus - Consensus for eight years has been to keep the material in the article. It was added in this edit on October 1, 2005, immediately after the close of the AfD for White Horse Circle. R. fiend attempted to delete the material twice over the next two days (here and here), but in each case another editor reverted the blind revert. The material had been in the article for eight years before R. fiend started blindly reverting the content, upsetting a status quo that had been maintained for eight years. He has stuck by his irrational misinterpretation of policy, perpetually edit warring over material that is reliably and verifiable sourced.
• User:R. fiend is an editor who is self-described as devoting his time on Wikipedia to "being an asshole", as he proudly notes on his user page and he has certainly played the part in this one article over this eight-year period, battling with five other editors who have added the sourced material. He stands alone, spitting in the face of consensus and Wikipedia policy. Consensus has consistently supported retention of the content for eight years and R. fiend has no case here in denying the 3RR violation as every one of his dozen edits has been a blind revert in his ongoing edit war. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There has never been any consensus to keep the information in the article. Saying that a few people defying the consensus to delete it is a consensus for it to remain is simply false. Basically no one paid attention to the article after the AfD in order to enforce the consensus to delete, except me, and it fell off my radar years ago until I happened upon it again. Anyone can see details about an intersection are beyond trivial and unencyclopedic, as was clearly stated by more than a dozen editors at its AfD. If there is a true consensus on Wikipedia to include detailed information on every rotary in the nation in their cities articles, please show me where it is. Don't say "me and a few others have made some editors over the years and that's a consensus." It isn't, and you should know that. Your argument is that the information has been there long enough to have gained squatters' rights. No such policy exists on Wikipedia. -R. fiend (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Again, every single time you've removed the content from the article for White Horse, New Jersey it's been restored, usually within minutes. You've removed the material a dozen times over eight years and five different editors have immediately restored the content. Not a single editor agrees that it should be removed and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Horse Circle has absolutely zero relevance here; You are the only editor who believes it does. What is relevant here is the 3RR violation, and you offer no defense. Is there any justification for not imposing the required block? Alansohn (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Just to add to the fun, R. fiend also edit warred over the same material at Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey with four blind reverts in that article before the content was moved to White Horse, New Jersey and he started his eight-year long edit war in that article. The topic has been addressed at Talk:Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey where consensus was that the material should be reatined and at Talk:White Horse, New Jersey, with consensus in both discussions that the material should stay. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor who bears a grudge for eight years and has blindly reverted the same content in two different articles some 15 times isn't going to walk away and leave the content alone, despite a half-dozen editors disagreeing with his unsupported claims that an ancient AfD irrevocably requires deletion of any related content in any other article. He's violated 3RR here and is entirely unrepentant. Any suggestions on dealing with the R. fiend problem? Alansohn (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the best option is discussion (possibly with the RFC imprimatur) on the article talk page. If the two of you find that you can't discuss this without edit warring, the article could be full-protected. My own opinion is that the topic of the traffic circle should not be expunged completely from the article (this traffic circle does seem to be a noteworthy feature of the place), but the amount of "road geek" detail in that section is excessive.

Note: After reading the article and some of the sources, I created a "History" section to tell about the origin of the name "White Horse". That history previously was discussed only in the traffic circle section. --Orlady (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, and one that I would be happy to participate in. The problem is that User:R. fiend has indicated that he believes that an AfD for another article irrevocably taints any content related to the White Horse Circle no matter where it appears or what material or sources are added. I'd love to work this out, but R. fiend has made it clear that he is not willing to accept any alternative to deletion of the sourced content. If only there were a negotiating partner here, we might have more luck. Alansohn (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:70.19.122.39 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: )

Page: Horus Heresy (novels) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.19.122.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [145]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [146]
2. [147]
3. [148]
4. [149]
5. [150]
6. [151]

Also reverting this on the talk page, despite multiple explanations of WP:TOPPOST: [152] [153] [154]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Horus Heresy (novels)

Comments:
Reporting IP editor; edit warring just outside of 3RR within 24 hours, and long-term persistent edit-warring and WP:OWN issues. The IP reverts any edits by others (most of the IP addresses in the page history are from the same geolocation, and nearly every edit from an editor or IP address from outside of that geolocation is reverted [156][157][158][159][160][161][162][163][164]. It's harder to find an edit that this editor hasn't reverted outside of minor spelling corrections. Placing excessive hidden comments referring to "documentation" they wrote as if it is some hard and fast rule to be followed, and edit warring to keep their talk page comments at the top of the talk page despite WP:TOPPOST. After trying to improve the article, the editor followed the same pattern and wholesale removed edits I had made that brought the article in line with reliable sources (such as referring to the article as Horus Heresy as opposed to Series, which no reliable sources does) and requests for inline citations, despite Wikipedia policy requiring them. - SudoGhost 01:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Adding a diff, the IP editor continues to revert any edits that are not their own. - SudoGhost 14:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor continues to reintroduce original research into the article despite multiple explanations why it's not appropriate and despite multiple requests for any reliable sources that would support such a change. - SudoGhost 01:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Taichi101 reported by User:Cold Season (Result: 24h)

Page: Sun Yat-sen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Taichi101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [165]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]
5. [170]
6. [171]
7. [172]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174]

Comments:

The user keeps pushing original research, while ignoring calls to go to the talk page. --Cold Season (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation I only see 3 reverts. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've just made another attempt of a talk page disscussion, which the user clearly states he is unwilling to participate here. I've also just added another revision after the decision above, so it would be over 3 reverts by now. I like to have another judgement. --Cold Season (talk) 11:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:2.10.130.163 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Azawad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.10.130.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: See all the IPs contributions

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [175]

Comments:

The IP is not responding on their talkpage, and have been reverted by multiple users. A continuous use of the same edit summary shows they haven't even bothered to read the responses. CMD (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. It looks to me that there is one individual but using different IPs. BTW, next time, please notify the editor as you're required to do at the top of this page. I'm not sure in this case it will do any good, but I intend to do it now anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Hubballihuduga reported by User:Abhishek191288 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Mangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hubballihuduga (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. [176]
2. [177]
3. [178]
4. [179]
5. [180]
6. [181]

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

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:92.7.23.145 reported by User:snowded (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Irish War of Independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.7.23.145 (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]
5. [188]

There are some variations in the detail here and they are spread over a longer period that 24 hours. However the editor has no support for the changes on the talk page and the nature of the arguments made is not related to sources and in some cases provocative (My Grandfather was a Black and Tan and the like). This section illustrates the constant offering of opinion without sources.

The edits are also coming from a range of IPs all starting 92.7.xx - self evidently the same person

We have a similar disruptive pattern of behaviour by the same editor for example here using the terrorist word repeatedly

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

See here for attempts to resolve the issue

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. The editor appears to be editing from multiple IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:PedroPVZ reported by User:Agricolae (Result: Locked)

Page: County of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PedroPVZ (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196] (attempts by 2 editors to engage)

Comments: User first inserted [197] and is now repeatedly reverting to restore text that I and another editor have deemed outside of scope of the page. User has justified repeated reverts by accusation of vandalism [198], and coincident with his 4th revert made a formal vandalism report [199],[200] against me for disputing his edits, and has now formally warned me for disruptive editing [201]. Agricolae (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've locked the article for five days. Both Pedro and Agricolae have been edit warring. Pedro has also engaged in personal attacks and frivolous reports at AIV. I will warn him not to continue that sort of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:G PViB (Result: No violation)

Page: Light-emitting diode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Stable version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light-emitting_diode&oldid=551278901

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Light-emitting_diode&diff=551279140&oldid=551278901

Comments:

Edit conflict:

1 diff
2 diff
3 diff

The issue was discussed on talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Light-emitting_diode#crediting_Oleg_Losev.E2.80.A6

But it seems the user has decided to be a dick about it. G_PViB (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Following the page history I found this. The User:Wtshymanski followed WP:BRD, the recommended method essay. I suggest you read it and attempt to follow it. Your discussion on the talk page about this was well after your editwarring edits. Your attempt at consensus was completely negative, thus far, and yet you still re-instated the edits after that. That wasn't a proper move. I suggest this complaint be closed and a new editor (first edit Nov 2012) be recognized as not being experienced enough with content dispute procedures. This Russian inventor may need to be actually credited and User:G PViB initial edit may have been be accurate but he didn't follow the appropriate process. His complaint invalid against User:Wtshymanski is improper. This is a content dispute and there is a process to follow. The talk page is a start.

Also please assume good faith and leave the ad hominem out. It tends to escalate things. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. There hasn't even been an edit war here, let alone a violation of WP:3RR. There are 10 days between the last two reverts by Wtshymanski. Also, @PViB, be civil.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1RR can be brought here. Diff. User:Wtshymanski keeps reverting without discussion. To User:174.118.142.187 I see a guy who goes around Wikipedia and acts like he owns the place. Not my idea of "being bold". G_PViB (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes and you did editwar from the first revert of his revert back to the original text. You were bold, and he reverted. Then the onus was on you to discuss the topic and you didn't. You editwarred at this point and Wtshymanski reverted it again.You repeated this four times. Clearly a content dispute and not for here. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

you... You... you... you didn't. You... You... Don't like getting challenged? My comment on the talk page wasn't necessary - the user simply kept deleting sourced content. G_PViB (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You need to stay focused on content instead of making ad hominem remarks. I was attempting to explain this to you that the recommended process is WP:BRD and it was followed by Wtshymanski and not by you. I suggest you reconsider the style of response. I noticed you continued to inject your edit without consensus after discussion here, also. This type of response is likely to get you kicked in the pants with some (banned) time off to think about it. Try a wikibreak. It really can help, sometimes. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:86.163.104.169 reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

Page: List of sopranos in non-classical music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.163.104.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [202]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [203]
2. [204]
3. [205]
4. [206]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_sopranos_in_non-classical_music#Photo_layout

Comments:
(1) This also seems to be a case of WP:Ownership by User:BrotherDarksoul , because the he or she has stated:

Interesting you should decide that my maintenance of the page and my attempts at keeping it static would become that of an edit war, also if your concern for this issue was genuine you would do the same with the other pages within this context. The pictures that I previously had up (before the random IP person arrived on the scene) were as a representation of the many different genres and nationalities of those within the list, thus giving a sense of diversity. Myself and the other editors of this page have worked extremely hard to quality control and not indulge in edit wars, in fact the only wars I have been a part of here is the removal of inappropriately sourced data being consistently added.

(2) There was an edit war going on previous to my removal of this gallery, when certain editors were feuding over the inclusion of certain images, here and here.

(3) An editor provided a WP:Third opinion, here, in which he agreed that the gallery should be removed, which I did here, but the gallery was put back without an Edit Summary by User:86.163.104.169, here.

• Warned. I have left a warning on the IP's talk page that they must discuss the content dispute on the talk page. I have reverted their last change. If they revert again, I will block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Page protected.
• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. There was a revert by User:Signature91. Based on my review of the history, I determined that Signature91 is improperly using the IP as a sock. I have therefore blocked Signature91 for two weeks in addition to blocking the IP for one month. I have also semi-protected the article for one week. There is apparent disruption by the editor on other articles, both logged in and not. I haven't decided what to do about that yet.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Rsloch reported by User:4idaho (Result: No action necessary)

Page: Next Danish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rsloch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [208]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

Comments:

This edit is not about content, but about syntax. User:Rsloch has repeatedly edited the above linked page with edits which contain numerous grammatical errors, has refused to discuss his edit, and has violated WP:3RR.

Under WP:BRD he should have taken this to Talk after he was reverted but refused to do so, leaving it ultimately up to me to open a discussion. He then reverted again saying "per Talk" although he had left no explanation on Talk (at the time he reverted, the only text on Talk at all was my explanation of the grammatical errors introduced by the editor's edit.)

I reverted their edit again noting that he had no consensus on Talk and had left no text there, and only then, after three reverts, did he consent to leave a short, confusing message on Talk which bypassed the entire issue at hand (of his edit's grammar), said he was being accused of vandalism (he was not), and was generally very odd.

He then left another message which also did not even attempt to address the issues raised with their edit and continues to edit war.

In general, it's hard to reach consensus on a black and white issue like grammar, but this editor hasn't even been willing to discuss the issue. --4idaho (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a simple difference of opinion being blown up into something major by 4idaho. We have both been guilty of reverting too much and things are best kept on the article's talk page.Rsloch (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You have refused to discuss the issue on Talk! If you won't discuss it with me, there is no hope of us solving this between us. I warned you at appropriate intervals that you were violating WP:3RR and you chose to try to keep reverting rather than discuss it on Talk.

You continued to edit war without discussing the problems I raised with your edit on Talk. If you would just discuss your edit, or in some way respond to my explanation of the grammatical errors in that edit, I would have been happy to talk through it on Talk. You ignored me, and ignored warnings which were provided regarding wikipedia policy, to the point I felt I had no choice.

As happy as I am that you're now saying you're willing to talk about it now that it's been brought to AN3, that hasn't at all been your behavior until this point. --4idaho (talk) 20:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sigh Rsloch (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As you are now aware of, both of you can be blocked for edit warring. But if you both can agree to not revert the other until you work it out on the talk page, then I won't need to block anyone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that no consensus can be reached so I'll withdraw from the fray. Sigh. Rsloch (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gemeripeg reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24h)

Page: Tatars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gemeripeg (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. [214]
2. [215]
3. [216]
4. [217]
5. [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

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

Comments:

I have not used the talk page, I recalled quite some time ago an editor adding this and it was removed after a consensus was reached on the talk page that it was racist pseudoscience Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost certainly another sockpuppet of User:Фаиз Махмудов. WP:RBI. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I don't see enough obvious evidence for a WP:DUCK block, so please file an SPI for that. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean like this or this. Didn't look too hard, didja? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't what your comment does for the KoH, but as a patrolling admin, it doesn't inspire me to even look at your diffs. Bringing more facts to an admin's attention can be helpful; being snippy is not.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, a more clued-in admin/CU has responded and netted a total of 11 socks, including "Gemeripeg". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:92.7.16.187 reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi)

Page: Irish republicanism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.7.16.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is the same user that was reported by Snowded at #User:92.7.23.145 reported by User:snowded (Result: Semi-protected). The result was that Irish War of Independence was semi-protected by Bbb23 because of "POV-pushing by multiple IPs who all appear to be the same person". The same person is now pushing the identical POV on another article.

Previous version reverted to: [220] (my edit)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [221]
2. [222]
3. [223]
4. [224] makes four within 24 hours, obviously by the same user.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [225]. No further warning should have been necessary. Besides, the user is on a dynamic IP so it is impossible to communicate with him/her through the user talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [226] – asking him/her to cease disruption on the Irish republicanism page as well as on the Irish War of Independence page.

Scolaire (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Also on Irish republicanism this time IP 92.7.11.150 obviously the same. If a range block is not possible can we have semi-protection please ----Snowded ^TALK 11:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected – Two months. Edit warring by IP-hopper who has not used the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:BarryM9944 reported by User:Faizan Al-Badri (Result: No violation)

Page: Ghurid Dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BarryM9944 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [228]
2. [229]
3. [230]
4. [231]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [232]

Comments: He has been warned several times, and ignored them, he is in violation of the policies, rules and regulations, with many reverts of multiple users at Ghurid Dynasty. I am just reporting a 3RR violation, and I am not involved in the conflict. Faizan -Let's talk! 14:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. On April 16, I've made very useful contribution to the page "Ghurids" [233] (which is well sourced) and needed for the readers but someone is deleting it. What must I do to stop this? What's a 3RR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryM9944 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

You ought to had read WP:GUIDELINE completely before editing for becoming familiar with 3RR, 3RR is "Three-Revert Rule", you cannot make more than three reverts on an article at the same day, if your edits had been constructive, they had not been reverted. Faizan -Let's talk! 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not make three reverts on an article at the same day, and my edits are constructive [234]. I added this and you deleted it: "The ethnic back-ground of the Ghurid people is shrouded in myth and legend. After the Saffarids invasions of Zamin-Dawar and Bust, the region became exposed to tribes of different ethnic backgrounds. Contact with Ghazna led to the infiltration of Turkish tribes from the surrounding areas. Later on, Ghuzz and Khalaj ethnic elements settled on the fringes of the region, gradually breaking its cultural isolation and diversifying its ethnic composition." [235] Most modern historians refer to the Ghurids as either Afghans [236] [237] [238] [239] or Tajiks [240] Others label them as ethnic Turks. [241] See this also [242] "Ghurid history has been extensively researched by C.E. Bosworth, and more recently by our colleague Barry Flood in NYU; Barry is particularly interested in Ghurid and Islamic expansion into India. What follows is a summary of their work." Wikipedia should present all views, major and minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarryM9944 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer your question above about what must you do to stop this, stop editing the article and discuss the changes on Talk:Ghurid Dynasty. GB fan 15:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

No violation King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Dipendra2007 reported by User:Faizan Al-Badri (Result: No violation)

Page: Hindi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dipendra2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [243]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [244]
2. [245]
3. [246]
4. [247]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249]

Comments: He's been reverted by multiple users over the same conflict regarding controversial info, but in vain. Faizan -Let's talk! 14:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The user is in technical violation of 3RR. I've explained to them that they're better off discussing rather than edit warring. I leave it to the reviewing admins discretion whether to block now or give the editor a shot at restricting themselves to discussion pages. --regentspark (comment) 15:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have only reverted twice in the last 24 hour period and that is not edit warring. Edit # 112 and # 113 is not me. The issue of the number of Hindi speakers has been pending in that page for many months now and has not been resolved in the talk page. One set of editors have repeatedly reverted the edits of another set of editors. Even the citation used is inaccurate. Best regardsDipendra2007 (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Declined - For me, the evidence is insufficient for WP:DUCK (which would be required for assuming the four reverts come from the same user), but enough for requesting a CheckUser. Please file an WP:SPI. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Fgmoon353 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Cardiovascular disease (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fgmoon353 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [250]
2. [251]
3. [252]
4. [253]
5. [254] Added by Zad68 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [256] and [257]

Comments:

User was reverted twice by myself and once by ClueBot. He continues to remove content supported by review articles. His edits are a little hard to follow. In this one for example he changes the conclusions to "Clinical trials on elderly women with prior CVD events, showed that supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids (a type of polysaturated fat) does not appear to regularly produce desired outcomes." from "however supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids (a type of polysaturated fat) does not appear have an effect" Yet the trial doesn't support the changes [258]. The mean age in some one of the included trials in the meta analysis was 49 and there is no comment that the trials did not include men. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User Jmh649 did not engage me he simply reverted back, case closed. When I pressed him for information on why reverting he stated 3 issues, I addressed those in good faith, and then I reverted back while editing those concerns. This issue he presents as an example I can also change. I must have been confused with another study I was reading. Something else he could have added to his concerns instead of 'revert warring' with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmoon353 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added this latest revert, which was without Talk page discussion or even an edit summary. It's a revert of my revert of Fgmoon353's, which I explained in full here on the article Talk page. This revert of Fgmoon353's is an identical change to Fgmoon353's previous edit but makes one small adjustment for one of the issues raised, the rest are still unaddressed. This appear to be a continuation of edit-warring as it's simply reverting without discussing. Zad68 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

User:InedibleHulk reported by User:217.147.94.149 (Result: Semi-protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [259]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [260]
2. [261]
3. [262]
4. [263]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [265]

Comments:
User InedibleHulk is attempting to keep all mention of the Boston Marathon Bombings out of the article using the ruse of BLP violations against the accused suspects. He may have a point about the BLP issues, but if we look at the diffs we can see that his edits go beyond merely clearing those problems. His actual contention is that the bombings cannot be classified as terrorism. He will use BLP as an excuse to justify his reverts, but in fact he is actually edit warring against all mention of the event and refuses to collaborate with other editors. 31.24.33.221 (talk) 01:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't a guy have two valid objections to something without one being a ruse? We have a definition of terrorism in this article, which says it requires intent to disrupt, coerce or intimidate. All we have now is speculation on the suspects' motive, based on claims from anonymous sources. So calling it a terrorist attack is a guess. "Act of terror", sure, that's a phrase, not a legal definition. Also not what the article's about.

Calling it domestic terrorism is where this begins to cross the BLP line. This implies an American did it, which has not been proven, let alone precisely which American(s). The guy's been vilified, shot, sedated, interrogated and charged, but has not been convicted, or even made his first court appearance. He should be presumed innocent here, like any accused person. Given that, I feel my deletions are exempt from 3RR.

The edits in the third diff are for various separate reasons, explained in edit summaries and on the talk page. Not sure if those should be considered here, but if so, let me know. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. There seems to be a lot of editing by different IPs and by newly registered accounts. Don't know if there's socking going on as I don't have time to look at it right now. There are BLP issues involved with unconfirmed and unsourced material, so I'm protecting the article against the editor(s) trying to add the material.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Stormfighter14 reported by User:Jingiby (Result: Blocked)

Page: Bulgarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have noticed some racialist and anti-Turkish comments and POV-like edits, added by an newly-registred Stormfighter14 (talk · contribs) as: "Bulgarians are purely White European and not Turkic", Bulgarians and their Aryan brothers, Bulgarians are white europeans and that fact isn't even mentioned in this article which in fact is horrendous, "This article sounds very Mediterranean" etc. I have warned him, several times, but he has readded the same info, without any reliable scientific sources, again and again and deleted the terms Mediterranean and Middle Eastern from the article. He also accused me as a lier here. Wikipedia is not place for propagandize racialist and pseudo-scientific theories. I do not know how to communicate with that person. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [266]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267]
2. [268]
3. [269]
4. [270]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [271]
2. [272]
3. [273]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [274]
2. [275]

Comments:

He just has removed the added by me tags for unreliable sources etc:

1. [276] Jingiby (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I have blocked Stormfighter14 for a combination of edit warring, personal attacks, and POV-pushing.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Stale)

Page: Richard A. Falk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [277]
2. [278]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [279]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [280]

Comments: This article is protected under WP:ARBPIA as a 1RR page. Drsmoo is a long-time editor in this area and knows the rules. He was notified about them in 2009 and blocked from editing under WP:ARBPIA for 72 hours for other related actions in 2011. Yet his response here was "LOL, excuse me? Neither of these were reverts. Who knew a single edit of a section on Wikipedia was edit warring. Stop trying to start fights." as if he had never heard of the policy. When I explained the policy again he gave a similar combative reply here.

He removed material that has been discussed in depth previously on the talk page in Family background and UN Watch sections. Given his combative replies, I didn't feel much like starting a whole new section on it, besides the mention in another thread. CarolMooreDC🗽 05:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you King of ♥ ♦

A short comment: I'm sick of being Harassed by CarolmooreDC. I think I would be forgiven for assuming that two non-revert edits in one day wouldn't be a violation, as CarolmooreDC has done the exact same thing, on the exact same article, multiple times — including yesterday.

April 24:

1. [281]
2. [282]

January 26

1. [283]
2. [284]

Please correct me if edits like this are considered reverts, and I'll be sure not to make more than one on a contentious page per day. This report is part of an ongoing spate of harassment from CarolmooreDC who's hoping "it's like the lottery and if I complain to the right forum on the right day and the right admin(s) see and recognize the perniciousness of your editing history, they will ban you permanently from this article." (P.S. please feel free to look through my editing history for anything "pernicious") or to annoy me until I stop posting. She has reported me roughly around twenty times with nothing coming of it, and it's ridiculous to be honest. I've yet to go to a noticeboard to report her for harassment, as (and perhaps this is why she constantly makes new reports) I find the process tiresome. However I will if nothing changes. Drsmoo (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is over three years old. Unless you have evidence of similar recent behavior, it is inadmissible. In any case, I think there's nothing more to do on this page; please start a WP:ANI thread if you feel it is necessary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

How can something be stale after 28 hours? If you want immediate reports, you should NOT ask us if we left a 3rr/1rr/etc warning. - Or if we tried to discuss it on the talk page. Where's the best place to take this complaint about an inaccurate admin ruling?

• Dr. Smoo second revert: 23:49, April 23, 2013
• My 1rr Warning (where I asked for a revert): 00:47, April 24, 2013
• My complaint 03:19, April 25, 2013‎

Also, User:Drsmoo's "examples" of my 1rr violations again show his misunderstanding of policy; revert of vandalism by a named long term abuser doesn't count; fixing my own ref error doesn't count. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment: I see now that Wikipedia:3rr#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior says: A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a {{uw-3rr}} template message on their user talk page. As I said on talk, "If a warning is NOT a requirement, then your introduction and template should say so." Obviously I will not be doing it again unless I really think it's a naive person, and I don't run into too many of those any more. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, for the record, per talk page explanations, "stale" refers not to the 28 hour reporting time but the fact that User:Drsmoo didn't do any other edit warring in the article during that period so no " preventative measures" to stop him were necessary. Learn something every day. CarolMooreDC🗽 03:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:H1p3ri0n reported by User:Jtalledo (Result: Warned)

Page: Jean-Philippe Guillemin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: H1p3ri0n (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [285]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [286]
2. [287]
3. [288]
4. [289]
5. [290]
6. [291]
7. [292]
8. [293]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [294]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [295], [296]

Comments:

User restored article that was originally merged into the Zenwalk article after an uncontested request. I have attempted to explain to the user that the original merge was not contested, but instead of initiating discussion, user continued to restore article. After restoring the article to prevent a full-on edit war, also attempted to explain to user that it was not worth noting that the subject of the article (who has a similar pseudonym as the user) played jazz guitar since the only reason he is notable is due to the Linux distribution he is associated with. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I have restored the redirect, which has been in place for three years. I have warned the editor that they need to discuss restarting the article and that if they persist in edit warring, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Alhanuty reported by User:GhiathArodaki (Result: No violation)

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

Comments:He is edit warring in the Syria Article , see the history of page , i warned him , but he ignored the warning , showing that he's opinion is the correct , and that makes the article biased, the dispute about the article was ended ,and the result was keeping the flag and coat of arms , also the national anthem and the name of the country , but he every time vandalism the page.

LOL,I never edit warred,secondly no consensus is reached Alhanuty (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And to keep you update 5 are with putting 2 flags and 5 are against itAlhanuty (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The article is under sanctions, meaning the relevant edit warring rule is WP:1RR. No one has violated that rule. What I do see is a great deal of disruptive editing and personal attacks by both of you. GhiathArodaki accuses Alhanuty of vandalism and writes incoherent diatribes on the article talk page. In an edit summary, Alhanuty accuses another editor (in all caps, of course) of being a meat puppet without a shred of evidence to back it up. And threats abound everywhere. At this point, I'm tempted to block both of you as neither of you has shown any sign that you know how to behave. Meanwhile, the article, and the Flag of Syria article, are both suffering intermittent disruption (and are not necessarily consistent with each other). As to whether there's a consensus as to what belongs in these articles vis-a-vis the Assad government and the rebel government, I'm not going to wade into that quagmire.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The evidence is when I revert an edit by an editor,another editor supporting the editor that I reverted his edit comes and returns everything as it is before I edited Alhanuty (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that another editor disagrees with you is not evidence of meat puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also one of these editor wanted to put israel as a rebel supporter,and his attempt failed so,I suspected meatpuppetry Alhanuty (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Nothing more to see here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gun control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [298]
2. [299]
3. [300]
4. [301]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [302]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [303] [304] [305]

Comments:
Gaijin42 is removing a tag for disputed content which remains in the article. Other editors are not repeatedly removing the content, only asking for validation as RS material. Gaijin42 makes hostile comments, including her most recent Edit Summary on Gun Control, "GFY" which I take to be an entirely inappropriate obscenity. This is a difficult and contentious article. Other editors are trying in good faith to resolve disputed issues. This edit war is particularly unfortunate since the editor appears to be willfully hostile, per the above Edit Summary. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours While he was not properly warned (the warning came after all the reverts), he's been here since 2006 so I presume he's heard of the 3RR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:68.230.113.87 reported by User:Revent (Result: Stale)

Page: Raquel Evita Saraswati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.230.113.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Difficult, since prior drive-by anti-vandalism editors have reverted similar deletions from the same page in the past.

The IP editors entire Contribution history is attempts to delete the exact same paragraph from this article. Special:Contributions/68.230.113.87

The attempted vandalism is the deletion of an entire paragraph, which mentions the major reasons for her notability. The article admittedly needs a major edit, which is not my forte. The person who has been deleting it has made an (unsourced) claim that the source cited for her marriage is invalid, but instead of editing the paragraph to remove the disputed information, he has been deleting a paragraph of basic, uncontroversial biographical information. While I have done /far/ more than 3 reverts to this page today by now, I believe the majority of them were legitimate anti-vandalism reverts (the uncommented deletion of an entire paragraph of content by an IP user). Unfortunately, the actual issue with the article only became clear though edit summaries. I repeatedly asked the person to move to the talk page, but unsuccessfully.

The majority of the text is my attempts to resolve this, but you can also see a comment by a previous editor (in 2008) objecting to the removal of the exact same information (former name, marriage, etc.)

Unfortunately, some of my comments there were responses to statements made in the edit summary, since the person in question refused to move to the talk page.

Comments:

As I said, I might have inadvertently violated 3RR myself here, though it was not my intention. It's a judgement call, as far as which of my reverts were legitimate anti-vandalism. In my defense, I repeatedly stated in edit summaries that my reversions were based on what appears to be vandalism that long predates my involvement. Revent (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

[306] Another attempt by the same user to delete mentions of the subject's sexual orientation from the article (reverted by a bot), after my opening this report. The claim of 'unsourced content' is spurious, as the cites are missing due to previous edits by the same user. Nearly every mention of Mrs. Saraswati outside of WP refers to her sexual orientation. Revent (talk) 06:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that I am not claiming that there have not been many attempts in the past to add incorrect information to this article. There have. However, repeatedly deleting correct, cited information, and using spurious claims as the basis for deletion of information is vandalism. The article needs to be 'neutralized' and protected while it's AfD is processed. Revent (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

She was born Raquel Evita Seidel to a latino Catholic family in New York state. She describes herself as a lesbian and was a gay activist at Simmons College in Boston. On August 2, 2005, Saraswati married her lesbian partner Ms. Anh Ðào Kolbe, a Vietnamese-American photographer at Revere Beach, Massachusetts. They are currently separated.

This is the text I was trying to protect (which needs copy editing as I mentioned). Cites are missing due to the repeated tampering, but the only 'unproven' statement is the ethnicity and religion of her family, not her, and that statement should probably be removed. A wordpress blog was being used as a cite for the date of her marriage and her spouses name, however the claim that a lesbian got married is neither 'exceptional' nor defamatory. The subject herself apparently once objected to the mention of her marriage because of her later separation.

[307] is also relevant, as it is a long-ago edit by a user who asserted they were the subject. WP:AFG Note that at that time, the sourced statement 'Saraswati is openly lesbian' is included in the article. Revent (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Stale. The article is at AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:141.217.232.53 reported by User:Anastomoses (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 141.217.232.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&oldid=548024859

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [308]
2. [309]
3. [310]
4. [311]
5. [312]
6. [313]
7. [314]
8. [315]
9. [316]
10. [317]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [318]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [319] and [320]

Comments:

I have exceeded the "3 revert rule" because the individual appears to be using multiple IP addresses from Detroit area to vandalize the BAPS page and the Jay Sadguru Swami page earlier today (for which 2 of his/her IP addresses were blocked and the article placed under protection); also he/she is posting libelous material citing unverifiable sources (public blog). I have attempted many times to post on the article talk pages of BAPS and Jay Sadguru Swami, called the editor's attention to wikipedia policies, warned about disruptive edits, and posted on user's talk page, only to get bizarre uncooperative responses. The user also tried to delete my article talk page post and when I posted again to point this out, he deleted this post and referred to me as a "lunatic" and accused me of deleting posts. See: [321] and [322] I was redirected here after trying to report this as vandalism (earlier today on Jay Sadguru Swami for which another admin locked page and blocked IP addresses citing vandalism). Please help!

Anastomoses (talk) 04:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week. Next time this sort of situation occurs, you should seek page protection or other administrative action earlier.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Nancyinthehouse reported by User:Superfly94 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: World Mission Society Church of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nancyinthehouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: The user has started some major edits on the page in question and is reverting any edits that she has not initiated. This is the page before she started working on it.
title=World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&oldid=547552334

I am in an ongoing dispute with User:Nancyinthehouse regarding this page, World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God. Specifically, this editor brings into question any edits that were not initiated by them, especially if they have come from a source outside of the subject (WMSCOG) home page. The editor also does not seem to have a good understanding of what a NPOV means, believing that it means there should be NO negative info on a topic, as opposed to BALANCED info on a topic. The editor has also been spiteful in edits and has tried to find numerous frivolous reasons to delete links and info. We have gone through the 3O process and have used the talk page extensively: Talk:World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God.

A list of issues and links:

1. Nancyinthehouse does not believe that a certain edit should be included in the history section. Her reasons are that the link used is from a blog, that the link itself is not from the WMSCOG, that the death of the founder has already been mentioned in his own article, etc. The point in contention is as follows: World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&diff=552220916&oldid=552216341. During the 3O process, User:ReformedArsenal stated, "In regard to having information about the NCPCOG and WMSCOG... if one is part of the history of the other, and that history is covered in WP:RS that are WP:Notable then the information belongs in the article."

2. Regarding NPOV, every religion page on this site that I have browsed through had either a section for criticism/controversy or a specific page. I felt it would be good to insert the same here. I made the mistake of using a blog in my first edit, realized this was a mistake and then tried using an article archived in Refworld, http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=42df611d20 which was deemed appropriate during the 3O process. Nancyinthehouse is still disputing this article in the talk section. First she said the address did not exist. Then she said that the UN does not endorse this article and has not even addressed that other countries have also archived the report or that it was drafted by a government agency. title=World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&diff=551430312&oldid=551388453 and my second try: title=World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&diff=551600836&oldid=551473784

3. I am a bit of a grammar-a-holic, which is a carry over in my profession as a PR adviser. I did some small edits, which did not change any of the meaning and made the article much easier to read. I believe the errors were due to copy and paste from the WMSCOG web site and were likely there for some time. With no explanation, Nancyinthehouse reverted my edit. I have since tried to fix this again. title=World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God&diff=551890069&oldid=551862175

I have been accused of having a hate-on for this church, which could not be further from the truth. I became interested in it after being approached at a local mall and, after searching online, found that the info on Wikipedia was lacking and sounded a bit like an advertisement. It seemed that part of the story was missing and this is what I'm trying to add. Unfortunately, Nancyinthehouse has been conducting edits as if she is the only one that can make any additions. I have tried the talk page but find that she has an excuse for excluding every edit I propose, most of which are frivolous. Once I file this I will notify Nancyinthehouse of my complaint. Superfly94 (talk) 05:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi this is User:Nancyinthehouse.

I have been insulted from the Superfly94 in my talk page, and though he apologized in my talkpage , I believe this person has hatred towards this messiah claiming person and the church/religious movement.

I edited the article, World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God as neutral as possible without using personal claims or personal blogs which are unreliable sources. But this user keeps on adding unnecessary lines in the history section of World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God, of another religious movement called NCPCOG (New Covenant Passover Church of God) which does not even have its own article.

This user first insulted in my talkpage because he couldn't include information that were unreliable sources. I wondered why this user was so angry with me so I looked through his contributions which surely confirms that he is just editing with hatred.

Superfly94 is obviously editing with hatred. Below are his contributions:

Contributions made in Peter1007's talk page

So, trying to incorporate the article from the UNHRC Refworld page but Nancyinthehouse keeps deleting it with various reasons. The latest one is that the address in the article is invalid. Any way we can get around this? She seems to want to delete anything that is remotely negative. It's especially disconcerting since a few years ago it seemed to be okay to use the examining site but now it isn't? Superfly94 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignore my last. Decided to go the 3O route.Superfly94 (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Left message in User talk:Peter1007

Contributions made in DMCer's talk page

Having the same issues. I want to add the UNHRC Refworld link and info but it keeps getting removed. The latest reason was that the address contained in the link for the church was invalid. Whatever happened to all the edits you had in the past regarding controversy/criticisms? These are the links I would like to use, in order to provide a balanced view but not having any luck. Superfly94 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Ignore my last. Decided to go the 3O route.Superfly94 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Left message in User talk:DMCer I've also been having issues. The latest is with the Refworld UNHRC report. The first time it was removed as part of a whole controversy section. The second because I was told the address was invalid. Google Maps says otherwise. Now I am being told that the article is too negative and against the NPOV that Wikipedia tries to keep. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NPOV is for the Wikipedia article as a whole, which would be reflected in both positive and negative references, right? I was also told that the article contained only one man's opinion. Well, the Gov of Canada and the UN found it important enough to publish. It seems this user is from the church, although she denies it, and is deleting anything that is negative about the church. Anyway we can deal with this editorial hijacking? Superfly94 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Contributions made in Wyote's talk page

Left message in User talk:Wyote Ignore my last. Decided to go the 3O route. Superfly94 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What Superfly94 left in my talkpage - insulted

Nancyinthehouse - please note that adding information to a page is NOT disruptive editing, however deleting someone's additions without allowing proper discussion in the talk section, like you keep doing, IS. Please stop doing this. It is rude and arrogant behaviour to think that you are the only person permitted to make additions to this page. Now, I have already asked you to join in the 3O discussion on the WMSCOG page. Please do so or I will have to go to the next step to sort out this issue. Superfly94 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)</ br>

DO YOU NOT KNOW HOW TO TALK?????? If you want to go with your last edit then delete everything prior to 1985!! And, dammit, go to the article talk page and put in your argument for 3O! You've had more than enough time given that you've done a few edits since the 3O was started on the talk page. If it's not done by tomorrow morning I'll be reporting you to the admins for disruptive and biased editing Superfly94 (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)</ br>

I see no personal attacks here. I am attacking your behaviour, not you. Even my previous comment, though heated is not a personal attack. Superfly94 (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Your last edits to my grammar that you changed back, read it aloud. It just doesn't sound right. I write for a living so can you trust me on the grammar aspect? Also, the God the father/God the mother, according to the church website, whenever they refer to them Mother and Father are capitalised, which is why I changed it. I can't help but feel that you just automatically reverted my editing out of spite. I AM trying to make the page better, which is why I properly formatted the History list in accordance with popular writing guides and fixed the grammar. It did not change the meaning at all and there was no need to change it back. I am trying to work with you here but can't help feeling that I am hitting a brick wall. Superfly94 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Superfly94. Attacking me, or attacking my behaviour, you are insulting me. I don't understand why you are including information that needs to be written in a separate article. I have not done any disruptive biased editing since all editings that I have made were from reliable sources. I tried to make the article as neutral as possible according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. What makes you angry? It just seems that you just have personal hatred towards this religious movement/messiah claimants. It doesn't seem to make sense if you just insulted me just because of my grammatical error. Because you have talked about including 1985, NCPCOG source and about the Columbia article. --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nancy, sorry about insulting you, but I was getting frustrated with what seemed like selfish and biased editing and the fact that you want others to use the talk page but you were conducting edits without doing so yourself. I will do my best to hold my temper and word things better in future. Now, as to having a controversy/criticism section, that does not make an article weight go one way or the other. If you were to look up any of the other religion pages you will see that they all have that section (even Buddhism) and might even have a full page dedicated to controversy/criticism (Catholicism). Also, I will be going through the main page again to sort out the grammar. Please trust me when I say that what it was before my grammar edit makes it very hard to understand. Superfly94 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Superfly94 thinks that I am a member of this messiah claiming person's church, but obviously I'm not. I'm just interested in many religions.

I am very concerned with this person's hatredness and attacks, especially with his disruptive editings.

Recently in the talk page of World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God

I agreed with ReformedArsenal and Superfly94 that articles or references published in student newspapers are suspect and that we need to be cautious about using them, since they are written by students.

Moreover, the history section that he is adding which I deleted

1. HISTORY section of World_Mission_Society_Church_of_God that Superfly94 wants to edit:

The NCPCOG's site that Superfly94 cited is indeed a BLOG that is not built with distinct sources. Especially, the blog contains books of the founder that infringes the copyrights owned by the WMSCOG - Melchizedek Publishing LTD Company. [Wikipedia:Verifiability] As the Wikipedia mentions to "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others." Wikipedia:Copyrights. The NCPCOG relgious movement does not have its own article, which is pointless to put in the this history section. Putting it makes the article to be off the reasongs of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Moreover, Superfly94 says his job is fixing grammatical errors. But if you read the blogsite (which is considered as an unreliable source) http://www.ncpcog.net/eng/, that he uses as a source, it contains massive grammatical errors and translations problems. Moreover, the founder's (a person believed as a messiah by this religious movement) death Ahn_Sahng-hong, there is already his own independent article. It is unnecessary to put repetitive information about the year he died, since this is solely about the religious movement/church.

2. The RefWorld document that this Superfly94 wants to use is written with questionable sources and the UNHCR clearly puts a disclaimer that UNHCR is not responsible for nor does it neccessarily endorse its content. It does not reflect those of UNHCR. It was made according to the person's research which does not have clear information about the sources used for the document. http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=42df611d20

I have also explained clear reasonings why I reverted Superfly94's edits. Though I followed according to the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, he still doesn't seem to agree with the policies or guidelines.

He finally threatens me that he will report me to an admin.

Any changes I make will be based on this 3O process. If you disagree then please follow the next process in dealing with disputes, as per the Wikipedia guidelines. If you continue to delete my additions I will report you to an admin. Superfly94 (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nancyinthehouse (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Keted6 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keted6 (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. [323]
2. [324]
3. [325]
4. [326]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [327]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [328]

Comments:
User has edit-wared on 5 different articles in a week and was blacked only 4 days ago. Check out all the deleted warnings on his talk page. Pass a Method talk 11:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just.. what. Why are people fighting over such a minor issue? Also, I can see the justification for action, the reported user doesn't seem to be attempting to discuss the.. issue with any other editors. Also, because no one's done it yet, I've left a 3RR warning on their talk page. (This is such a minor thing and seems really petty to be perfectly honest.) + Crashdoom ^Talk 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:61.14.187.198 reported by User:Brocach (Result: )

Page: County Cork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 61.14.187.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [329]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [330]
2. [331]
3. [332]
4. [333]
5. [334]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [335]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [336]

Comments:
The same editor (who also edits from another IP address) made similar changes to other Irish county articles and, when I reverted them, simply reinstated. I reverted those again and asked for a discussion - was ignored. As I was a bit distracted by creating another article today, I inadvertently went over 3RR myself at the Cork page (but not at the other affected pages). Sorry about that. Brocach (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Going to wait until the IP edits again - as they haven't edited since they asked this question, there's a chance they will want to discuss. I don't want to block just yet as their intention seems to be constructive. m.o.p 22:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could agree about constructive intent but the user's edit history to date is revert, revert, revert, revert, avoiding dialogue and using two IP addresses (the other being User:202.7.176.234). The inappropriateness of naming the holders of specific public service posts, while not naming anyone else employed by the same authorities in the same area, at similar or higher levels, should be obvious. This looks to me like a user who has an axe to grind, apparently related to the current economic crisis in Ireland. I hope to see a topic ban and strong words of advice about WP:BRD. Brocach (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

User:KyraGrace reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)

Page: Celina High School (Celina, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KyraGrace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [337]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [338]
2. [339]
3. [340]
4. [341]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [342]

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

Comments:

User:KyraGrace is repeatedly deleting a section of the article that they dislike, a well sourced section that deals with a controversy on the school. Discussion with the user has been carried out through edit summaries (see page history) Thomas.W (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC) -->

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Daufer reported by User:GreekPost (Result: Both blocked)

Page: African admixture in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daufer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[343]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [344]
2. [345]
3. [346]
4. [347]

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

The article was discussed in the Articles edit page. Having browsed the history of such article, one could only conclude Daufers constant edits and reverts over the contributions of other people. Warning was imposed. Daufers self control over the article is illative, as it shows in the articles edit page.

I proceeded in giving him a heads up, but no feedback. He then continuously decided to erase his Talk page History.

Daufer reverted without reason.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [348]

Comments:

Daufer wants control of the article in question, by adding or reverting any possible input that goes against his palate.

GreekPost (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

1.) I have stated on GreekPost talkpage (check his history) why im reverting his vandalism, i have also stated my edit (revert) reason Once, and dont see a need of repeating over and over again. In contrast i was only insulted and accused by GreekPost for reverting his vandalism (His reasons).
I would like for you to notice that GreekPost is the user who is constantly deleting and manipulating info (sourced & ref.) regarding the Iberians (spian & portugal) and he even admitted that he considers it "staining the Iberians". Im the user that is putting it all back into the article again since it is forbidden to remove based on POV sourced and ref. info. Double check via History, Who removed and who undid the vandalism. He has repeatedly removed a passage i added that is however sourced and directly linked to the Genetic Study, double check it. The info i have removed concerns info that is already given in the article and doesnt need to be mentioned twice, especially not in the false category of the article. I ask you to go through the article and find anything (any passage or info) that i have cited wrongly, all the of contributions are in-line and correctely referenced to the sources given. Daufer (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add, that i see absolutely no reason to debate or (talk) about Vandalism. GreekPost has repeatedly vandalised the Article [Double Check via History] by removing Sourced Info to fit his POV. Please do your job and double check the edits. Its the classic example of a user (GreekPost) vandalising an article and me just reverting his constant vandalism.Daufer (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Author: Daufer

---

Daufer is now trying to impugn me with distortion against my own report. Yes, I indeed suggest that the Administration panel should check the Articles WHOLE History, page by page.

It is Daufer who constantly keeps reverting/deleting/editing any contribution, by any Editor. Daufer does not let any Editor contribute to the page, as he keeps moderating the page very carefully, for his own personal acquisition.

His agenda and vandalism to keep the article written under a certain way is sufficiently visible in the history of his profile and the articles itself. His actions are based on diaries of constant reverts and edits, of any possible source or passage, that might correlate with Sicily or Italy (for some reason), as he wants to remodel and moderate the article.

I did NOT remove sourced passages, I only deleted misleading text. The sources that were deleted, were already sentenced passages, and thus unworthy of being repeated on the further and foremost article. Daufer instantly deleted my contributions and those of the others, as he did not, and does not, agree with. He manipulatively wants to seed a different fixture to the readers.

It should be noted that, Daufer deletes his own Talk page history, as he wants to bury the subject matter.

NOTE: Daufer also fails to sign his posts.

GreekPost (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Very simple; just check the View History!
GreekPost has vandalised the article constantly by removing/deleting sourced information. I have only restored them.
Also to note: vandalism in the same manner (removing Iberian links and manipulating other links) of GreekPost was also carried out by two anonymous IP-addresses. These vandalisms (same intentions/POV as GreekPost) were reverted by other users.
It becomes very clear when checking the View History that its GreekPost who is removing/deleting contributions from other users, and it is me (Daufer) that is constantly restoring them! And of course i will immediately stop the edit war once GreekPost will stop vandalising and deleting (well sourced) contributions (to only fit his agenda/POV)
Please resolve the dispute, thank you. Daufer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you have reverted more then 3 times at this point - with no attempt at a talk page discussion (we have basic conduct expectations). Both should take a break and let others look at the edits or take about the problem on the appropriate talk page. I have informed 3 related Wikiprojects of the problem.Moxy (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I understand the problem and my violation against the rules, but i can not simply ignore the vandalism of GreekPost. Look at View History, its nothing but vandalism over and over again and i have just reverted it, if that gets me blocked fine, but please look into the vandalsim conducted by GreekPost [view history].
    I would also like to point out that there has been (within last hour) another vandalism on this article by an anonymous IP-address and it was reverted (righteously so) by the user Yintan. I would therefor also urge you to protect this article. Many vandalisms have been reverted by a host of different users; i just happened to revert the constant vandalism by GreekPost [Check via View History & GreekPost talk page] Daufer (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

21:59 GreekPost once again vandalises the article by removing/deleting sourced information, contributed by other users [check: view history]. A classic example of how GreekPost contributes to Wikipedia. I have reverted the vandalism yet again (only reverted the vandalism/as always/nothing else) and i seriously ask myself when GreekPost will finally stop with his POV and distortions. Daufer (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• 22:10 same old story GreekPost is vandalising the article (in the same old manner: Deleting sourced info contributed by other users) and im reverting (just reverting) his vandalism. please do something about it. Daufer (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • At this point I see a double block happening. I can only guess that not all have see WP:3RR -..... as the reverting is still going on even during the talk here.Moxy (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I object to the double block, since there is no trouble with me. I have no business with this article (not protecting my own contributions), I (Daufer) am just reverting the vandalism of GreekPost. Daufer (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Emesik (Result:Both Blocked)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [349]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [350]
2. [351]

Comments:
The page is currently under 1RR rules. I'm not trying to resolve the edit war on talk pages anymore. This is futile. Sopher99 has reverted many of may edits in the past and I'm tired of explaining the same things again.

Are you kidding me? What do you call this then? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war#Syrian_government_calling_for_jihad.3F Sopher99 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There. I just gave you a direct example of where you put your discussion on the talkpage, and the conflict between you and me was resolved in your favor. What more evidence than that do you need to see that the talkpage is useful? Sopher99 (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a discussion with you. This is asking someone else to remove your biased edits. Could you show me an example that you started a discussion before destroying my work? --Emesik (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest retracting this report and coming to discussion on the talkpage, Emersik. You also broke the rule.

1. [352]

2. [353]

Sopher99 (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is another proof that you are constantly removing my contributions to the page. If you want discussion, start it yourself before destroying my work. --Emesik (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. That first diff was your revert of User FutureTrillionaire. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Sorry for that. Still, the second part is still valid: If you want discussion, start it yourself before destroying my work. --Emesik (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Qaz122a reported by User:Keri (Result: )

Page: Richard B. Handler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Qaz122a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [354]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [355]
2. [356]
3. [357]
4. [358]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [359]

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

Comments:

Suspected sock puppet, see SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vvv321 Keri (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

User:82.1.231.59 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: )

Page: Template:Automobile classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.1.231.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 04:40, April 28, 2013
2. Revision as of 10:38, April 28, 2013
3. Revision as of 11:27, April 28, 2013
4. Revision as of 11:31, April 28, 2013 Please stop reverting. This one is the best and current one
5. Revision as of 11:46, April 28, 2013 Reason I'm editing this is because most models are unrecognised, and out of production
6. Revision as of 14:25, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552596123 by CZmarlin
7. Revision as of 15:25, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552606380 by Nasty

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Template:Automobile classification: notice

Attempts to explain the guidelines for inclusion of WP links in this template seem to be ignored. The latest identical edit has been from a "different" contributor using a new account: User:81.101.27.98

1. Revision as of 16:54, April 28, 2013

2. Latest revision as of 17:19, April 28, 2013

• reported by: CZmarlin (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC) -->

User:FaithinHim reported by User:George Ho (Result: )

Page: Where Everybody Knows Your Name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FaithinHim (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. [360]
2. [361]
3. [362]
4. [363]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [364]

Comments:
Just a content dispute. Still, I believe that any article should not mention which materials play original versions. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:173.238.2.246 reported by User:Skycycle (Result: Stale)

Page: List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.238.2.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [365]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [366]
2. [367]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:173.238.2.246

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: List of terrorist incidents, January–June 2013#Constant_edits_by_IP

Comments:
The unregistered user has been constantly splitting two entries on the terrorist incident page related to the Boston bombings. The general consensus is that entries on terrorist incidents should be as short and precise as possible, and if the attack is significant enough and has its own WP article, then that is easily linked to so we keep the tables as short as possible. Consequently, the user has kept splitting the entries on the attack into 2 separate and very long (as well as unsourced) entries - one for the actual bombing and one for the ensuing manhunt. Not only has he kept reverting back to his version, but every time he does his for some reason part of the table goes missing and that also has to be fixed later, not to mention the missing links to other article, the wrong names of terrorist organizations and the amount of information that is being written twice for no specific reason. I posted a warning on the talk page of the article first, together with a personal link to it on the user's talk page - the result was yet another revert today, with the description "You give no reason for deleting terrorist incidents , I am in no mood to talk to you. This is a free editing site and I am posting correct incidents". Obviously, he is not very interested in either reading what others have said, or taking a look at how everyone else has edited these terrorist incident articles in the past.

Even though there have been only two reverts so far, and both were done in more than a 24-hour period, I have no clue where else to post this, and I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over again and opening WP just to find the article messed up again, with overly long attack descriptions, missing links, broken tables and no sources. The next revert is bound to pop up from around the corner, so let's hope this leads to some sort of resolution, whatever it may be. Skycycle (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Stale. Nyttend (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Dgf96 reported by User:TEB728 (Result: 36 hour block)

Page: Dgf96 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dgf96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [368]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [369]
2. [370]
3. [371]
4. [372]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [373]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Scott Summers

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: No block)

Page: Fine art (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Canberra Marathon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Fine art: Previous version reverted to: [374]
• Canberra Marathon: Previous version reverted to: [375]
• Island: Previous version reverted to: [376]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Fine art

1. [377]
2. [378]
3. [379]
4. [380]

• Canberra Marathon

1. [381]
2. [382]
3. [383]
4. [384]

• Island

1. [385]
2. [386]
3. [387]
4. [388]
5. [389]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [390]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [391], [392], [393].

Comments:

Please also see the discussion occurring at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement, section: "Bot was reverted earlier today on run, so {{TAFI}} tags are not on articles" and at User talk:Beyond My Ken#Why the reverts?. Editors had asked the individual to stop, but they just continued. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why NA1000 opened a AN3 report after posting a warning on my talk page [394], since I did not make any of these edits subsequent to the warning. The purpose of the warning is to give the warned editor the opportunity to change their behavior before seeking any sanctions against them, so filing a report when there has been no edits afterwards seems a bit ... battlegroundish. Also I'm concerned that NA1000 and his project affiliates do not understand the principle behind WP:BRD, in which articles are to be kept in the state they were in before the contentious edit (the addition of the unnecessary, frivolous and non-consensus tag to various articles) while discussion is ongoing, and the edit which is being discussed should not be continuously returned to the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

While the decision to implement TAFI was done after long discussion and consensus, Beyond My Ken's actions were based on ignorance and continued (deliberate) intention to revert rather than discuss, despite being repeatedly asked to come to discuss the topic. He was the one initiating "bold", and never came to "discuss". TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Any decision to allow WikiProjects to add their own tags to articles (as opposed to talk pages) needs to be agreed to by the entire community, not by discussions here or there, which is why I am asking for a well-publicized community-wide RfC, which discussion I will be glad to participate in. Participating in a discussion on a WikiProject page is non-productive, as no project has the authority to make such a major change in the way we deal with articles.

As for "Bold", TOS is confused: the use of the word in WP:BRD is a term of art, and refers to any edit which another editor disagrees with. It has nothing to do with whether the WikiProject NA1000 and TOS are involved in is making a "bold" change. Tags were Boldly added to articles by a bot employed by the WikiProject, I Reverted them for the reasons given, and then Discussion takes place, without further reversions of the contentious edit. Instead, the Bold tag addition was reverted back into the article, in opposition to the intention of WP:BRD, which NA1000 and TOS would do well to read. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked It appears that the edit warring has stopped for the time being, so blocking is not necessary. Beyond My Ken, understand that you will be blocked if you revert again. Though for Northamerica1000 and TheOriginalSoni, it may be a good idea to revisit the discussion and bring in the whole community by posting on WP:CENT, WP:VPP, etc. Personally I keep an eye on a lot of things here, but I never heard of such a discussion myself, which kind of indicates that it was not advertised well. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

@KOH: I understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

KOH, I see no reason for this discussion to occur again. It's in the VPR archives at least twice and has been on the main page talk page for a while. If editors are unaware of a discussion at VPR, they can't complain about the outcome of that discussion. VPR and VPP are both pages that everyone should have watchlisted because that is as widespread as they get. WP:CENT is nice, but unnecessary. Ryan Vesey 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose my most recent point is moot anyways CENT addition. Ryan Vesey 05:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

68.174.146.222

68.174.146.222 has been editwarring at Jackie Mason (changing his birth date) and going over 3RR by reverting 14 times in 3.5 hours (see contribs for evidence). I will notify them of this as soon as I save this edit here. ^King Jakob _C2 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Ronhjones for vandalism. + Crashdoom ^Talk 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Pigsonthewing reported by User:Revent (Result: Declined)

Page: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of my original edit: [395]

This is my addition of text to the page. Please notice my comment in the edit summary.

Also notice my SPECIFIC statement in the text that I was asking for 'expert review' of what I wrote by emailing VIAF. I sent the email immediately after this edit, and because of the repeated deletion it will be impossible for them to do so.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [396]
2. [397]
3. [398]

Notice that in every edit I made to attempt to restore my text, I attempted to discuss the issue. Every restoration I made was directly preceded by a post to the conversation (unfortunately it never became a discussion) on the user's talk page trying to address exactly why I was adding the text.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [399]

I did not use a template, but instead discussed in detail that I objected to him repeatedly deleting my text, and my concern that this was turning into an edit war (the whole first paragraph).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page: [400]

Complete text is at the bottom of this revison. As can be seen, he repeatedly ignored my attempts to actually discuss this. His 'edit summaries' were either autogenerated or said not here.

Comments:
Admittedly, my comments to him about that he was going to violate WP:3RR were premature, as I, not him, stopped and came here before it actually got there, but I feel it's pretty clear he would have reverted me again. Note my repeated comments (with references) to why I felt my text was acceptable, and his failure to express anything other than his personal opinion that my editing the page was rude. Note that my editing the page, and my judgement call that a note of some form there was needed, was in complete accordance with the most basic WP editing guideline, WP:BB. Also notice I pointed out that normal 'style' and 'content' concerns do not apply to this article, as it is "not part of the encyclopedia".

I am attempting to make the point, where it will DEFINITELY be noticed, that automatic modification of authority control entries in articles on the basis of VIAF information could break WP by adding information that was later modified, and possibly create hundreds of thousands of links to redirect pages on the VIAF website. I discussed this in more detail in my email request to VIAF that they give a 'expert review' to what I wrote. I pointed this out in the text.

I'm not going to dig out the detailed references (random archived talk pages), but this has been pointed out by other people in places where this was suggested that it was a bad idea, repeatedly. Someone is going to bring this up somewhere, and eventually someone will actually do it without finding the incredibly well hidden places where why it would be bad have been mentioned. If you really want to, search for old conversations about 'missing LCCNs'.

If someone does this, which would be a matter of 'high school student'-level programming, someone else will then need to write a bot to /watch/ the records and fix the data when duplicates are removed from VIAF.

Notice that per WP:DEADLINE, there was absolutely no urgency to removing it, and as I pointed out my edit was unlikely to go unnoticed by other editors (especially admins, given I was editing an admin category). Revent (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Justification of edit

Extremely relevant to why I was trying to make this edit is this thread. Specifically note the comment...

Regarding a bot, something that would affect this many articles will almost certainly need a widespread community RFC rather than simply the usual bot approval process (WP:BAG, but that's for a later discussion! Andrew Gray (talk) 5:05 am, 1 June 2012, Friday (10 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5).

The RFC about it was [401]. I was essentially trying to prevent someone from attempting the (trivial) task of trying to do this WITHOUT data validation.

Also see http://inkdroid.org/journal/2012/05/15/diving-into-viaf/, particularly the statement (about links from VIAF to WP)

The 301,345 links to Wikipedia are really great to see. It might be a fun project to see how many of these links are actually present in Wikipedia, and if they can be automatically added with a bot if they are missing.

Due to the level of duplication of some entries in VIAF, a premature attempt do this could potentially break the same articles five or sixtimes in a row as duplicates were removed there. Another old quote, from when this was discussed on the Village Pump here.

I have added thousands and thousands of authority data files to de.wikipedia, including thousands of VIAF identifiers, and more often than not there are multiple VIAF clusters for one persons, and very often there are complicated issues where people with similar names are very confusingly mixed up. I know that this happens as soon as some library data is bad (i. e. if titles are attributed wrongly), but VIAF inherits these problems, and believe me, it really happens a lot. In de.wikipedia, LCCN and VIAF usually have been checked manually which means that for tens of thousands of people in en.wikipedia, it is not necessary to inherit all those VIAF mistakes but use correctly matching sets from the very beginning. It also helps to maintain at least some consistency between de.wikipedia and en.wikipedia, and the Commons (whose authority data has been mostly copied from de.wikipedia as well). --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 4:06 pm, 19 June 2012, Tuesday (10 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)

Revent (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the inclusion of this text on the category page is inappropriate — category pages should contain only category text and a brief description to ensure that their inclusion criteria are clear. If this had been placed on the talk page, removal would have been a problem, but placement on the category page is itself a problem. I'm going to IAR here because Andy shouldn't be blocked for doing the right thing; let me strongly urge you not to restore this text unless you put it on a talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain exactly how repeatedly reverting me and refusing to talk about it is the right thing, which is the relevant issue here.

Also specify exactly why that text being visible so 'urgently' needed to be reverted that it justified trying to start an edit war despite those repeated attempt to discuss it.

Also, explain the logical inconsistency between saying he was doing the right thing, and saying you're going to IAR (which implies you have to ignore a rule to excuse his behavior).

Even if I was actually wrong to put the text there, (in a hidden maintenance category), unless I was somehow actually breaking WP that's irrelevant here. Revent (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)