Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive247

User:Srnec reported by User:EeuHP (Result: Semi-protection)

Page

Peter III of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs of 3RR warning

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

Comments:
User:Srnec violated the rule of three reversions and this is not the first time that he do it.--EeuHP (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarks: In defense of Srnec , just check the history on Peter III of Aragón. I suspect that the IP 88.21.38 is the same as the party reporting this incident who is bent on imposing his criteria. See also discussion page of the respective article on an attempt to reach a consensus. --Maragm (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC) pd. Perhaps a checkuser can confirm or disavow my suspicions. --Maragm (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You can suspect all that you wish, but I know that I'm not the IP. And Srnec violated the rule by third time and it's time for him to be apperceived.--EeuHP (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article so that the IP can no longer disrupt the article before consensus is reached on the talk page. DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And with regard to the violation of the rule of three reversals?--EeuHP (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection will prevent further disruption. Any further action would be punitive rather than preventative. DrKiernan (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is the third time that this user violate the rule. Three violations and zero warning is a very bad example.--EeuHP (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarks The above user has been blocked several times for edit warring.--Maragm (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The reported user has a clean block log and has not technically breached the rule since there are no more than 3 reverts in each 24-hour period. The IP, however, has broken the rule. DrKiernan (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the rule say this but also say Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Let's see his recent history.

Peter III of Aragon. January 2014

• 19:14 - 25 January
• 19:45 - 25 January
• 21:06 - 25 January
• 04:58 - 27 January
• 03:53 - 28 January

Petronilla of Aragon. October 2013

• 19:14 - 6 October
• 20:59 - 6 October
• 21:46 - 6 October
• 02:47 - 7 October (have not been 24 hours)

Considering how certain things are overlooked, it is normal for some users to have clean records.--EeuHP (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The time difference between 21:06 25 January and 04:58 27 January is obviously more than 24 hours. Besides which, Srnec undid his own revert anyway[7], so there is no violation. On the Petronilla example, as you were told when you reported it in February 2014, that matter is stale [8][9]. Besides which I see you reverting at 14:32, 20:53, 21:40,and 21:51 on 6 October 2013‎ and 13:38 on 7 October 2013‎: 5 reverts in 24 hours, immediately after you came off a block for edit-warring on Nicholas II. The matter is closed, move on. DrKiernan (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Three reversions in 24 hours (with the help of others users of his gang that replace him in the reversal task when he approached the limit) and other after the limit. When the offense is clear, it is not seen and expires. When the offense is interpretable, it is interpreted in his favor. The strong language is not necessary. This situation speaks for itself.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." --EeuHP (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note It's certainly worth noting that the OP just came off of a 3 month block for edit-warring on the very same article. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:EeuHP for six months for continued disruption during and after expiration of their last block, including probable sock puppetry, the filing of retaliatory reports on this board, personal attacks, and false claims.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Minor phrase words edits"
2. 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Maybe in the United States but not in Europe"
4. 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610836483 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
5. 20:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Inaccurate claim maybe in the United States but not in Europe."
6. 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610838825 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
7. 20:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Inaccurate claim maybe in the United States but not in Europe."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Halloween. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edit warring over lead sentence */ new section"

• Note. Overlapping administrators. I was troubled by what appeared to me as an edit war by both users and was about to say that here. At the same time, another user (probable sock of the reported user) came along to support the probable master. Not quite prepared to block both accounts, I locked the article. Meanwhile Favonian blocked both accounts as sock puppets, a reasonable conclusion. I've since unlocked the article as no longer needed, which puts it back in PC 1 status.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Soffredo#October 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Soffredo#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox of Elizabeth II; Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox; Talk:Elizabeth II#Number of realms

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

User:109.152.239.247 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Blocked)

Page

Doctor Who (series 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610926448 by G S Palmer (talk)Please just trust me. I'm not lying or trying to create arguments. If you don't believe me then you can buy DWM. It is a good read and has my proof"
2. 13:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610925152 by DonQuixote (talk) I have previously stated that I got this quote from Doctor Who Magazine Issue 474. I'm sure you are aware that I cannot directly cite a magazine"
3. 12:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "I can quote: "the new episode, which is written by Peter Harness and will air as the seventh story in this Autumns run", "recording on the other episode of Block Four - Episode 8 written by Jamie Mathieson - also took place in May"."
4. 11:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "It is fairly obvious that I cannot directly source a magazine. Buy it for yourself if you don't believe me, it's only £5. Just trust me that this information is 100% correct because DWM is licensed by the BBC."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. G S Palmer, next time please warn the IP of edit warring. The only reason I'm blocking is because they reverted after you filed this report and notified them of it. In addition, it would have been constructive to talk to the IP, either on their talk page or on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Makedonovlah reported by User:Tabercil (Result: Blocked)

Page: Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Makedonovlah (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. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

User is holding firm to his preferred phrasing of "Macedonian (Greek Latin)" as the identification of Simona Halep's ethnicity, as opposed to how others have identified her as being "Aromanian". Even after I provided a source where it is clear that she self-identifies as Aromanian he still reverts back to his preferred identification. Additionally, he has been rather abusive on the article talk page, with statements such as "Be CALM and RESPECT the OTHERS!! You are not the Master of Europe and the wiki-romanians dont have the right to command the people's name in the ENGLISH language". And just to note: I have zero connection with the Romanian Wikipedia. Tabercil (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, situation has changed. I'd placed the warning here about his edits as I was the other party involved in the warring and wanted a fresh set of eyes to see what has occured. But since then the user has made additional edits elsewhere which were purely disruptive in an attempt to make his point (namely moving the articles on Aromanians, Aromanian language, Greeks and Romanians). That makes it a different matter altogether. Tabercil (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Tabercil (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

User:NiamhBurns10 reported by User:Corvoe (Result: 31h)

Page: The Lego Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NiamhBurns10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: My post on the editor's talk page that was quickly removed. User proceeded to move the post to my talk page, before adding this.

Comments:

Editor has behaved immaturely and argued against valid points with no valid reasoning. Though unrelated, editor has also been warned for vandalism twice, which can be seen on the editor's talk page. While the editor initially appeared to be working in good faith, his/her manner of dispute resolution is not in keeping with our standards. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

User:BeloyiseBurron reported by User:Solarra (Result: Blocked)

Page

Brand.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Remove unsourced information from intro. Also removing information on paid Wikipedia. They no longer appear to offer it and cannot use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. Also made last paragraph more neutral."
2. 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Except you must not have read the refs beford you reverted. Also, as Diva is an editir being paid to destroy tbis page, there is definite a COI. Sorry, but yiur bias is focused in the wrong editir."
3. 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "If yiu want a consensus, you need to revert article to BEFORE you staeted editing. That's 2, please read up on the 3 revery rule."
4. 23:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Youre rught. i wont revert, i will just roll back to a week agi before Diva destriyed the page. We can both duscuss there and see if a consensus can be reached."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users on Talk:Brand.com. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by BeloyiseBurron (talk) to last revision by GenuineDiva. (TW)"

It was actually 3 reverts from 2 different editors before this report. My "reverts" are being used as a way to block me from commenting on the issues with the page. The 3rd edit that I did was not a revert of a previous editor. It was restoring edits so that a consensus can be made. Please check talk page and COI noticeboard. --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

1. 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard "Signing comment by BeloyiseBurron - "/* Brand.com */""

Comments:

Came across this in recent changed. Editor seems to be a single purpose account singularly for editing this article. Was warned to not violate 3RR and did so regardless. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An SPI reverting and restoring exits of another SPI who is trying to weigh too heavily on what he thinks instead of what they say. As stated, we can discuss on talk page, but leaving the bias content of a SPI while not letting another SPI weigh in simplyis not in the spirit of the 3RR policy . — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeloyiseBurron (talk • contribs) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added as much as is necessary to the talk page of the article and WP:COIN, I leave it to smarter people than I. GenuineDiva (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Accusing GenuineDiva of being a sock puppet when it is not true is a serious offense and can be considered a personal attack. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be. My apologies as I meant SPA not SPI --BeloyiseBurron (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. This block is for a breach of WP:3RR. However, I am troubled by what appears to be implied WP:OUTING by the now-blocked user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Piotrus and User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Patriot Donbassa (Result: Protected)

Page: Poverty in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Piotrus:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]

Volunteer Marek:

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

Comment: these two users constantly revert a sourced version to an unsourced version and justify it with OR comments at talk. Edit warring is unacceptable and so is removal of information based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT only. Nasty edit summaries like this are totally unacceptable, too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32], [33]

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

Comments:

Riiighhht. A user account created a week ago with about ten edits, who knows about NPOV, Wikiquette, 3RR, and to go running to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports to get their sketchy edits restored. And oh yeah, named "Patriot Donbassa", which is mangled Polish. Whose talk page comments and edits appear to be intended to start fights between people.

It's an obvious sockpuppet created for the purposes of trolling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Patriot Donbassa (Патриот Донбасса) means 'Donbass Patriot' in Russian. Neither Polish nor mangled, my friend. One should take a closer look at Volunteer's edits accross Eastern Europe topics. He's constantly edit warring and being disruptive: [34], [35], [36]. How long can this circus go on? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

...who quickly found (failed) AN/I reports. No. Not a sockpuppet. Can't be. Not here to cause trouble and disruption. Gosh no. Please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

See And you are lynching Negroes. The amount of disruption you're causing in each and every su8bject you touch is a whole magnitude more serious than any problems I've caused with my 20 or so edits, all well sourced and neutral. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

...and not even bothering to deny it. And arguing about "old stuff". Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What Volunteer Marek said. It's clearly a case of a trolling sock. First, this report has no merit (3RR rule was not broken). I became aware of this when on the article I created (poverty in Poland) I saw a problematic edit summary [37] that clearly implies that the editor's sole reason for reverting was that he followed another editor with the intent to undo his edits (the followed editor was Volunteer Marek). I reverted that inconstructive edit, and repeated it twice more as Patriot Donbass did not provide any reasonable argument for restoring it (I agree with VM that the edit is problematic, as I explained on talk). His edits to that article and talk page seem to fit the description of VM as being disruptive and aiming at creating battleground atmosphere; his edits there are neither neutral or well sources (after running out of reverts, he added another baiting, non-neutral edit - [38]). Further indication that Patriot Donbass is not an innocent newbie can be gleamed from the fact that less than 25 edits and in about one week since creating his new account, this user knows how to file a proper 3RR report, is familiar with the template warning system to issue a {{uw-ew}} warning (in his 22nd edit ever), and shows further familiarity with Wikipedia policies ([39]) as well as (and that's a clincher here) indicates familiarity with my edit history at least as far back as Feb/March when I stood for adminship. I think this is enough to see that we are dealing with a disruptive account, a sock of a more experienced user, in all likelyhood a banned one (or one created to avoid getting the puppetmaster account banned). I'd suggest blocking this account, and if one needs to look for a specific bureacratic justification, please note that this sock is primarily active in topics related to Eastern Europe, thus falling within Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My edits to the Ukrainian topic are all neutrally worded and explained at talk. Unlike Volunteer Marek's, that add loaded language and biased claims. Compare: [40], [41]. It's clear who's following NPOV and who's adding cheap agitprop. And as far as stalking is concerned, it's Marek, who's following my edits, such as the ones I made to New Russia Party. Gubarev was a communist party member before founding the New Russia Party - what kind of a clown would seriously call him a 'far-right figure' anno 2014? It's stupid and I removed it, after a filter had prevented me from arguing the point at talk. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Ukrainian topics are not relevant here; we are talking about you following Volunteer Marek to poverty in Poland article, edit warring there, and adding baiting, disruptive content to the article and its talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) See National Bolshevism. Yes there's a faction of "Communist neo-Nazis" in Russia. And that's in the article. And it's well sourced. And you're removing well sourced info to push a POV. And you probably already know all this. But all that is beside the point.

BTW, in regard to that edit filter thing preventing some of your edits - you don't happen to be using a proxy to edit are you? That's what could be causing you problems.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The content I added to Poverty in Poland was not disruptive. It was and is adequately sourced. If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today [42], then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him. But I stand by my words that Marek's edits to Ukrainian topics are practically all highly one-sided. An experienced user should really have at least a pretense of following NPOV.

@VM: where is the source saying Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine is 'national bolshevik' or 'far-right'? Riiight. There aren't any. at least in the respective article. Avoiding emotionally loaded labels in disputed topics is really elementary. And no, I'm not using proxies. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, it's getting besides the point here, but yes, national Bolshevism does exist but it is exactly what it is called: National Bolshevism. It's not fascism. And it's not 'far-right' either. Calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi or a fascist or far-right is a cheap rhetorical trick. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today, then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him" - I don't think this admission of stalking needs further clarification. Wikipedia is not a place were editors are invited to operate using the attitude "if you leave my articles alone I will not disrupt your articles". If you have disputes with VM on some Ukrainian articles, discuss it there, DO NOT follow him to others just to revert him because you have a dispute with him somewhere else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newby and I made a mistake. A single mistake, as I got angry. How about asking VM politely not to follow dozens of his perceived enemies around Wikipedia, too? Did you see e.g. complaint by B01010100: It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources or by Joe Bodacious: Within minutes he followed me to another article. Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them /.../ I believe that this may be an example of WP:HOUNDING. Or by Lokalkosmopolit: Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article he had never edited before. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?.
What about that? Shall you discuss the issue on Gadu-Gadu? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for even-handedness let us include the other reverts:

• 09:43, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
• 09:06, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
• 08:56, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Volunteer Marek
• 23:44, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek
• 23:40, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no-one is blameless here. For the record, VM's two reverts against me on an article unrelated to Poverty in Poland:

• 10:26, 1 June 2014
• 10:36, 1 June 2014‎

I explained the problem with those reverts above in detail. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another revert, this time at Alexander Prokhanov.

• 1 June 2014 . ES: ″rvt sockpuppet/stalker/troll″

My previous ES explaining my changes: fixed lead - Zavtra is: stalinist, nationalist, antisemitic. in a word - right-wing is misleading. Republican Party is right-wing. PiS is right-wing. Are they close to Zavtra (toilet) paper? Nope

VM chose to revert blindly an obvious improvement.Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The reference by Patriot Donbassa to "discussing on Gadu-Gadu" (a Polish IRC client) as well as this edit summary (that whole comment is an obvious troll) are both thinly veiled references to stuff from long time ago and Wikipedia history. One references an ArbCase from something like 2007, the other one the fact that MyMoloboaccount and Piotrus have known each other on Wikipedia for a long time (it's from Goethe's "Sorcerer Apprentice"). So this Patriot Donbassa person is NOT JUST sockpuppeting, trolling and stalking, they actually WANT certain editors (like myself and Piotrus) to KNOW that they are a sockpuppet and that they're engaging in WP:HARASSMENT by making these thinly veiled references which are not immediately obvious to uinvolved editors.

His little "no-one's blameless here" schtick above is just another way of saying "sure, block my throwaway account I just created a few days ago, what do I care, just please block these people I don't like to". It's a cynical piece of dishonesty. I'm sure whatever differences MyMoloboaccount and I have about the articles in question we can work them out fine without their pouring of gasoline on the fire. Note that the issue was already being addressed anyway as this discussion on my talk indicates (note the involvement of outside parties, including at least one admin)

Can someone please block this jerk already? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the trolling is obvious to us. But for an uninvolved admin, it would require at least a few minutes of investigation. Not something that is likely to happen. I recommend asking for a block at AE or ANI citing the above policies and rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Callanecc: Would you mind rethinking this? This is not a case of an edit war between two parties who are not talking to one another and need to be forced to talk; it's the case of a trolling sock with <50 edits disrupting an article. Me and Volunteer Marek have between us something like 300,000 edits, fifteen years of Wikipedia editing experience, and thousands of articles created, many of them on the topics of Polish economy. In other words, when we call an editor a trolling sock, which I, for once, don't do often then every two or three years, there's a chance we may know what we are talking about. Would you do us the courtesy or looking at our arguments, presented above, a bit more closely? This article doesn't need protection, it needs a single disruptive troll who started edit warring there not to improve it but to harass another editor banned from it (if not blocked from this project entirely). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm also not happy with the result, but protecting a page in case of a content dispute for settling the issue is common practice. I would appreciate if Callaneck took a look at all those diffs concerning Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user conduct. At least 3 users have recently claimed Marek was harassing them, I presented diffs of VM revenge edit warring against me on a number of articles today. I have justified my edits in the Ukrainian/Russian topics, see: Talk:New_Russia_Party, Talk:Alexander Prokhanov. Marek just reverts his perceived enemies until you're blue in the face. It's him trolling, not me! Just read my arguments at those 2 talk pages! I'm not the only one complaining about his daily misconduct. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • One of those three accounts you are saying had concerns about VM editing has been indef'ed (Lokalkosmopolit (talk · contribs)), so it appears VM was quite right in his view of them. 95% of contribution of another one is (this year at least) limited to discussion space and AN(I), a good sign of another troublemaker. Not the best character witnesses you could call upon... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I noticed that Local was banned for comments concerning Islam. VM and Local however had disputes concerning the Ukraine/Russia matter, so VM was hardly correct in 'prophesying' Local's problems. The fact is: VM is the real troublemaker in Eastern European topics, Ukraine/Russia in particular and should be banned from editing this topic. And drop please those edit count things, shall you? Editcountitis can be fatal. No-one has the right to treat constructive users like garbage just because they edit WP less often. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Patriot Donbassa - you probably do not know this, but making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against Wikipedia policies and goals. Unless you have specific evidence that Marek has "enemies", you should not be making such statements. please read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I provided 3 diffs from 3 different users (I admit that I don't know them personally of course!) that had recently demonstrably (diffs available!) complained of harassment by a user, whose today's conduct I also characterized as harassing me and disrupting totally constructive work I was doing in Ukraine/Russia-related articles. Diffs are there. Explanations are here and at talk pages. How is that not 'evidence'? What else is needed?Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
            • If you search through any long-standing and very active editor's history you can easily find complaints about him/her. This is especially true if you accept at face-value complaints from editors who were later blocked as a result of their conduct. My perception is that Patriot Donbassa is clutching at straws.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
              • All right, let us concentrate on today and leave the older complaints aside, as I have neither the time nor desire to dig myself into all those details. What VM was doing today can be seen here ([43]) and here [44]. He reached the first of those by following my edits (no previous edits by him to this article). He initiated an edit war against totally legitimate improvements in terms of BLP, NPOV and encyclopedic style. I explained my views in great detail. VM was unable to offer any explanation for his revert warring, any substantiated objection to my edits. And now he claims I should be banned ASAP! Also, his last edit (revert of Lokalkosmopolit's months old edit) is similarly 'illiterate' from the political science/NPOV perspective. I'm willing to explain this really minor but telling thing in detail, but what's the point? None of you wants to get your hands tied by reprimanding a user whose block log looks like it does but who has lots of powerful allies on-Wiki. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
                • This edit that Patriot Donbassa referred to above certainly was not a legitimate edit. The information was an accurate reflection of what the source said, and Patriot Donbassa changed it to say something quite different.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:89.155.180.224 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Blocked)

Page

Iggy Azalea discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "What's the point of including countries with no chart info? UK R&B is more relevant than France, Germany and Austria considering the album/singles didn't chart there.... Most urban artists HAVE the R&B/hip-hop charts listed on their wikipedia discography,"
2. 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Updated US album sales, some singles peaks w/ sources and removed countries with no chart information."
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */ Updated sources for current positions."
4. 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 20:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

ConnieGB has been blocked recently for edit warring and I have warned 89.155.180.224 about violating WP:BADCHARTS. He hasn't listened. I recommend 72 hours for 89 and a week for Connie. Launchballer 17:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Launchballer}} Thanks for notice me. The user anom was revert for other editors, see [45]. Please, can you explain to the user that only countries can be on the tables according to the format. Thanks. Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Launchballer}} hasn't existed since 2009, you mean Launchballer. I have explained to the user on his talk page - he didn't listen, and that's why we're here.--Launchballer 17:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:ConnieGB reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Blocked)

Page

Iggy Azalea discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "only countries can be there. Fix"
2. 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""words to watch" WP:NPOV 10 countries completed"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "undid edits by 89.155.180.224 unexplained changes"
   2. 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "m."
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "undid to last version by Mayast"
   2. 20:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "update"
   3. 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "not entry o media control"
5. 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "WP:NPOV, don't add charts irrelevants please. Just countries on the table"
6. Consecutive edits made from 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "not entry on media control"
   2. 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "fix"
7. Consecutive edits made from 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "undid"
   2. 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "updates and a chart"
   3. 18:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "change, not used"
   4. 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "+"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Bowser2500 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Decline)

Page

Steven Beitashour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bowser2500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Restoring full name"
2. 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610857214 by Walter Görlitz (talk) See talk"
3. 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610865781 by Walter Görlitz (talk) "Made-up"? Easy with your accusations there, bud. See talk"
4. 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Citation added"
5. 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Possibly a more reliable news outlet"
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Beitashour&curid=26913715&diff=610872554&oldid=610869372

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Steven Beitashour. (TW)"
2. 01:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */ Verify credibility"
3. 01:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steven Beitashour. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Moving from my talk page and responding"
2. 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Full name */ Not RSes"

Comments:

Editor is new and does not seem to understand discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to start edit warring, & the reverted edits were before the recent ones where more constructive edits have been made by both Walter and I. Sources have been added and comments have been left on Steven Beitashour's talk page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So, how exactly are both not edit warring, Walter? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Declined Filing party didn't respond to query, edit war has ceased. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps when asking for information from another editor, you could actually {{ping}} that editor, use feedback, or inform them of the question in some other way.

I was edit warring, but did not go past three reverts. My reverts were all done withing editing guidelines. When I realized that I might break 3RR, I started added templates to gain consensus from a larger community: no reverting there, which were removed, which is clearly disruptive editing. I started the discussions to attempt to resolve. I sought input from the football project to seek greater discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another instance where an editor reverts five times, clearly breaking 3RR and it's declined because some bureaucrat decides some question is more important than editing guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I assumed you would keep an eye on your own report and not have to be pinged to go back and answer a question. And yes, getting questions answered is often pertinent before just handing out blocks. I would have declined it anyway, because you were both edit warring no matter how you paint it. Better to protect the page and allow for discussion, which can't occur at all if both parties are blocked. I'm not sure what you wish to accomplish by calling me names. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Snuffie18 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Locked)

Page: Misandry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snuffie18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47] - manual revert of an edit from a prior day
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion at Talk:Misandry#Relevance_problem

Comments:
EWing User is an WP:SPA set to WP:RGW. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) WP:RGW and WP:SPA, while relevant essays, are not policy. I acknowledge that the user edit warred and that's what this discussion is primarily about. I have left a notice on their talk stating for themselves to self revert, at the advice of WP:3RR, in a move to hopefully have the reviewing admin become more lenient on them. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing on misandry or related topics in the nearby future. (Snuffie18 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

@Snuffie18: It's not so much that you're editing them that's the problem. The reason of this noticeboard is for edit warring, and breaking of the bright line of three revert rule, which states that an editor should perform no more than three reverts on an article, no matter if they were different content, per day. Why I noticed on your talk page for you to self revert, is that self reverting, even though you're already on the noticeboard, demonstrates that you acknowledged that you broke the rule, and are hoping for leniency from the reviewing admin as it shows that you understand what you did wrong, and won't do it again. It doesn't guarantee a non-block, but it will be acknowledged and put into the equation on whether this behavior merits a block. As well, being a single purpose account does not mean you're not allowed to edit those topics. In fact, as long as you don't edit war, perform Neutral point of view contributions, and act with civility, among abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to edit those topics. Tutelary (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion politics should be kept as far away from information and facts as possible. That's what led to the frustration with the misandry page in the first place, because I felt there it was pushed away from npov by two users. And that's why I won't edit on it for at least a while, nor on anyhting related. As for the 3 revert rule, I believe that I didn't make more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. (Snuffie18 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

• Note. The article has been fully protected four a month by Mike V. Snuffie18, I'm not going to block you, but I srongly urge you to read WP:3RR carefully. You in fact made four reverts in 24 hours as revert is defined in the policy. Your first edit at 7:47 UTC is a revert. The other three are obvious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

User:LogFTW reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Blocked; tbanned)

Page: Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LogFTW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. At 11:49 the user reverted an edit made at 10:45 by another user [52]
2. At 12:18 the user reverted an edit made at 12:07 by me [53]
3. At 17:52 the user reverted an edit made at 13:08 by another user [54]
4. At 21:16 the user reverted edits made at 19:03 and 20:08 by both another user and me respectively [55]

This page is under 1 revert rule protection, so any 2 of these diffs is a violation.

Furthermore the user has already received 1 revert rule sanctions warning on his talkpage. Sopher99 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Per WP:SCWGS, LogFTW has been blocked for 48 hours. Sopher99, who violated WP:1RR, has been topic banned for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:84.120.248.46 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: Blocked)

Page

Union, Progress and Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611068419 by Valenciano (talk) These translations are incompatible according to the explanation, included in the article, about the party name meaning."
2. 18:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611110189 by Sfs90 (talk)"
3. 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611132074 by Valenciano (talk) Ridiculous excuse to revert my edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constant edit warring on the page. The user was warned on their talk page about WP:3RR and are fully familiar with it, since they posted a 3RR warning on User_talk:Sfs90#Union.2C_Progress_and_Democracy_2. The i.p. is also single mindedly focused on the name of the party, a concern they share with blocked sockmaster User:Javier93h. There is a good possibility that these accounts are one and the same. Valenciano (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User:174.152.185.161 reported by User:AlmostGrad (Result: )

Page 1: Peoria Charter Coach Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: Lincoln Land express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users being reported: 174.152.185.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 174.146.29.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

Previous version reverted to:

For Page 1 (Peoria Charter Coach Company): [56]

For Page 2 (Lincoln Land express): [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

For Page 1 (Peoria Charter Coach Company):

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

For Page 2 (Lincoln Land express):

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not given, since it's not a 3RR yet and is unlikely to become one, because the same person seems to be reverting from different IPs, so no single IP is likely to violate 3RR. I, however, have reverted the IPs twice already, and will soon be in violation of 3RR if I continue reverting.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, since I don't understand how it is a BLP issue, and the AfD template was malformed, without any deletion rationale. Also, I have a CoI with Suburban Express, so I would rather not engage directly with this person and let others deal with this.

Comments:

A series of IPs (174.146.29.31, 174.146.5.102, 174.152.185.161, maybe others), likely block-evading socks of ArbCom-blocked User:Arri at Suburban Express, the owner of Suburban Express, are edit-warring on the articles of competitors Peoria Charter Coach Company and Lincoln Land express, and also editing the Suburban Express page. An SPI has been filed by User:Gulugawa. ‎AlmostGrad (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A kind Attention needed for B. R. Ambedkar Page (Father of Indian Constitution) (Result: Blocked}}

Some people are rverting the changes of this page which is highly nonconstructive and disrespectful to this man Dr.Ambedkar who is the father of Indian institution.

The Father of India Constitution (Dr.Ambedkar's page).

First Law minister of India - Dr.Ambedkar . (Is Indian Lawyer a better name?) It should be Jurist. Father of Indian Constitution (Largest Indian Democracy) - Dr. Ambedkar . (Is this line to be removed?) Philosopher - He wrote several books on Buddhism such as Buddha or Karl Marx, Buddha and his Dhamma etc., Riddles in Hinduism etc. (Words were removed)

Barack Obama praised him when he came to India. Noble Prize Winner Amartya Sen calls him his father in Economics. (Economist) The Table concering his writings and speeches were removed without any proper justification. Siddheart (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this page it apears that the only person in breech likely to breech of the 3RR rule appears to be yourself. Agree it needs looking at but it appears you might have shot yourself in the foot here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Also can someone move this into the correct format as it appears t have been added to the previous article instead of a new section - im unsure on restricitons for reordering this page myself.Amortias (T)(C) 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Siddheart for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tiller54 reported by User:NazariyKaminski (Result: Locked)

Page: Joni Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tiller54 (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. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tiller54 telling others to stop edit warring: [69]

Comments:
Tiller54 and Cwobeel are tag teaming anyone who disagrees with their edits to the Joni Ernst article. They just revert and tell people they are wrong.--NK (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. So many editors in the battle, and they probably should all be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Cla68 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Article locked)

Page

Roosh V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "This is a BLP and pejorative labels are thus avoided. The citations don't support putting this pejorative a label on this person."
2. 22:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611298952 by PearlSt82 (talk)remove BLP violation as explained on talk page. 3rr doesn't apply when protecting a BLP"
3. 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611302403 by 31.205.21.96 (talk)reverting pejorative label, per WP:BLP. 3RR does not apply"
4. 02:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611316214 by EvergreenFir (talk)revert of pejorative term from a BLP. 3RR does not apply"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Roosh V */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Sex tourist */"

Comments:

User is asserting BLP protection despite the term not being overly pejorative, sourced, and in the article from its creation. User refuses to engage in dialogue. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Result - Page protected (full) for three days. Can folks please lay out their arguements on the talk page and please seek a broader input - BLP noticeboard etc. as a priority? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NB: if anyone reverts without a developing consensus after three days, would strongly consider blocks at that point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to lock article - locked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:66.185.200.1 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Blocked)

Page: Thomas Piketty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.185.200.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:03, 3 June 2014‎
2. 12:11, 3 June 2014‎
3. 12:28, 3 June 2014
4. 12:40, 3 June 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Thomas_Piketty#Reception_section

Comments: The proposal to include the misleading statement regarding the FT article has been soundly rejected on the BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked the IP address not so much because of the edit-warring at the article (where they seem to have made no more than three reverts – this edit does not appear to be a revert), as their actions at User talk:Hipocrite (where they violated WP:3RR unambiguously, and as part of what seems to have been a harassment or intimidation campaign – see [72], [73], [74] and others). SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit you link to is, in fact, a revert - it reverts [75]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a gap. Thank you for the clarification. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Useitorloseit reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Handling it at WP:ANI rather than here)

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Useitorloseit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not an article, removing irrelevant WP:BLP-violating material from a discussion regarding the editor's behavior (including, among other things, edit warring)

Comments:
Content being removed violates WP:BLP, editor has prior blocks for singularly axe-grinding on a WP:BLP. Topic ban discussions are ongoing, but they'd be easier (and probably better for him) without him. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am the user. My response to a post on ANI asking for me to be topic banned keeps getting edited by those opposed. I think this is just vandalism. I should be allowed to write my own reply, without those opposed trying to delete it. 3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism to your own replies by involved, opposing editors. Useitorloseit (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:NOTVAND. You are not allowed to violate WP:BLP in a discussion on your tendentious behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are just engaging in vandalism. Useitorloseit (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but you just made a personal attack. WP:NOTVAND excludes "Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under the biographies of living persons policy." WP:NPA does include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm closing this thread to put out a ForestFire; handling it at WP:ANI rather than here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Surturz reported by Alans1977 (talk) (Result: Locked; reporter warned)

Page: Whitehouse Institute of Design (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 03:58, 4 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 611353170 by The Drover's Wife (talk) rv - WP:RECENT vio")
2. 05:23, 4 June 2014 (edit summary: "rv WP:RECENT vio - see talk")
3. 05:46, 4 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 611484449 by Alans1977 (talk) rv - WP:RECENT/WP:EVENT concerns. Please address those concerns on the talkpage")

• Diff of warning: here

—Alans1977 (talk) 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I request a revert to the most recent edit by me as well please. There is consensus for its inclusion. Alans1977 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bit of pot calling the kettle black here. I listed my concerns at Talk:Whitehouse_Institute_of_Design (basically, WP:RECENT and WP:EVENT concerns. Rather than addressing those concerns, User:Alans1977 reverted, and listed justifications based on WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:CFORK[84] - I had not raised any concerns about these. As such, I re-reverted since he had not addressed my concerns. Alans1977 then undid that too, and claimed "This has been discussed at length and there is consensus for the inclusion of the material"[85]. I cannot see any such consensus on the talkpage, and there is inadequate discussion about WP:RECENT/WP:EVENT issues. --Surturz (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for ten days. Alans1977, honestly, after your last block and your promise in your unblock request, I thought about locking the article and blocking you. You're lucky I didn't, but you are warned that if after the lock expires, you as much as commit one revert on the article, you risk being blocked, and it won't be for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:noisemonkey (Result: Malformed)

Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nichiren_Sh%C5%8Dsh%C5%AB&action=history
Catflap08 :

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: cur | prev) 18:47, 3 June 2014‎ Catflap08 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (-139)‎ . . (Undid revision 611415345 by Noisemonkey (talk) That was already discussed) (thank) (cur | prev) 18:37, 3 June 2014‎ Noisemonkey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,550 bytes) (+139)‎ . . (Undid revision 611371183 by Catflap08 (talk) Removed inaccurate photo which is not of the Dai Gohonzon and explained why.) (cur | prev) 12:20, 3 June 2014‎ Catflap08 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (Undid revision 611362945 by Noisemonkey (talk) WP:CENSOR) (thank) (cur | prev) 10:39, 3 June 2014‎ Noisemonkey (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,314 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Removed erroneous photo, the Dai Gohonzon has the inscription at the bottom "With great respect for the petitioner of the High Sanctuary of the Essential Teaching, Yashiro Kunishige and the people of the Hokkeko." at the bottom of Nam Myoho Renge Kyo N...) (Tag: Mobile edit) (cur | prev) 07:09, 3 June 2014‎ Catflap08 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (Undid revision 611307846 by Mrsnak (talk)) (thank) (cur | prev) 00:19, 3 June 2014‎ Mrsnak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (21,314 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (It is disrespectful to Nichiren Shoshu to post images of Gohonzon. The temple forbids it, so whoever keeps doing this is not sympathetic to the temple. Not healthy.) (thank) (cur | prev) 15:32, 2 June 2014‎ Helpsome (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (-120)‎ . . (thank) (cur | prev) 14:58, 2 June 2014‎ 104.32.28.108 (talk)‎ . . (21,531 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (→‎Dai-Gohonzon) (cur | prev) 14:58, 2 June 2014‎ 104.32.28.108 (talk)‎ . . (21,628 bytes) (+217)‎ . . (Photos of Gohonzons are disrespectful, and since this page gets edited by other Nichiren sects, in lieu of having the image priorly removed, I needed to add the statement.) (cur | prev) 18:47, 1 June 2014‎ John Carter (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (Undid revision 611053573 by Limyishun (talk) restoring image, if individuals believe the image should be deleted, they should discuss the matter and obtain consent on the article talk page first) (thank) (cur | prev) 09:53, 1 June 2014‎ Limyishun (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,314 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (As a Nichiren shoshu believer, the dai-gohonzon is supreme object of worship and hence not allowed to be replicated online) (thank) (Tag: Mobile edit) (cur | prev) 13:13, 28 May 2014‎ Helpsome (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (-103)‎ . . (these are broken links and it doesn't clarify anything) (thank) (cur | prev) 19:01, 27 May 2014‎ 66.65.19.113 (talk)‎ . . (21,514 bytes) (+5)‎ (cur | prev) 18:59, 27 May 2014‎ 66.65.19.113 (talk)‎ . . (21,509 bytes) (+98)‎ (cur | prev) 21:55, 13 May 2014‎ Catflap08 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (Undid revision 608454063 by 172.242.227.80 (talk) see talk page) (thank) (cur | prev) 21:49, 13 May 2014‎ 172.242.227.80 (talk)‎ . . (21,314 bytes) (-97)‎ (cur | prev) 05:07, 6 May 2014‎ Catflap08 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,411 bytes) (+97)‎ . . (Undid revision 607262160 by 172.242.227.80 (talk) see discussion page) (thank)

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

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

Attempted to write why this picture is inaccurate but user just reverts without giving a reason, seems to be a persistent edit warrior on this page.:

Noisemonkey (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)noisemonkey

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs..--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Stlrbrt reported by User:D'Ranged 1 (Result: Blocked; semi-protected)

Page: Rightscorp, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stlrbrt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]
5. [91]
6. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94]

Comments:
Stlrbrt is engaged in an edit war at Rightscorp, Inc. and continues to remove sourced material from the article, even after a notice on his talk page from kelapstick. He claims in his edit summaries to be removing vandalism. The editor with which he has primarily been engaged is Foxbarking, who started a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board#Rightscorp editor continuously removing good faith comments on criticism and labeling good faith efforts as vandalism. I got involved because of that post; I reviewed the article and cleaned up the citations, removed some language that wasn't supported by the sources, and added additional sourced material. My edit was reverted with the edit summary "removing vandalism" (diff 1). Several of the edit summaries reverting Stlrbrt's reversions have specifically stated that the edit he reverted was not vandalism. He doesn't seem to be getting the message.—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. It's clear that Stlrbrt has a WP:COI and is using Wikipedia to promote and to protect the company with whom he is probably affiliated. In addition to his own reverts, he is using IP addresses to make the same reverts, all of which geolocate to Santa Monica, California, where the corporation is located. He has also created at least one article that is about an attorney who is involved with the company. I have also semi-protected the article for one week because of the IP edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Until you included "with whom he is probably affiliated" I hadn't thought of a connection. The name of the company's CTO/COO is Robert Steele; that's a lot like Stlrbrt. Coincidence?—D'Ranged 1 VT^alk 08:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:124.149.86.23 reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: )

Page: Kilogram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.149.86.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts (IP is using accounts User:203.147.88.174, User:210.15.225.173,User:202.161.31.177, User:124.149.86.23 ):

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No response to discussion on user talk pages; all but the most recent have had notices placed.

Comments: User's position is that a topic of more interest to all the English-speaking countries other than the US should use British spelling. This is not consistent with WP:ENGVAR or the article's history.

Jc3s5h (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Rollthesecondblunt reported by User:Petr Matas (Result:Blocked )

Page: Crimean status referendum, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rollthesecondblunt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: edit 610771625

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. edit 611512444
2. edit 611515626
3. edit 611537851
4. edit 611555363

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: edit 611544141

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: edit 611545644

Comments:

• Suspected sockpuppet of blocked Rolltheblunt: similar edit-warring edits at Crimean status referendum, 2014 and Right Sector. Petr Matas 17:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely as an obvious sock. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:Citobun (Result: No violation)

Page: Scotia Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Epeefleche (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. [102] Initial state
2. [103] Partially blanked by User:Epeefleche
3. [104] Partially restored by myself
4. [105] Partially blanked again by Epeefleche

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

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

Comments:
The user has blanked several basic facts about this building complex under the guise of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Really basic things: the geographic location of the structure, the description of the building complex as "large", and other content which is not "likely to be challenged".

I reverted and pointed out this view in my edit summary. The user then blanked half the page again and stated that HE was challenging the content. At this point I came to believe he was not acting in good faith but was simply being spiteful, because the content to which he objected is very ordinary, general statements about the building complex like "it is beside the Cogswell Interchange" which nobody else is likely to ever challenge.

I reverted again, but found references for most of the content. However, in reverting it also restored some things like the word "large", which I guess I didn't reference because it's really not necessary. For an issue like this, anyone could look on Google Maps and see the basic physical form of the structure. It dominates downtown Halifax. And besides, the term "large" is subjective. At this, User:Epeefleche placed a warning template on my talk page admonishing me for adding unsourced content and warning that I would be blocked for such action. I don't think this is the intended use of the warning template. If I post on his talk page, he immediately deletes my messages.

The user is using Wikipedia:Verifiability as grounds for being disruptive as means to spite me for contesting his initial edit. Citobun (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There is no violation. Furthermore, Epeefleche is within his rights and WIkipedia policy to request references: it is not being "spiteful", nor is removing uncited material disruptive. Please use the article talkpage to work this out (which you have not done so far), and please assume good faith. He has previously explained that removal of a notice from one's own talkpage is considered evidence of reading it: re-adding it is not necessary. Acroterion (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Here come the Suns reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: State of Palestine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Israel lobby in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Here come the Suns (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. [106]State of Palestine
2. [107]State of Palestine
3. [108]Israel lobby in the United States
4. [109]Israel lobby in the United States
5. [110]Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories
6. [111]Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]

Comments:This account is very clearly being run by a banned user, the problem is that there are many pro-Israeli extremists sockpuppeting currently and SPI isn't capable of handling them all. Anyways, this account has broken 1RR which he was quickly made aware of by an admin soon after he woke up yesterday. Seeing as he is a sock, lacks competence, and is not here to imporve the encylopedia he should be indef blocked. Thanks,

There is only 1 revert here, the second one. The first diff is not a revert at all. The user reporting me has a habit of running around undoing all my edits, often without any explanation [114], or using false claims that I am banned or a sock [115][116]. This last tactic seems to be applied to other editors who disagree with him [117] [118][119] - needless to say, none of the editors he has reverted alleging they are socks are blocked socks. Let's not encourage this kind of battleground mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Here come the Suns (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Bbbb23 per WP:ARBPIA. Tabercil (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Andreea tenismana reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Andreea tenismana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "K,if an Aromanian is born under the territory of Romania he is Romanian.Because Aromanian=Latinized populations from some Balkan areas.Romania only Latin country in the Balkans.Please respect this,why do you think it is called (A)ROMANIAN?"
2. 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611596678 by Tabercil (talk) Aromanian = Vlach (Romanian).He tries 2 make her Aromanian and before he changed the origins of the Aromanians not to be Romanians,might be from Hungary"
3. 21:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Early years */ Your again? Please ban him Tabercil, this is way too much. Aromanian = Vlach."
4. 09:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Early years */ Aromanian = Vlach (Romanian"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Simona Halep. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit-warring across many articles for days substituting their own definition of Aromanian or removing references to the term. Disruptive edit-warring across many articles. Will not reply to questions by other users. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

See also related edit-warring on

• Emanoil Gojdu
• Mina Minovici
• Gheorghe Hagi
• Aromanian language
• Cristian Gațu

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dreadstar ☥ 00:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: Moved to WP:ANI)

Pages: (just listing a few of the many) Meshuggah discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Koloss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Blackwater Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Still Life (Opeth album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Heritage (Opeth album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And a ton more, unfortunately.
User being reported: Lukejordan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: Meshuggah discography [120]

Koloss [121]

Blackwater Park [122]

Still Life (Opeth album) [123]

Heritage (Opeth album) [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Meshuggah discography

1. [125]
2. [126]

Koloss

1. [127] (note the removal of sourced information directly contradicting this editor's claims)
2. [128]

Blackwater Park

1. [129] (removal of source)
2. [130]

Still Life

1. [131]
2. [132]

Most of the above, I explained to the editor that sources are needed to add information, and if the editor removes information and that too is reverted, then discussion is needed. A couple of times, the editor did start discussing these issues (either on the article's talk page or more often on mine), but in the case of Heritage (Opeth album), the editor went ahead with their preferred edits despite not waiting enough time for other editors to weigh in.

Heritage (Opeth album)

1. [133]
2. [134] (Editor starts a discussion. Great!)
3. [135] (Editor immediately reverts to preferred version. Not great.)
4. [136] (After I explain that more than two editors' opinions should be sought before making changes, editor waits about a day, then reverts to preferred version yet again.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137] (see edit summary)
[138] (see edit summary)
User talk:MrMoustacheMM (most of it right now)
[139] (this editor likes to remove warnings and discussions from their talk page, but take a quick look through; here are a couple from me specifically: [140] [141])

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Heritage (Opeth album)#Genres (lasted about a day)

Comments:
I tried to help the editor learn about Wikipedia policy. Mainly, using reliable sources per WP:V. I provided links to useful pages (WP:MOSALBUM, WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, etc), but instead of reading them, the editor continued to argue with me on my talk page, and continued to edit war. I tried being patient, I assumed good faith (this user clearly isn't a vandal), I tried to explain to this editor that WP:V is a very important policy on Wikipedia, but they constantly pushed their own opinions as fact:

"Listen, just listen and try and understand what I am saying and my point of view as a massive fan"; "unsourced or sourced I don't give a shit"; "Most of Wikipedia is unsourced" (as justification for adding more unsourced information); "anyone who knows Opeth knows that all of there albums are labelled prog rock"; "there are exceptions to those rules [on Wikipedia] and this [adding unsourced genres] should be one of them".

This editor is a classic WP:GENREWARRIOR (essay, I know, used just as a convenient description), who thinks they are the leading authority on whatever it is they are editing, and how could another editor possibly disagree with them? Thing is, occasionally the editor makes some good points and/or good edits, but they don't wait long enough to allow discussion to change consensus, or they make a dozen or more edits across multiple articles, and it's hard to keep up with the few good edits among the large number of undiscussed/unsourced changes or removal of sourced info or whatever. Even earlier today, I thought the user was going to start working within WP policy, but instead they went and made a bunch more of those poor edits across another set of articles. At this point I realised that I was being pulled into the same edit war spiral, so I decided to stop and come here instead. And just to show that I'm not the only editor who has had issues with this editor's work: [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147].

Anyway, sorry for the long write-up, but I wanted to make sure I had provided enough information. I'm hoping a temporary block will help this user slow down, and not be so impatient to get their edits made, and give them time to read important pages like WP:V. Maybe it won't, and we'll be back here again soon, but it's worth a try. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I already explained to him that, when he said I had issues with previous editors it wasn't true 68 I removed a template and apologised after, 70 the user never disagreed with me and we are currently sorting it out via the albums talk page, 71 wasn't a disagreement he was giving me advice which I listened to, 72 me and bretonbrequet spent hours sorting out 3 major discographies, and 73 was me just trying to add a referenced genre. I am not a genre warrior or whatever he is branding me as up until the last couple of days I haven't even edited genres on Wikipedia. On the meshuggah pages I removed extreme metal because it isn't a genre as I spoke to him on his talk page which he gave me a 4 word answer before telling me to stop bothering him and on the opeth pages some pages have unsourced genres on there which he seems fine about but others he doesn't. He has tried to quote me and tried to make me look bad when my intentions were nothing but good. I never pushed my own opinion as fact if you look on any opeth related site you will see there albums are labelled as progressive rock calling some of the albums progressive rock and not others is misleading to readers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"Listen, just listen and try and understand what I am saying and my point of view as a massive fan"; "unsourced or sourced I don't give a shit"; "Most of Wikipedia is unsourced" (as justification for adding more unsourced information); "anyone who knows Opeth knows that all of there albums are labelled prog rock"; "there are exceptions to those rules [on Wikipedia] and this [adding unsourced genres] should be one of them".

Regarding this I never meant it that it is ok to add unsourced info I know how important referencing your work is I was trying to break the conversation into bits when I said that I never said adding unsourced info should be an exception to the rules I meant in cases where it is quiet obvious through listening to what it is. This user seems happy to have certain pages labelled progressive rock but not others when they are all of the same genre plus he is happy to have heritage to be listed as progressive metal even though the so called reference backing it up isn't referring to the album but just a song on the album which I mentioned to him twice on different occasions to no reply. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment above and a ton more unfortunately is referring to all the meshuggah pages which I changed them all free removing extreme metal as a genre as it is not a genre. I am here trying to cooperate because blocking me isn't going to solve the problem as the problems with these pages will remain and I am a useful editor as I have removed multiple vandalism from WWE pages this past week and always try to update with reliable sources. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. What sticks out like a very sore thumb when looking at the revision history of the listed pages is that both the filer and the reported user are edit warring. Maybe if both users stop editing the articles things might get better, but at this point the only action I would take is to block them both. I'm not going to sort out who's "worse" when both have mishandled the content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• In my defense, I'm not removing sourced material, I'm not adding unsourced material (ie I'm following WP:V), and when I realised I was starting to get involved in constant edit warring, that's when I stopped and came here. I've tried going through the usual WP:BRD procedure with the other editor, but the other editor is the one who refuses to participate in it. Anyway, I'm already leaving the contested articles alone until some sort of resolution comes from here, but would it be better to move this to the main WP:ANI and go from there? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is bound for WP:ANI unfortunately. The last time this user was reported here it wasn't acted on either, and what you've outlined above is only the tip of the iceberg. Lukejordan02's editing style is to make (usually massive) changes to discographies, immediately revert back if anyone reverts him, tell people they're wrong, and delete any warnings/discussion from his Talk page. I've spent about 20 minutes looking through his edit history, and he's edit warred with at least a dozen unique editors across many discographies. The only time he doesn't get in an edit war is if no one notices his edits. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have started a new discussion at WP:ANI, as this editor's edits go beyond just edit warring, and in the hopes an admin will take a closer look at it there. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:goethean reported by User:Jyoti.mickey (Result: No violation)

Page: Ramakrishna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 13:01, 27 May 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 610341831 by Jyoti.mickey (talk)")
2. 14:19, 2 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 611198239 by Jyoti.mickey (talk) undo removal of well-sourced material")
3. 16:07, 2 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 611246516 by Jyoti.mickey (talk)")
4. 16:24, 3 June 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 611320447 by Jyoti.mickey (talk) undo changes against talk page consensus")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments:

I believe the user is not engaging in discussion and insisting on his views. After the fourth revert also I waited for the user to substantiate his views but s/he does not discuss the actual content dispute.

—Jyoti (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jyoti.mickey has edit-warred against talk page consensus,[148][149][150][151] which supports my version of the article.[152][153][154] Quite a bit of WP:ICANTHEARYOU on the part of User:Jyoti.mickey. — goethean 16:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the material is well-sourced, correctly attributed, and given due weight, and User:Jyoti.mickey has failed to make a case for its removal. — goethean 17:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. WP:3RR has not been breached. In fact, Goethean has reverted only twice in a 24-hour window. Seems like Goethean has tried to address Jyoti.mickey's points on the talk page (as have others), but Jyotie.mickey doesn't like it. A fair amount of wikilawyering going on by Joyti.mickey as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have been reverted 4 times. I give my point that there are several reliable scholarly reference agreeing on one interpretation and the other interpretation is minor so does not deserve mention. I get reverted unconditionally without even an edit summary two times. In discussion also I don't get direct replies except that my request is silly and I haven't read or such comments which I have ignored. Should there be not direct discussion on the content? I have not forced my content but there is no effective discussion there. It effectively feels like I should abandon my line of thought. I know going by the letter it is not WP:3RR but even if I revert now it will not be so! But I don't intend to revert, I do want a discussion! What choice do I get if that does not happen? Jyoti (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Yatzhek reported by User:Dougweller (Result: )

Page

Aquiline nose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "HOW come you threaten me by blocking me from editing, while I'm publishing data BASED on RELIABLE SOURCES? INSANE!"
2. 15:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Occurrences */ Ripley was an ECONOMIST. Stop pushing lies as facts."
3. 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611691512 by Drmies (talk) Ripley didnt argue with Czekanowski, while he was already dead when Czek. proved Armenoids in Europe"
4. 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "Just STOP putting some subjective information in the article! The article needs anthropological data. one mor edit by an IP and I know what to do."
5. 13:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611676339 by 197.200.24.166 (talk) you are destroying the sourced data. do you realise that?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Aquline nose */ new section"
2. 15:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aquiline nose. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Original research & other issues in the gallery */ just noticed Drmies has been editing - racial stuff should be relegated to a minor section unless we can get a section on the use of nose types in racial anthropology"

Comments:

Editor has been warned before about edit warring, I asked him to take this to the talk page and he continued to edit war. Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What is that? Why are you doing this? did I revert someones valuable contriibutions? NO i DIDn'T! I only want the truth and sourced data to be present of Wikipedia. You remind me of the user User:Windows66 who was attacking me in a similar way and who is now banned for sockpuppetry which I proved. Keep that in mind. Yatzhek (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is an edit warrior also, unfortunately. I don't know if they're really some kind of truther or not, but they insist, stubbornly, foolishly, and disruptively, that there can be only one source in this article--or at least that's what their edits suggest. I suggest the patroling admin forget the last sentence or two from Yatzhek's comment here and pretend it was all in good faith. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that neither Yatzhek nor the IP-hopping blocked user is right in this. (The IP user should conveniently also be reported, but a block will not do since the IP is dynamic.) Anyway, there is little talkpage discussion (in fact, more discussion on my talk page than at talk:Aquiline nose), and a lot of WP:OR was added by Yatzhek, which the IP blanked. Epicgenius (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

First of all - I am the real victim here. Just check the history: [155]. Who started the "edit war" Who? It were the IP and then the user Drmies continued the "war". Check who started the "edit war". Tell me who started it? IP addresses - all runned by either one or another of those users: either User:Drmies, or User:Dougweller. Tell me at least one example, at least ONE example when I revert the valueable edit in the Aquiline nose section. I was the person who was attacked. There is a mass-attack of multiple accounts all aimed on me. Give me one example of edit war performed by me in this case, of course excluding the IP addresses who were performing vandalism and I restored the article. Yatzhek (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think that, by now, WP:COMPETENCE is an issue here. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected (full) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• I can't say I care much for that, Bbb23. It puts a stop to article improvement, and it basically says Doug and I are at fault as well. Of course Doug and I can, since we're admins and each others' socks, edit right through it... Drmies (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• It was the simplest solution given so many reverts. Since the lock, I have warned Yatzhek for their spurious accusations, and Acroterion has warned the user about edit warring. I think you're smart enough to know you can't edit through the lock. However, I'm willing to lift it early if other administrators think it's warranted. In fact, if any uninvolved administrator wants to lift it, that's fine with me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thing is, even if we get protection lifted, there is nothing in your report that confirms to Yatzhek that they were indeed edit warring. Now, it may be that there is nothing that will make them see that (see above, on incompetence), but it seems to me that Dougweller's (extensive) report (thank you Doug) makes a very reasonable case that the editor is warring. Sure, I saw the note you left on their talk page, but that's on another matter, and it's their behavior in the article and the current lock that makes it difficult to work on it--I got JSTOR and a ton of articles open, and I started making drafts on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Bishonen has gone back to semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• {ec}} I've returned the protection to semi, as it was before (on account of IP disruption/socking). I agree with the user/s Drmies/Dougweller, whether they're one or two, that the article shouldn't be held in thrall because of Yatzhek's disruptiveness. Yatzek, please read the warnings on your page carefully, you're very close to a block right now. I'm removing the result "Locked", since I've rescinded it, but I'm not closing this yet, as other uninvolved admins may have something to add, for instance a block of Yatzek for edit warring (I don't have enough time to look at the history as a whole to make that call myself). Bishonen | talk 18:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC).

• In retrospect, my action was too hasty. I have this habit of not looking at diffs in a report unless I need to. So, I didn't go back far enough to see that Yatzhek had indeed breached WP:3RR. Too any users who feel impugned by my action, I apologize. As for blocking Yatzhek now for the previous breach, I feel uncomfortable doing that and will leave to it to other admins. Obviously, if he resumes the war, he will be blocked (I will do it if no one else does), if for no other reason based on Acroterion's warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Bbb: I appreciate your scrutiny and that you don't play favorites. Bish has unprotected. As for Yatzhek, if they stop reverting on that article I'm fine with them not getting blocked, though it's pretty clear that a handful of editors have grave doubts about them. Again, thanks, and happy Boniface day everyone. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Andreea tenismana reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Simona Halep (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Andreea tenismana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611757845 by Biruitorul (talk) De dormit, mai dormi vreodata?"
2. 00:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611757360 by Biruitorul (talk) You are Makedonovlah, who do you think you trick?"
3. 00:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611755739 by Biruitorul (talk)"
4. 23:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "K,if an Aromanian is born under the territory of Romania he is Romanian.Because Aromanian=Latinized populations from some Balkan areas.Romania only Latin country in the Balkans.Please respect this,why do you think it is called (A)ROMANIAN?"
5. 23:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611596678 by Tabercil (talk) Aromanian = Vlach (Romanian).He tries 2 make her Aromanian and before he changed the origins of the Aromanians not to be Romanians,might be from Hungary"
6. 21:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Early years */ Your again? Please ban him Tabercil, this is way too much. Aromanian = Vlach."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Simona Halep. (TW★TW)"
2. 00:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

As soon as the previous 24 hour 3RR block expires, Andreea is back on the 3RR road again. The previous 3RR report has hardly expired. This needs to stop. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Krimuk90 reported by User:Abhi (Result: Both warned)

Page: Deepika Padukone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (User:Krimuk90 is aware of 3RR rule because he warned me about 3RR) [161]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [162] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 June, 2014 (UTC)

It's not constructive to bring this here is it? Please sort out disputes on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, 3RR rule is very strict. Even if you are right, 4th revert invite sure block. The old image, which was there for 2 years, is restored on the suggestion of another user. If User:Krimuk90 has no objection to that image, I would like to end this matter. Abhi (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is when I was blocked after 4th revert. An editor took admin decision, concluded that image will be deleted, and even before admin decision kept reverting my edits. Obviously, admins have different standards for same rule. Rampant favoritism, lawlessness. It force editors to leave wikipedia. That's why I have reduced my presence on wikipedia. Almost quit. Abhi (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Abhi and User:Krimuk90 are both warned. A further revert by either of you may lead to a block. You are now discussing on the talk page; try to reach a conclusion there. See WP:DR if there is no result. The fact the prior image was there for 2 years is no guarantee of consensus. You need to find other people to support your view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User: 217.208.57.69 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Blocked)

Page: Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.208.57.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [168]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [169]

Comments:

The IP is also spamming similar fringe material over multiple other articles - see contribution history. [170] Clearly unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy, and only here to promote a fringe POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. CIreland (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:CurtisNaito and I have both breeched 3RR on Emperor Jimmu (Result: Locked)

CurtisNaito has reverted me 6 times in the last 24 hours. I've done roughly the same backIt's already been established on the talkpage that the material he wishes to add is WP:UNSOURCED (the source he is citing don't support his claims). I have asked him to use the talk page, but in over two weeks he has only repeatedly riffed on "this material IS sourced" without actually addressing other users's concerns. I think that WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD support my claim that the material should stay out until talkpage consensus is established, but if we both are to be blocked, DON'T block my current (dynamic) IP. Block the one beginning "126..." 182.249.240.36 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. The report is malformed, and the IP failed to notify the reported user (I've done so). That said, everyone is edit-warring and discussing the issues on the talk page. Now, they will have to stick to the talk page as they should have done in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Kjangdom reported by User:VictoriaGrayson (Result: Kjangdom warned)

Page

14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

• diff of warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• attempt1
• attempt2
• attempt3

Comments:

Editor was previously warned, and deleted the warning from his talk page (which is his right to do). Also this is a WP:BLP, so we must be extra careful inserting controversial material that has no consensus. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there!

I'm a little surprised about being 'reported', and thought I'd mention a few of points that I hope are taken into consideration.

I was more than happy to discuss the prospect of including a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy on the talk page as you can see. VictoriaGrayson on the other hand contributed very little to this discussion. Clearly consensus was reached to include a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy on the Dalai Lama's page. However, the precise wording of the section was not agreed upon.

@CFynn: made a good suggestion and I made a few small uncontroversial changes (at least I thought they were uncontroversial at the time!) and added his suggestion. I openly said on the talk page that I had made some small changes to this section, and later explained the reasons for these changes.

One of the edits I made to @CFynn:'s suggestion was for a typo.

Another change I made was to do with changing Dholgyal to Dorje - which has also been addressed (we cannot redirect to a link that then redirects again (i.e. Dholgyal Shugden redirects to Dorje Shugden).

However, the important point is that VictoriaGrayson, did not revert my version to Chris' version. Nor did this editor make any attempt at editing the section on the Dorje Shugden controversy to try and improve it. Nor did they express their concerns with my specific changes on the talk page (e.g. deity vs spirit etc). Instead the entire section was simply removed! And this happened a number of times. Personally I would question this approach, especially since it was so clear that consensus had been reached at including a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy in this article. Perhaps one of the moderators could offer some advice here (for both of us)? Thanks in advance :) Kjangdom (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom admits "However, the precise wording of the section was not agreed upon." I rest my case.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is irrelevant! There are no Wikipedia guideline that say that the precise wording of a section has to be agreed on on a talk page before an edit is made. This approach would clearly stifle editing across the board. I don't really want to get drawn into any more debate here. I will however keep an eye out for when a moderator replies. Thanks again. Kjangdom (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Kjangdom is warned that they may be blocked if they revert the article again. I count four reverts on 5 June but it is now too late to issue a block for that. People have been claiming talk page consensus but I don't see it; I recommend a more thorough discussion and briefer statements. See WP:Dispute resolution for some options to consider if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:2607:fcc8:b886:7200:a010:11bf:b579:520a (Result: Protected)

Page: Talk:Fargo (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 130.182.29.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 130.182.31.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]
5. [176]
6. [177]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked for edit warring twice before, and is using an obvious IP to get around it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178] [179] [180]

Comments:
I asked a question on the Fargo TV talk page, after a previous discussion wound up driving away another editor for supposedly policy-based reasons that no one could seem to actually verify. Drmargi then [181] deleted my questions, then announced on a talk page that he wasn't going to comment. With neither of the original editors commenting, Drmargi tried several times to hat the discussion with a snarky note, then did so again while using an obvious IP. The IP's edits are an obvious sock, her only previous edits are to ER-related articles and a discussion [182] on Spooks, which are topics that Drmargi also edits regularly [183].

In the middle of all this, I realized I wasn't going to get any answers from Drmargi on the policy question I had asked, so I hatted the whole thing myself (eventually AussieLegend explained it to me, which was quite helpful) [184] and again here [185] with even more neutral language. However, Drmargi and the IPs continue to push for their hat edit summary, which is actually kind of insulting.

This one is admittedly fairly WP:LAME, and at this point, all I'd like to do is walk away from the whole matter with a neutral hat summary left behind me. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

(Updated material) I see now where Drmargi has claimed not to be online all day [186], even though she was definitely editing here [187] within minutes of the first IP edit to the page [188]. That's the only time frame of the day when the first IP was editing, and Drmargi was online at the same time. By some wacky coincidence.

Users notified here [189] [190] [191]

• There is no actual evidence that Drmargi and 130.182.29.28/130.182.31.140 are the same editor and 2607:fcc8:b886:7200:a010:11bf:b579:520a has himself breached 3RR at Talk:Fargo (TV series) today, having made 4 reverts.[192][193][194][195] The IP is definitely correct in saying that it is WP:LAME. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected (semi) for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• As for "driving another editor away", that is unproven, accusatory, and false, especially since said editor has returned to editing. — Wyliepedia 15:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tilkat reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rahil Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) to 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 06:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) to 02:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC) to 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "r"
   2. 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "e"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rahil Gupta. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'd suggest not letting this one go on account of the editor no longer appearing to edit: duties seem to have been assumed by Shaney 43 (talk · contribs). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Tilkat back in action, removing the AfD template: [196]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• While you're at it: please look also at Arjun7007 (talk · contribs), same article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked. Tilkat and Shaney have been indeffed for sock puppetry by Jpgordon. Arjun7007 has been blocked for 48 hours by Excirial for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:WhyHellWhy reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked; warned)

Page: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WhyHellWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]
5. [202]
6. [203]
7. [204] Edit summary: "I will not back down..."
8. [205]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [206]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207]

Also: [208]

Comments:

Straight forward violation of 3RR and POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that that first diff isn't a revert, but the initial disputed change. The other seven are reverts though, I believe, and seven reverts goes far beyond simply breaking the three-revert rule. Dustin (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd request that the sysop that reviews this fellow's case look at his whole edit history. He has a strong history of tendentious editing in areas relating to the conflict in Ukraine, and has been repeatedly disruptive across many articles for a few months now. This is only the latest of his many spates of disruptive editing. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The reported user was blocked for violating 3RR and for agenda-driven editing. RGloucester, with your last edit reverting to "talk page consensus" you violated 3RR. Consider this a warning that if you revert again at the article for up to three days from now, you risk being blocked. As for your suggestion about general disruptive editing, that is generally not a topic for this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:Retrohead (Result: Both warned)

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: Megadeth discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lukejordan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my talk page & his talk page

Comments:
The user has been removing cited material without previously achieved consensus. The page is already an FA, and any edit warring may question its stability. I've tried to communicate with the other party, but he continues with the edits which I disagree with.--Retrohead (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is full of crap about trying to solve dispute on talk page as I left him a message not 1 hour ago about discussing the edits, I haven't received a reply and the next minute I get a message to inform of this. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have explained my reason for my edits and the way this he says "which I disagree with" makes it sound like I just don't like it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy editing Wikipedia with the best interests for the page and my goal is to improve pages not worsen them if look at my edit history you will see countless edits on UFC pages removing vandalism and adding the latest results and I am trying to tidy up and improve discography pages to make them as simple and clear whilst keeping all of the relevant and important information, I am deeply upset that this user has felt the need to report me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned, both having broken the three-revert rule. A further revert by either party may result in a block. Use the article's talk page to discuss the matter. Seek dispute resolution if there is no consensus. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, can you revert to the revision before the warring occurred?--Retrohead (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't even believe what I am reading above you are just asking animal to revert for you because you have been told not to, the page should be left well alone until a discussion is made. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: Why don't you just discuss it and together decide which version to use? They do not differ in a way that has a dramatic effect on the reader. Other admins may have blocked you both, but blocks are a preventive measure, not a punishment. I trust that you both can sort the dispute out peacefully. Remember there is always dispute resolution. You can call upon other editors to join the discussion if need be, perhaps via a request for comment. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on him to achieve consensus since he is initiating the changes, not the other way round. And I could see that user reported again in near future judging by his vocabulary and aggressive behavior.--Retrohead (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I have said so...... many times before I am willing to discuss the edits and I think that is best so any disagreements and misunderstandings can be cleared up it is you who is refusing to cooperate in discussing the matter.

You should be grateful that animal hasn't blocked us both, I am and want to discuss and get the matter sorted not play the blame game and try to shift the responsibility on to someone else. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Closing this discussion. Use the talk page as directed. Seek dispute resolution and call upon other editors if necessary. I'm verging on being too WP:INVOLVED, I'm unsure how lenient another admin may be. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:22, 8 June 2014 (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:86.138.156.214 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: No action)

Page

Tiny Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612108395 by Davey2010 (talk) Failure to do this on my talk page will result in blocking me and protecting this page."
2. 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612107988 by Davey2010 (talk) go to User talk:86.138.156.214#Pop for a further debate. NOT the article talk page."
3. 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612107363 by Davey2010 (talk)  —SMALLJIM&nbsp told me to do this."
4. 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612107101 by Davey2010 (talk) Since when did I say stuff about twitter? I just said "please see User talk:86.138.156.214#Pop for the full discussion. Twitter is NOT mentioned."
5. 17:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612106584 by Davey2010 (talk) Again, please look at User talk:86.138.156.214#Pop for the full discussion."
6. 17:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612106438 by Davey2010 (talk) Please see User talk:86.138.156.214."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tiny Pop. (TW)"
2. 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Tiny Pop. (TW)"
3. 18:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tiny Pop. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Non notable programmes */ new section"
2. 18:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Non notable programmes */ re"

Comments:

The IP seems to keep adding a non notable programme to the article despite it not being notable, I've attempted to discuss the issue and even made a suggestion but with no success, Cheers →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that I was called away before this broke out. I had just started a discussion about a related edit with the IP.[213] There seems to be misunderstanding on both sides here. I don't think any action needs to be taken – I'll attempt to explain to both parties on Talk:Tiny Pop.  —SMALLJIM  19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP continued to revert despite a discussion and thus broke 3rr, And as far as I can see I've not misunderstood nothing, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Without realizing till just now .... I've also broken the 3rr, But since there's hopefully going to be a discussion with the above 2 editors about it - Would it be a good idea to close this ?, Thanks →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• No action taken. No disruption since Smalljim initiated the discussion at Talk:Tiny Pop. Further reverts may result in a block. Seek dispute resolution if there is no consensus. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks MusikAnimal - This is a lesson I've certainly learnt :) Anyway thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Richey90211 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No action)

Page: Coolie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richey90211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated reverts to article space. No 3RR violation but they do voice the intent to continue warring on their talk page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [214]
2. [215]
3. [216]
4. [217]
5. [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219], [220],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ANI discussion started by violator, talk page discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• While the activities of Richey90211 can be considered as long term edit warring. I still don't think that a block will help at all. User hardly gets on, and whenever he is online he maybe editing the page. There maybe a need to protect this page, for about 1 month or more. Page itself has no recent events, or it has to be updated or daily/weekly basis. Protection will prompt Richey90211 to discuss. OccultZone (Talk) 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What experiences I've had with him (and his attitude and purpose), if that doesn't work, a topic ban may be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I second that, because I had reverted the user yesterday. But you can inform us if user has carried out same behavior on multiple pages. Apparently, topic ban is for abusing the edit privileges on multiple pages, or having the long history of blocks after conflicting on same wikiproject(quality is not a criteria here). OccultZone (Talk) 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be an WP:SPA focused entirely on "righting the great wrong" Wikipedia has done to coolies. This has the potential to cross over into pages such as Slavery and Indentured servant (though it hasn't yet). I've seen topic bans (even recently) for editors who have been focused on a single article. But, it would be more better to protect the page and try to get him to talk about it first. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have communicated with you guys several times and there has been no change and I will get many people to protest against this article because its racist... I have provided several credible sources that state indentured servitude is NOT slavery yet you refuse to change this in the article. You have etymology of coolie completely wrong. You put a whole bunch of hypotheticals instead of what the word actually means. The word means unskilled laborer or hireling. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie

Listen no offense to you guys, but you are re-writing history falsely. I am from those islands and this article is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not done anything wrong to coolies. The writers of the article coolie has. Wikipedia is a site that is open to the public and you do not have the right to compose history the way you want to. You have disregarded my credible facts to serve your own racist agenda. I am more than willing to talk but nothing is being done to change this article and that is ridiculous because you are only accepting your own views as history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to talk about this and have this article changed to accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• No action taken. Appears to be under control, but further edit warring may result in a block. Continue to use the talk page to reach a consensus. If one cannot be found, seek dispute resolution. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:151.66.43.155 reported by User:Jeffro77 (Result: Semi-protected; blocked)

Page: Rolf Furuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 151.66.43.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.66.120.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [222]
2. [223]
3. [224]
4. [225]
5. [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227], [228]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The anonymous single-purpose editor has made no attempt to provide an edit summary or to respond to warnings at User Talk, so raising at article Talk would have been futile.

Comments:
The editor's IP has changed during their edits, but it is clear that they are the by the same person, and they geolocate to the same ISP and location.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the same anonymous user as 151.66.113.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who engaged in the same behaviour from 31 March until 4 April. See previous ANI and previous 3RR.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

When reported in the past, the user's response has been to vandalise my User page[229] and the User page of the admin who blocked him[230].--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I semi-protected the article for three months. I blocked the IP who most recently edited the article for two weeks (the other hasn't edited since June 2).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the article. It's fairly evident that the anonymous editor is on a dynamic IP, so the block on the user will only help for a few days.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:61.245.160.221 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Protected )

Page

American Academy of Financial Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Please address the issue raised at the talk page rather than accusing others of controlling the article."
2. 05:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612170095 by NeilN (talk)But still that is single source."
3. 05:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612171230 by NeilN (talk)So? please discuss on the Talk Page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on American Academy of Financial Management. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Single Source */"
2. 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Single Source */"

Comments:

One more with different IP. [231] NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A team of editors who are showing 3RR for other editors to silence them while they themselves group together to evade 3RR and super impose their POV on the article.61.245.160.221 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation: Editors with no COI looking after an article plagued by socks and whitewashing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, editors representing the AAFM have attempted numerous times to control this article. A number of socks have been blocked, and I have no doubt that these IPs represent the same editors. BMK (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If we represent the AAFM, why you can't represent the two previous directors, King and Baring, took the founder of the AAFM, George Mentz, to court for libel, slander and defamation after he made numerous claims publicly on various websites about them and their business activities..61.245.163.56 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, not to be too obvious about it, because the editors who are reverting your changes have a track record which you cannot duplicate.

NeilN, for instance, has been here since 2005, and has almost 60,000 edit to articles and to almost 23,000 pages, while I have around 144,000 edits to about 29,000 pages. If you want to make the argument that we are under the control of King and Baring, you go right ahead and do so, only I think you had better wear ear protection for tne disdainful response you'll receive. BMK (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected the panda ₯’ 10:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AzraeL9128 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AzraeL9128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [232]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [233]
2. [234]
3. [235]
4. [236]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238]

Comments:

Previous warning on talk page concerning personal attacks [239].

This user could potentially be the same person as [240] who made essentially the same edit earlier and then reverted three times before AzraeL9128 jumped in. The rhetoric in the personal attacks that the user was previously warned about resembles the comments by 2A02 on the talk page of this article. Regardless, even if not, there's a 3RR violation here. Note that AzraeL9128 has failed to participate in the talk page discussion (that's if 2A02 is not him).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:70.215.4.43, User:70.215.10.154 reported by User:Blackguard SF (Result: Blocked)

Page: An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: History of Scottish devolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.215.4.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.215.10.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [241]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [242]
2. [243]
3. [244]
4. [245]

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]

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

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

Comments:

New user using two IPs two make wildy POV edits and revert any reverts. Full disclosure: user attempted to open an ANEW on me earlier today. Blackguard 23:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Blackguard SF reported by User:70.215.4.43 (Result: IP Blocked)

Page: An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blackguard SF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Dreadstar ☥ 23:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Alaminalpha reported by User:HangingCurve (Result: 48 hours)

Page

Sani Abacha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) to 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611234829 by Faizan (talk)"
   2. 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610246074 by HangingCurve (talk)"
2. 23:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612141194 by HangingCurve (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) to 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Sani Abacha. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is baldly reverting to a WP:PEA--laden version of the article. While normal practice calls for this to be resolved at the talk page, since the reverted version borders on vandalism I'm taking it here. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. They have been edit warring at Sani Abacha and removing well-sourced negative material about the leader's financial misconduct. This user has been here since 2007 but has never left a comment on a talk page. On June 1 he was edit warring at the Nigeria article to remove well-sourced demographic information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Catflap08 reported by User:Noisemonkey (Result: Protected)

Page: Nichiren Shōshū (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Catflap08 (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 [249]
2. 2 [250]
3. 3 [251]
4. 4 [252]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [253] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs)

Comments:

Catflap08 reverted only three times ([254], [255], [256]). The first and second entries in your report are the same edit, which makes it hard to assume good faith from you in filing this report. Also, it was almost a week ago, and you didn't warn him or or notify him of this discussion. I'm willing to bet money an admin's not going to touch this except to close it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Dreadstar ☥ 06:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:Retrohead (Result: Already blocked)

Page: UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lukejordan02 (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. [257]
2. [258]
3. [259]
4. [260]
5. [261]
6. [262]
7. [263]
8. [264]
9. [265]
10. [266]
11. [267]
12. [268]
13. [269]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [270]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in this case, so I haven't initiated a discussion.--Retrohead (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Comments:

This user is now falsifying cases having got into a edit war with this user via Megadeth discography which resulted in us both being blocked the first thing this user decides to do after being unblocked is to make up a case about me I want a full investigation into this user please, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As anyone who checks out the links will see, most of the revisions I did was reverting vandalism which is not apart of the 3RR. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is also sending messages to my talk page without reason

This pasted text makes it look like the other user posted this here, and is not necessary for this report. Dreadstar ☥ 06:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Retrohead (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC) June 2014 Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov. Your edits have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Retrohead (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1 I am not currently engaged in an edit war and 2 my edits haven't been reverted as my edits were good as, reflected by 3 other editors who sent me thanks for them. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

He has since sent me another claiming I have personally attacked him on here, Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked Dreadstar ☥ 06:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:2.191.3.84 reported by User:Royroydeb (Result: )

Page

2013–14 Iran Pro League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Foreign players */"
2. 20:21, 23 May 2014 "/* Foreign players */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unexplained removal of contents. In Asian leagues, there is a qouta for foreign players and so this table is very important. I cant understand why this IP is reverting these edits without explaining the reason. RRD13 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:האורים והתומים reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: 48 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

האורים והתומים (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612334974 by Qwertyus (talk) - I am not a registered user but somebody has to lock this page down like the user in Hebrew has attempted. Too many knuckle heads"
2. 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612333966 by Qwertyus (talk) - Reason for undoing?"
3. 09:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Stopping the unsupported edit wars from occurring and initiating talks before allowing edits"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on INSEAD. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Malicious, unjustified removals or defamations against INSEAD */"

Comments:

Even if the user is not a sockmaster, they did violate WP:3RR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. User has been warring to remove the COI tag and removing certain business school ratings that are less favorable to INSEAD, leaving more favorable ones. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Hahnchen (Result: Both warned)

Page: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&oldid=612062591

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612116810&oldid=612114515
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612142441&oldid=612142215
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612144209&oldid=612143841
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612364300&oldid=612338481
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612364973&oldid=612364635
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612365431&oldid=612365211

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyulong&diff=612367166&oldid=612367111

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_outside_input_on_Pok.C3.A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire

Comments:
I wasn't initially involved in this, but got drawn in seeing a thread on WT:VG. Information about the subject has been leaked, and it has been picked up by reliable sources, who are reporting the contents of said leak as fact. User:Artichoker added the content on 8th June, and every time was reverted by Ryulong. After clarifying that GameSpot is a reliable source and making sure that the facts were referenced, I attempted to re-add the information, only to get Ryulong's insistence that his own amateur judgements trump those of a industry standard professional publication. - hahnchen 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't make a retaliatory report. There has been plenty of discussion to say that in this situation GameSpot's reliability is non-existant. You and Artichoker have just ignored and argued against it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not in retaliation, I was writing the report and you fired first, I thought it best to just copy and paste what I had into this one. I wasn't quick enough to compile that in three minutes. Let's keep it together. - hahnchen 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Being right" doesn't make you immune to breaking 3RR yourself. If a dispute is taking place, both parties should stop. There is no "right version" and both parties are at fault for edit warring during that time. There was never really substantial consensus to back up your reasoning Ryulong, and either version was both just as right and wrong as the other. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Hahnchen. Reports aren't combined like this and this is definitely retaliatory. If you had evidence for 6 reverts as you have here you could have reported already but you only did it after I sent you the AN3 warning. These should be separate as all reports are. And Blake, there was no consensus for the inclusion. Two people being unimpressed by two other people's arguments doesn't cancel one out and validate the other, even though status quo was exclusion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

(Man, I've got like 5 edit conflicts trying to post this...) There was no consensus for the exclusion either. And as I said, "being right" doesn't give you divine power to break the rules. Both of you edit warred. The reasoning behind this is that if you were really right, and had consensus,SOMEONE ELSE would have reverted it to the "right version" and you wouldn't have had to. I was going to revert you myself, but Hanchen was too quick, so it is a little disappointing he got an additional strike because I was too slow. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. I attempt WP:BRD every god damn time but people just edit war the content back in again. I have done everything I can to engage in discussion on this matter for the past 48 hours but everyone wants this stupid unsubstantiated but probably 100% true rumor that will be verified within the next hour posted two days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I wanted to keep this together with the report above, but got reverted several times and thought that the 3RR noticeboard was probably the worst place to have an edit war. - hahnchen 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, reports are never combined as you wanted these two to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, although given the current edits at Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, it looks like you've gotten over it and no longer using edit summaries as shouting exhibitions. - hahnchen 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've thrown in the towel even though I totally intend to rewrite the section based on reliable sources that do not mention CoroCoro but rather Nintendo's digital E3 conference which goes live in 5 minutes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Both of these have been resolved so can we just withdraw both of them and be done with, because any block after this point would be punitive which isn't what blocks are for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with whatever, I'm expecting a trout. - hahnchen 20:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not as optimistic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what the process is here, but I'm fine with these being closed without further action. - hahnchen 21:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. The more important thing now is trying to figure out what to do with these situations in the future, which just requires more discussion at WT:VG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment: My suggestion would be to block Ryulong for 72 hours and Hahnchen for 24 hours. Someone with Ryulong's block history ought to be more careful. Hahnchen should not be trying to join him in the pantheon of edit warriors. Ryulong's revert war against the game announcement has no obvious justification in policy. A block woud be preventive in this case because Ryulong is otherwise likely to continue this pattern indefinitely. The real question is whether the block should be much longer. Ryulong has nine past blocks that appear correct. User:Blake's comments above are noteworthy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, WP:NEWSORG specifically warns against reporting on rumor, which (until as of this morning when Nintendo actually confirmed the details) was the information being attempted to be inserted into the article. I can't speak to the actions, since this is not a case covered under the exceptions to WP:3RR. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG is a guideline while WP:V is a policy. It's true that neither one provides an exemption from edit warring under WP:3RRNO. Ryulong recommends more discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games. While discussion is good, the videogame project can't issue exemptions from the edit warring policy either. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did agree that 3RRNO has no applicable exemptions here and can't justify the action, but I stand by that Ryulong has a very valid argument against inclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties warned per the above discussion. Premature announcement of a video game (if that's what it was) is not vandalism and is not a BLP violation. There is no excuse for this under WP:3RRNO. Both parties opened complaints here and both had already broken 3RR, so it's unclear what they expected to happen. It would be better to take the to issue to admins *before* you go over the limit. If you can't control your own reverts you will face unpredictable consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Hahnchen reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Both warned)

Page: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hahnchen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [271]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [272]
2. [273]
3. [274]
4. [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [277]

Comments:
For the past couple of days, there has been an ongoing discussion at Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire#"CoroCoro leaks" as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Request for outside input on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire regarding the nature of websites posting information from published material that is currently not available to the general public. Arguments have been put forward by myself and other editors saying WP:V requires that anyone can independently verify the content which is not possible as the print material is not yet available, while Hahnchen and another editor argue that being posted on this particular website which is normally considered a reliable source automatically grants it verifiable status. Despite no general consensus about the issue, Hahnchen decided to restore the contested content despite my present disagreement. I made all attempts to engage in discussion this issue but Hahnchen simply disagrees with all the points presented by multiple editors and is instead siding with another editor and restoring the content of questionable sourcing. He has also not engaged in any other arguments, other than comparing this whole situation about Pokémon fansites posting illegally obtained photographs to Edward Snowden's whistleblowing on the NSA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also in his retaliatory report below, it shows how he effectively gamed me into breaking 3RR on this instance despite being repeatedly told that consensus is against his additions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note how even Ryulong's Diff of attempted resolution shows him trying to discredit GameSpot's editorial process just because he too does not have access to the sources. A reliable source can certify information that would otherwise be unreliable through their professional editorial processes, that's the definition of a reliable source. I am trying to add reliably sourced information relevant to the subject, and it is consistently being reverted. Here is the source - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pokemon-omega-ruby-alpha-sapphire-remakes-add-new-mega-evolutions/1100-6420187/ - hahnchen 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's the only diff I could find when I was doing the whole automated thing that didn't work. The source is problematic and Masem and I have been saying that for the past two days but you just want the content to be posted because you think GameSpot staff members bless anything that they post.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

And GameSpot doesn't have access to the source either. They're posting content originally from the unreliable source Serebii.net where they say they found photos on 2chan or some other Japanese website of pages from the magazine. Serebii is unreliable and anyone who reports on them in a chain is unreliable. This is fact and supported by WP:V, as is the argument that because no one can go get the magazine to know if it's correct (with as what happened with IGN's reporting on The Last Guardian over the weekend) we may have completely incorrect information. At least until they make the announcement at E3 in 5 minutes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You are not in a position to override the judgment of a reliable source. I value the professional editorial processes at GameSpot over your judgment. I'm not interested in playing source-sleuth with you, and I don't like the game you've tried to impose on everyone else. There are times that reliable sources are wrong, and when they're wrong, they issue a retraction, and we can edit the article to reflect that. But for the last two days, you have been suppressing relevant, reliably sourced information from Wikipedia, because you don't like it. - hahnchen 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the only person to point out that in this situation this website cannot be considered a reliable source because they're reporting on rumors posted on a fansite. Yeah it's probably 100% true but when we are 100% aware that the content is not available to the general public yet we should use discretion when discussing it on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, consensus on WT:VG seemed to be that "If rumors are notable enough to post, this is good to go". Stating the leak as true information "confirmed by CoroCoro" was wrong, and correct to remove. However, changing the content to "Leaks of CoroCoro said this" changed the discussion to a whole new ballgame. We are no longer trying to assert WP:V because we aren't verifying that the content is true, nobody can do that, as you said. We are verifying the existence of the rumor, and then debating on whether or not it is within content guidelines for us to include reports of rumors. However, you became blind and never saw the discussion change, and continued to argue for the variability of the rumor as fact. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing that says this rumor is really notable to discuss. And rumor mongering isn't something Wikipedia should do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The fact that multiple reliable sources reported on it makes it notable. They wouldn't have made whole articles about it if the information was like a leak of a single name. That the leak contained such substantial information made it notable enough for multiple reliable sources to report on, thus allowing us to report on it. But like I said, that is what the WT:VG discussion was trying to move towards, whether the information was allowed under content guidelines, as it met WP:V and WP:N just fine. But it got distracted by the fact that "the information can't be verified" because the articles are sourcing Serebii, which makes no sense. We don't need to verify the information as fact if the content was rewritten to not treat it as such. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole issue is that their known source isn't reliable so why should they be reliable? But now it's all moot because of the Pokémon trailer that was just shown.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it. It doesn't need to be reliable, because we should treat it as a rumor and not fact. We can verify the fact that a rumor existed, by the numerous reliable sources that reported on it. However, as I am just now discovering, WP:VGSCOPE states that rumors should not be included in our articles. That is the guideline you should be throwing around from now on, not WP:V or WP:RS. If the content says "Leaks of CoroCoro contained this", we can verify that with reliable sources. The question is, "should we?" _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No. None of the sources have treated the content as a "rumor". They've presented everything as fact. Just look at GameSpot's piece. They say that information from CoroCoro has shown up online (from Serebii) and are just presenting the information as fact because none of them are aware that CoroCoro won't be out for 3 more days.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point there. If all the sources treat the leak as fact, we can't treat it as a leak, because the sources treat it as fact. I am sure that at least one of those sources said it was unconfirmed information from a leak.... right? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The only website out of the 4 that were posted by Artichoker, myself, and yourself that refers to any of this as a "leak" was Slashgear. Gamespot, Siliconera, and Kotaku just present it as is, as did Serebii. None of them acknowledge the fact that the CoroCoro issue isn't out yet. Not to mention that official information following the E3 conference proves some of the content posted by the websites factually incorrect (the new forms are translated as "Primal").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that Ryulong has edited the report to include diffs from other editors (in this case User:Artichoker). When I reinserted the information into the article, I also made clear of the sourcing and removed the factual inaccuracy that Ryulong complained about in this edit. - hahnchen 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both parties warned per the report below. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:50.81.188.239 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gone with the Wind (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.81.188.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [278]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [279]
2. [280]
3. [281]
4. [282] (first 4 reverts in 24 hour period)
5. [283] (last 4 reverts in 24 hour period)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

Comments:

Further background: I have tried to explain to the IP through edit summaries, contacting the editor at their talk page and initiating discussion on the article talk page. There is never any response from them other than a revert. I think my good faith has stretched as far as it can go now and I am being dragged deeper and deeper into an edit war, so I'm turning it over to ANI. If the editor won't discuss the issue or stop inserting the content there is nothing further I can do anyway.

There are some other concerns. Initially I thought it was just a case of the editor correcting something and not providing a source, but the editor made a further edit that I categorically know is not true. There are a wealth of sources documenting the film's premiere in Atlanta, so I am beginning to suspect the editor is deliberately inserting false information.

It is also worth noting that this IP address has been blocked five times already and has just come off a year long block (see [286]). Betty Logan (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 years, for persistent vandalism after previous year-long block for same expired. Dreadstar ☥ 04:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Enlightened one088 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enlightened one088 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [287]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [288]
2. [289]
3. [290]
4. [291]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [292]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [293]

Comments:

I have continuously undone edits which users have repeatedly deleted and vandalized. Originally I had received an email from "Doc James" stating to post reliable sources. I took his advice into consideration and re-posted my section with a reliable source from "PubMed.gov". According to "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), "Pubmed" is a reliable and legitimate source which I used for my edit.~~enlightened_one088~~

Another revert here [294] occurring after this was filled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

And another one here [295] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. A brand new account comes out of nowhere to start edit warring on circumcision and related topics. Could this be the same person as User:Santacide? EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. The other new account just hit its 4 day old mark but hasn't made 10 edits yet so cannot join in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Antoniopadillarocks reported by User:Ahecht (Result: Blocked)

Page

Happy (Pharrell Williams song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "This was not fake. Not fake, really really not fake. Not fake. Not fake. That one is real. Real real real. Real."
2. 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "This is not unsourced. This was Sourced! So do not remove!"
3. 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "This not Unsoucred. Please do not remove that or I will get mad at you!"
4. 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Not fake. Please do not remove and do not block me! Because I hate blocks!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Happy (Pharrell Williams song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */ new section"

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, this user has a long history of using antagonistic and uncivil edit summaries, including personal threats. This user has been blocked before for disruptive editing. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:202.159.165.92 reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: McMinnville UFO photographs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 202.159.165.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612537088&oldid=612536851

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612530070&oldid=612525614

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612534315&oldid=612533878

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612535963&oldid=612535083

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612536851&oldid=612536051

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612537133&oldid=612537088

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=611891391&oldid=611740936

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.159.165.92&oldid=612534627

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMcMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612535764&oldid=607721574

Comments:
IP requested assistance at WP:Help Desk and was advised to discuss on article talk page and stop edit-warring. IP is repeatedly inserting non-neutral language into article. Poster has not been editing article. Apparently another editor starting reporting the edit war here and did not finish.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for ten days. Too many IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jaqeli reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612619961 by Dougweller (talk)"
2. 11:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "this is my TP"
3. 14:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
4. 14:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "get lost from my TP!"
5. 14:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "←Blanked the page"
6. 15:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "It's in archives; get lost!"
7. 16:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "get the hell out from my TP; it is in archives! get lost!!!!!!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "EW warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC) "EW warning"

Comments:

User:Mdann52 I don't think this is the right noticeboard to report this. WP:BLANKING prohibits the deletion of a notice regarding an active sanction. It is a violation to remove that text once (or let's say twice, supposing that the editor does not know the rule the first time), it is not necessary to count 4 deletions in 24h (3RR). Avpop (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week. I'll discuss a possible compromise with Jaqeli on his talk page. If the community thinks that the advice about ban notices in WP:UP#CMT is too strict, they should change the advice. Until then we should enforce it. The advice forbids removing "any other notice regarding an active sanction". EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:MastCell (Result: Warned)

Page: Marco Rubio (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: Revision as of 04:53, 8 June 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:57, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit, with a spurious claim of SYN/OR)
2. 18:23, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
3. 18:48, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
4. 20:17, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Collect is an experienced editor, well aware of 3RR, and previously blocked at least once for violating it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Rubio talk page thread

Comments:
Collect is repeatedly reverting changes to this article, reaching 4RR within less than 3 hours. There seems to be little or no support for his contention that this is a BLP issue. Even in a best case, the issue is sufficiently borderline that he should be soliciting feedback rather than edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Note the last edit was simply regarding a WTA where Wikipedia's voice clearly stated that a person is "labelled a climate change denier". , and that I started a proper discussion at BLP/N. In short I HAVE ASKED FOR FEEDBACK. Is that sufficiently clear? And I do regard using "climate change denier" as a descriptive word for a living person to be "contentious" and further I have noted that such edits are subject to the BLP strictures placed on such articles at the Climate Change Arbitration decision, which I cited. Calling a person a "climate change denier" on its face falls under the ArbCom rules. This "report" is clearly not valid at this point, and the fact the OP seems not to regard WP:BLP/N to be proper feedback, nor my use of the article talk page as "proper feedback" seems rather the actual problem. As far as the outre claim that the SYNTH was not SYNTH -- MastCell actually removed that part of the edit -- meaning that he clearly agreed it was improper. BTW, MastCell -- the "warning" is supposed to be given before you let both barrels loose. Collect (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, you're supposed to ask for feedback and then stop edit-warring. This looks like a content dispute where you've failed to convince anyone that there's a BLP issue, but edit-warred nonetheless. Your consistent failure to provide actual diffs to back your constant BLP accusations should be raising red flags by now, in terms of taking your statements at face value. This is edit-warring, plain and simple.

As for "warning" you... I tried that the last time you edit-warred and violated 3RR, just a month or two ago. I gave you a heads-up rather than reporting you. And you responded aggressively and gave me a bunch of shit about it—even though you were the one violating policy, and I was going out of my way to be courteous and give you a chance to self-revert. I'm past the point in my wiki-career where I keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. I gave you a courtesy notice when I posted this report, as per our best practices, and now it's up to someone else to decide how to handle your 4 reverts. MastCell ^Talk 00:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh -- you mean the time I self-reverted? [296]? I had not realized you were so angry that I had SELF-REVERTED then. Meanwhile, would you care to decry this edit there [297]? I would love to see you say that was against BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for interrupting while the two of you are bickering, but it's been a while, MastCell, since I read the The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia on your user page. I thought it was great the first time, and it hasn't lost any of its punch. It lightens my day in a twisted sort of way.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I'm getting more cynical by the minute. Eight years is probably too long for anyone to spend here. You're messing with my bickering momentum, though. :P MastCell ^Talk 03:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse this report. The "proper discussion" was started by him on BLP/N without even a courtesy note to let other editors know he had taken the issue elsewhere instead of using the article's talk page. The threads on the Marco Rubio talk page regarding recent edits (three) have all been opened by my, none by him. His first comment addressed at me in the TP contained two completely unfounded attacks not only failing WP:AGF, WP:FOC and WP:NPA but even accusing me of an edit I had not done. The term "climate change denier" is used by numerous WP:RS (just check the article). Today Collect removed twice [298][299] the same content, first claiming "OR, SYNTH", then changing the reason to "political purposes" and afterwards re-affirming his removal now claiming a supposed incorrect use of the word "although" when that word was nowhere to be found. Being an experienced editor, some action should be taken. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 05:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
• bumped into this, American political topics are very partisan here, I see good work here by Collect, this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612542743&oldid=612537336 edit removes a "labeling" and was a total correct take down - looking at the story prior to Collect's edits, the content has been improved in respect to Neutrality. The complainant above GABA is still reverting the story https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marco_Rubio&diff=612590741&oldid=612554185 he made a revert two mins after posting his desire to have action taken against the COLLECT editor Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, it was ArbCom which ruled that bandying "climate change denier" etc. falls under BLP, and this was in an official ArbCom case. The charges that I am doing anything other than following the requirements of that case are not quite accurate at all, as are the self-serving arguments that changing "labelled" to "called" is in any iota of sense improper, while the complainant continues to revert. [300] is, IMO, a blatant WP:BLP violation on its own. Calling for action against me at that point is simply, again IMO, grossly improper. Now back to bed. Collect (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• The edit which put Collect in violation of 3RR changed "labelled" to "called". A large number of editors work on the Rubio BLP, and it was entirely unnecessary for Collect to edit-war on this particular issue: if it is a BLP problem, then other editors can take care of it -- and if it's only Collect who feels this way then consensus is against him. The inclination to edit-war in circumstances like this needs to be controlled, and since Collect can't seem to control it himself… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been over three years since Collect was last blocked, though it's somewhat striking that all of his six blocks in the 2008 — 2011 period were for reverting too much (3RR or edit warring or breaching 1RR or 0RR restrictions). Collect, keeping your nose clean for three years builds up a kind of reluctance to block, at least in me, similar to the way one doesn't like to sully a completely clean block log. You were edit warring, and I don't find your arguments above especially convincing. But there are arguments, there exist certain possible complications, so I won't block at this time. But please be aware that I was within a whisker of doing it, so if you'd like your 2012 — 2014 (incidentally almost all of 2011, too) block log to continue looking good, don't act like this again. I'm pretty offended by your tone in much of the above, also. For an editor as experienced as you to pick on the lack of a formal 3RR warning "before you let both barrels loose", doesn't do you any favours either. Another admin may make a different call, so I'm leaving the "result" field open. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC).

Actually three of the blocks more than three years ago were for 1RR - and 2 were quickly reversed by AN discussion (in one case, the block was found to be by a specifically involved admin of all things). Cheers -- but now Nomo has commented, my life is complete <g>. Collect (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I see one block that was overturned; in the remaining cases where a block was lifted, it appears to have been after commitments by you to go forth and sin no more—often under additional editing restrictions which aren't always immediately apparent from the block log. For instance, when King of Hearts lifted his block on you in 2010 ([301]), the (un)block log entry just says "By mutual consent". The discussion on your talk page with the blocking administrator, however, notes that you were placed under a 1-revert-per-week restriction on two articles as a condition of unblocking: [302].

I would say that you definitely exhibited more skill than most at reading the writing on the wall when you were blocked, and were able to formulate or agree to community-acceptable unblock terms with credible alacrity. I further don't think that judgement errors you made years ago should be considered with the same weight they might if they had happened more recently—though they should not be ignored entirely, either. However, you do yourself no favors when you invite readers here to incorrectly infer that many of your previous blocks were not appropriately placed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

2/0 was involved, and clearly told so. KofH was actually per AN reversal and saving face on his part, Tiptoe was for a "clear notification" which was placed after the block which I find amusing. Gwen was for an edit more than two weeks prior to the block. All of which is well documented, and an indication why blindly reading a block log is asinine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Collect is warned for 3RR violation. An admin may block without further notice if Collect does any more reverts on this article that don't *literally* fall under WP:3RRNO. Some recent edits at Marco Rubio suggest that those who are adding the climate change material prefer to paint Rubio as a nutcase rather than giving the sort of presentation of his position that a neutral expositor might provide. It is hard to disagree with User:McDoobAU93's suggestion at BLP/N that Instead of applying labels based on what Rubio said, why not just include what Rubio said and let the reader draw their own conclusions? If the editing at Marco Rubio doesn't settle down it is reasonable to leave WP:ARBCC notices for anyone reverting material about climate change, on either side. EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)