Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive208

User:76.189.111.199 reported by User:Medeis (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: concern with indentation when sources for content is at issue
 * 2nd revert: restoral of unreferenced material to text and continued manipulation of format
 * 3rd revert: continued manipulation of format, deletion of hidden content without consensus or discussion as mentioned on talk, and restoral of unreferenced material preventing In The News nomination from continuing
 * 4.0th revert: restoral of hidden content and continued manipulation of format without discussion at talk and regardless of 3RR warning
 * 4.1th revert: reversion of cited material add to article to meet admin tariqabjotu's explicit notice that the article be expanded to meet the requirements of an ITN nomination.
 * 5th revert: a straight out revesion of a previous edit, the second after he was warned of 3RR and an active AN3 complaint.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Note the IP user's immediate response was to complain that I have a Greek signature before erasing that comment and replacing it with an irrelevant comment after he had been warned of 3RR.


 * Please note the user's actions have been reverted in full and the references needed been added by others while I busy dealing with this edit warring.


 * During the time of this dispute, the article was under nomination for a listing under the Recent Deaths section of In The News on the front page. Please note my edits were made either to add references that had been marked as tagged  or to hide unreferenced material which had not been tagged but for which there was no consensus to remove .  This was noted by me on the talk page as soon as it was first done .  Note that this response this drew was wholesale deletions, , and this of newly added material  requested by an admin here  and this contempt  on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Comment: This article is developing fast due to Koop's recent death. There is a high rate of edits from many people. The IP has ideas for fixing the article's style and organization and is surely not trying to make it worse. In some cases he has backed your own changes. If he makes himself into an immovable obstacle you could have a case. Also if there is abortion-related edit warring admins might have to step in. Consider making more use of the talk page when you have a disagreement. Tariqabjotu is not acting as an admin when he gives advice about preparing an article for WP:ITN. It looks like better sources are needed. If you don't like the IP's complaint about your Greek-letter signature you might try to get WP:NLS changed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he has absolutely not "backed" my own changes, he has deleted material I hid for later referencing regardless of my explaining that explicitly on the talk page and warning him about it. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP user is doing it again in Village pump (policy). --George Ho (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, he did just the 2RR, not '3'. --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Developing fast has nothing to do with it, neither does abortion or any other POV. The problem is this IP user feels entitled to do whatever he likes, wherevever, without discussion, but while responding to an attempt toward dialog with a snipe about a signature.  You'll notice there are two complaints against this user by independent editors since the user was notified of this complaint yesterday, one regarding refactored talk page edits and the other a formal ANI.  As well as a fifth reversion {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._Everett_Koop&diff=540802418&oldid=540795938] during the same period after this complaint was filed.  Please give a ruling based on the fact that five reversions in a row regardless of a warning after the third has nothing to do with quickly adding material to an article. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Medeis, you have not made any use of the talk page since my last comment and I see no continuing war. It is now 36 hours since the original reverts you reported. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Thaistory (Result: no violation)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chatri_Sityodtong&oldid=535690775


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The article is about a businessman, [muay thai] trainer, and gym owner. I added sourced information about the subject's background (including his real name, not just his ring name) and business background (how he made his millions, which allowed him to become a gym owner). None of this information paints him in a negative light. Yet this information has been repeatedly deleted or reverted. I'm really at a loss as to why. All the other editors are IP numbers based out of Singapore. This is my first notice on the noticeboard, apologies if I'm misinterpreting the rules.Thaistory (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 *  K rakatoa    K atie   06:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:98.193.187.197 --> User:Laborinvain reported by Location (talk) (Result:60 hrs )
Page:

User being reported:  -->

Time reported: 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:28, 27 February 2013  (edit summary: "Calling Lane "a conspiracy theorist" is pejorative. It is also inaccurate. It implies Lane is the type to believe in conspiracies when, in fact, there is only evidence that he believes in one, the JFK assassination.")
 * 2) 00:40, 28 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541081119 by Gamaliel (talk) Calling someone a conspiracy theorist at this stage is nothing more than an attempt to discredit them. It adds nothing to the conversation.")
 * 3) 01:30, 28 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541092371 by Location (talk) Not a valid argument. Calling Lane a CT is nothing but ad hominem.")
 * 4) 03:35, 28 February 2013  (edit summary: "Adding CT there is nothing but name calling. It offers nothing in terms of historical clarity or value. Adding it is vandalism.")
 * 5) 05:26, 28 February 2013  (edit summary: "See talk")


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

Comments:

Given that this was a previously stable article, it appears as though the ISP registered as User:Laborinvain to skirt the 3RR warning that I had given. Location (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I added the extra 12 hours because the IP is a US Comcast address - this will push the block to all night Friday. The autoblock should take care of the IP also; if not, let us know at WP:ANI. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   06:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:159.148.87.183 reported by User:Resolute (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (the meaning of this section is unclear.  This link is the article state before any of the edit warring began.  159.148 made a change here on February 10 that was challenged, and the following reverts have occurred since.)


 * 1st revert: (February 13)
 * 2nd revert: (February 19)
 * 3rd revert: (February 21)
 * 4th revert: (February 23)
 * 5th revert: (February 27)
 * 6th revert: (February 28)
 * 7th revert: (February 28)
 * 8th revert: (February 28)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is part of an ongoing debate/argument about Soviet-era birthplaces in the Baltics. The entire Talk:Sandis Ozoliņš page is related to this direct article, with Talk:Leo Komarov, Wikipedia talk:HOCKEY and Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles as other venues for the dispute. 159.148 conveniently appeared in the middle of this and has been warring on the article for two weeks now while arguing on the talk page. User:80.232.217.165, which resolves to the same ISP has made an additional revert using the same argument and has the same singular focus on this one article. I am far too involved in the discussion aspect of this to take any blocking action myself. Resolute 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * The article was just fully protected for two weeks at RFPP, so assuming this IP does not hop to another article to continue the dispute, the odds of the edit warring continuing in the near term may be unlikely. Resolute 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I left a note for User:Darkwind who did the full protection per RFPP, since I believe semiprotection should be considered. Generally it is best to only report at one of the two places. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected two weeks by User:Darkwind. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kasperone reported by User:Ebrahimi-amir (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * . I locked the article for one week. Kasperone has clearly been edit-warring, but I'm cutting them slack based on the content of the dispute (a rather controversial image).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Prathambhu reported by User:Induzcreed (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:


 * 2nd revert:


 * 3rd revert:


 * 4th revert:


 * 


 * 


 * 

The following statement is the centre of edit war : "the Malayalam film industry returned and established itself in Kochi with a major chunk of locations, studios, production and post-production facilities there".

There were constant reverts without trying to discuss or achieve good faith.

See the talk page: Talk:Malayalam_cinema

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

After constant editwarring, the page was protected for 24 hrs. Soon after the protection was expired, editwarring started again.

User Prathambhu was going against the consensus reached in the talk with some neutral users.

He is also edit warring in another article South Indian film industry:


 * 


 * 

It seems that this user is using socks to evade 3RR.

--Induzcreed (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: See Talk:Kochi/Archive 2 a previous report about the same dispute in 2009, also involving Prathambhu, and with some of the same arguments. At that time User:Hiberniantears, an uninvolved administrator, stated ".. Prathambhu is clearly editing in a tendentious manner that creates a strong POV in favor of Kochi". EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This user always try to glorify and boost Kochi in all his edits. The user is having the edit warring history in all associated articles and have been warned several times.
 * User_talk:ChroniclerSanjay is probably the sock of User:Prathambhu:, as the account was created only after the edit war started in the article and was used to revert in the same way as Prathambhu was doing. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I came here through the talk page in User:Prathambhu. He is again edit warring for the same item. This time in the page South Indian film industry.

History :

[Please see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Indian_film_industry&diff=prev&oldid=540836748].

This latest edit warring happened after he is notified about the 3RR notice discussion happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.103.166 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He is not agreeing to common views and always using really bad tone to address other editors in talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.103.169 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Kindly let me start by giving the timeline of some of the edits done by myself and a few others in Malayalam cinema, South Indian film industry and Cinema of India and discussion in the talk page of Malayalam cinema. These, I hope, will make everything clear by itself.

I hope for an intervention by administrators to investigate all aspects of this and take necessary action they deem fit. Such an action, in my experience so far, has always restored wikipedia as a dependable source of information.

Timeline

On 21 January 2013‎, I noticed that the | version existed in Malayalam cinema page then, contained information on location of the Malayalam film industry to be completely at odds with the |  version existed in  South Indian film industry.

In | my edit (click) dated 21 January 2013‎ I changed the info in Malayalam cinema in accordance with the information existed on South Indian film industry undisputed for a long period and provided about 10 news paper reports as citations supporting the statement.

There was no dispute on this for over a month that followed. I request the administrators to particularly note the fact that User:Salih had visited Malayalam cinema page many times during that one month, as can be verified by the edits he made there during this period.

I added the same citation to the existing information on South Indian film industry page on 4 February 2013‎ through | my edit (click).

Edit war

On 19 February 2013‎, [| POV edit by 69.47.228.36] changed the information I added one month before, along with citations. I request admin attention to the highlighted part. The user 69.47.228.36 removed about 10 news reports from established English newspapers like The Hindu, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Passline Business Magazine, The New Indian Express and Malayalam newspapers with highest circulation like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Deshabhimani among others. The intention of the edit was to hide the facts as seen by the repeated edits made by 69.47.228.36 to remove news citations completely.

This was when the edit war started immediately joined by User:Aarem aided by a large number of possible sock puppets.

In the Malayalam cinema talk page, I pointed out that the existing information is in accordance with what remain undisputed in South Indian film industry for a long period.

The response to this was | the edit by 69.47.228.36 of South Indian film industry page by removing this information that existed undisputed for a long time.

Sock puppets?

The amount of edits back to User:Aarem's version indicates the number of possible sock puppets in his aid to circumvent the 3RR rule. A few examples are below.

| Edit by Aarem

| Revert by 183.90.103.132 to Aarem version

Revert by 183.90.103.144 to Aarem version

| Edit by Aarem

| Revert by 192.193.160.10 to Aarem version

| Edit by Aarem

| Revert by 203.117.37.213 to Aarem version

| Revert by 203.117.37.213 to Aarem version

| Revert by 183.90.103.159 to Aarem version

Out of the 9 edits listed above, the last 7 edits happened in one single day 21 February 2013‎.

A look at the IPs gives a strong suspicion of them being sock puppets of User:Aarem. Also, importantly, User:Salih who had no disputes of what existed in Malayalam cinema until then joined along with User:Aarem in reverting to his version, showing User:Salih acting under instruction from User:Aarem. Kindly have a look at the edit by User:Salih reverting to version by User:Aarem.

Matter of dispute

I would also like to spare a para to elicit the matter dispute in this context which, I hope, will give the motivation of actions pursued by User:Aarem and co-editors.

The matter of dispute is whether "Kochi is the hub of Malayalam cinema industry"

or whether

"Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub along with Kochi"

The news reports citations that existed all unanimously mention Kochi as the sole hub of Malayalam cinema industry.

Mollywood Comes to Kochi, dated March 31, 2011, Passline Business Magazine.

Shooting Spree in Kochi (Translated title), August 24, 2012. Malayala Manorama.

The reports are from India's most widely read national dailies like The Hindu, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Passline Business Magazine, The New Indian Express and most widely read Malayalam newspapers like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Deshabhimani among others. All of these reports profusely quote stakeholders in Malayalam cinema cinema like Actors, Directors, Technical persons, producers etc.

These were the evidences for the statement existed in the | earlier version in Malayalam cinema and the |  version existed in South Indian film industry page, undisputed for a long period.

Later on some more fresh news citations proving the same was added by JK and User:ChroniclerSanjay in the talk page and in the page.

Here are those. Article cited by JK, Article cited by ChroniclerSanjay.

It could be seen from the Malayalam cinema talk page that User:Aarem or User:Samaleks or many of the possible sock puppet IPs never give even a single news report from any of the independent news media supporting their claim "Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub along with Kochi". They demanded that their statement be taken at face value and/or based on the links to the websites of some studios that exist in Thiruvananthapuram. These studios date to a period before the industry shifted to Kochi. (This fact is indeed confirmed by many news citations given above which state that "Malayalam cinema was earlier located in Kodambakkam (Chennai) and Thiruvananthapuram earlier" before the shift to Kochi).

This was also pointed out several times by user JK in the talk page.

Faced with such an overwhelming of newspaper report citations in consonance with the tradition of wiki articles, editors User:Aarem, User:Samaleks, Torreslfchero, User:Salih seem to want to steamroll their POV, using numerical superiority they enjoy presently.

Deja vu

Although I did not recognize the new username of User:Aarem initially, I did, immediately after checking his contributions in wiki. Once I did recognize User:Aarem, the arrival of User:Samaleks was expected. It was proven correct within a matter of a week.

I had been through very same situation in Kochi page 4 years ago involving the same set of users including User:Aarem (then using another name) and user User:Samaleks. The duo, with the support of several sock puppets, wanted to add a false statement deprecating Kochi into the wikipedia Kochi page that "Kochi was under economic stagnation until 2003". Under the supervision of administrator Hiberniantears in the talk page discussion they admitted that the statement was without any evidence and withdrew the statement. This can be seen by scrolling down to the end of | Kochi Talk page Discussion (click) that happened then.

Plea and hope

I have been in wiki contributing to various topics of interests to me for the last few years. I have not faced any edit wars in any other topic other than that involving Kochi. Even when I did face such of situation of being bullied alone among a numerically superior group (who are the same group as involved here), I have found that administrator intervention has always been impartial and had a redeeming effect on the respective wiki article.

This time too, my only hope is for administrator's intervention, to investigate all the issues raised by all users involved in this page in relation with the edit wars at Malayalam cinema, South Indian film industry, Cinema of India pages and take necessary actions that will keep up with the tradition of wiki as a dependable source of information. Thanks, Sincerely. Prathambhu (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The claims made by this user(Prathambhu) are wrong. See the earlier version which existed in the article way back in 2011: Version in 2011. This was changed by this user to glorify Kochi.
 * However our point here is not the authenticity of the version, but the edit warring behavior and constant reverts. This user always go against the consensus with a strong POV for Kochi. He uses the sock id Special:Contributions/ChroniclerSanjay to edit war. I was not involved in this edit war, but going through the talk page, I could see that all the issues are discussed many times there. Whoever not agreeing to his POV, he blaims them to be having a common agenda.
 * Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi admin, Pardon me for the delayed reply (I was travelling, without any net-access).

Purported "Edit"

Samaleks have been kind enough to give the link to the version dated XX-XX-2011 to "prove" my "glorification of Kochi".

As far one can see, my first edit of Malayalam cinema was already pointed out in my earlier reply : | my edit (click) dated 21 January 2013.

I never edited the version pointed out by Samaleks. The version I edited did not contain the word Thiruvananthapuram or Kochi.

I changed the word Kerala to Kochi in line with what existed in South Indian film industry undisputed for a long time. Also citations to news reports that explicitly state the same was given.

I am bringing this up just to point out one more instance of falsehoods propagated here by the above user.

On "consensus"

Normally a consensus is reached when people on two sides of the dispute agree on something.

However here it is different.

Users Samaleks and Aarem arranges three users and/or a few sock puppets to support their propaganda. None of these users or sock puppet IPs were on the other side. Most of them were the very same users who engaged in edit war favouring Samaleks and Aarem. On a dispute that had already took days of talk page discussion two users - Salih Torreslfchero - suddenly appears and agree categorically with what Aarem said until then and Samaleks hails that consensus has been reached !

It could be seen at Malayalam cinema talk page that after the claim of consensus by Aarem, Torreslfchero, Salih, Samaleks,  user JK had brought up one more independent news report contradicting that very claim.

Agenda for propaganda

It is known that statements from wiki are plagiarized by many web users in many contexts. From my previous experience with users Aarem (then using another name) and Samaleks their plan seems to be to use this scope for plagiarism to create false propaganda deprecating Kochi.

An example of this was given in | Kochi Talk page Discussion (click). There it is seen that Aarem and Samaleks insisted to have a statement that "Kochi was under economic stagnation until 2003" in Kochi page. (They withdrew the statement later as they could not find any evidence). During the period when the statement was there on wiki Kochi page many websites had plagiarized it into their content. One can see this from the examples given by the supervising administrator User:Hiberniantears there quoting different websites. These wiki-plagiarized versions were later cited as "proof for stagnation in Kochi" by the same users Aarem and Samaleks!

A display of the state GDP growth data from Govt of Kerala exposed this falsehood then. The duo Aarem and Samaleks backed out from this statement after a talk supervised by the administrator User:Hiberniantears (involving myself too) back in 2009.

Obsessive deprecation of Kochi

Obsession with deprecating Kochi takes Samaleks too far. See the | latest edit by Samaleks in Kochi page. He inserted the picture of a slum into the sub article on Healthcare in Kochi !

Thumb rule for Samaleks and Aarem seems to be that anyone who is not deprecating Kochi is glorifying Kochi.

What is happening in wiki Malayalam cinema page today is an encore of what happened in Kochi page in 2009.

Presently Aarem and Samaleks want to insert Thiruvananthapuram as a hub of Malayalam cinema. They cannot tolerate the Kochi as the hub of Malayalam cinema even if all the newspaper reports from past 7 years unanimously say so. According to Aarem and Samaleks, their propaganda must be accepted at wiki because they can arrange for a few users and sock puppets to support it.

This being the state of wiki Malayalam cinema page, whatever hope I am left with now lies in administrator intervention and a dispute resolution closely supervised by administrators. Thanks, sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Prathambhu (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rdaenot reported by User:Orlady (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) First edit in series, 24 February 2013
 * 2) 24 February 2013
 * 3) 25 February 2013  (edit summary: "corrected intro and membership numbers to correctly reflect latest estimate.")
 * 4) 26 February 2013 - revert by anonymous IP that Rdaenot has acknowledged via edits on the article talk page
 * 5) 13:25, 27 February 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted membership estimate")
 * 6) 17:14, 27 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 540947779 by Orlady (talk)")
 * 7) 28 February 2013 - revert by another anonymous IP that Rdaenot has acknowledged via edits on the article talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Not a 3RR warning, but rather a link to this page)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

Comments: This isn't a 3RR violation (yet), but it's become an edit war, and I am looking for help to bring an end to the dispute without further revert-war escalation. This user has an editing focus on National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. (a Christian denomination) and related topics. S/he objects to including a reliably-sourced membership number in the article that disagrees with the number reported on the denomination's website and has repeatedly removed the number s/he disagrees with. There has been extensive talk page discussion. To get independent opinions in hopes of resolving the matter, I posted requests on the talk page for WikiProject Christianity and the User talk page for a user who is known to me to have a strong editing interest in other Baptist topics. Now three experienced users (counting me) have stated disagreements with Rdaenot's position, but s/he continues to revert. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I just added two anonymous IP edits to the list above. One of these happened after I posted this item. I forgot about the earlier one when I first posted here. Both of these are Rdaenot. Both IPs also posted on the article talk page and Rdaenot acknowledged both of them by adding his signature to their talk page comments. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Without a clear 3RR matter, I think maybe the better option might be to request protection, in this case probably full protection, of the page until and unless the point of dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of policy, guidelines, and at least the broad consensus of the majority of the individuals involved? John Carter (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this can be closed if 24 hours go by without any further reverts by Rdaenot or his IPs. The discussion on article talk hints that he may have got the point. His use of IPs suggests unsophistication rather than malice. Nonetheless I've warned him about WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action for now. There was a conversation on Rdaenot's talk page that may have been helpful. Reopen if the dispute starts up again. EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Major Torp reported by User:KTC (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * Page move:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk page discussion: Talk:List_of_papabili_in_the_2013_papal_conclave

Comments:


 * There will need to be a little history merge cleanup as well. KTC (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * by Ironholds. Rschen7754 20:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Faizan Al-Badri (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:.

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

Comments: Well, Sir I needed your intervention at Aligarh Muslim University, in this section! Here's the Article's History! The user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  is not behaving normally, he reverted edits of many users for the same content many times, and violated the three revert rule, many days! The dispute is on the List of notable Aligarh Muslim University alumnies! This is the List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies that was added to the main article, but this edit was reverted by the user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  in multiple edits, with the objection of un-referenced content, You can have a view on the page's history! I was also contacted on my Talk page here here. After it, I searched for the references, and found them, put them on the list, and then copied the table on the main Aligarh University Article! But now, he is again reverting others edits, with the objection of "duplication" He says that the table cannot be on two pages, i.e. Aligarh Muslim University and List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies at the same time. Please Intervene! I just want to put the table in the main University article, it will not be a copyright violation.-Faizan (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've left a message at TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page. I'm awaiting their response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I will agree not to edit Aligarh Muslim University per the notice on my page. Does that also include not editing the talk page?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response on your talk page and here. I'm closing this as warned with conditions. You are free to edit the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:194.66.201.1 reported by William Avery (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


 * 1) 18:13, 26 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 540634154 by Bondegezou (talk)")
 * 2) 11:47, 27 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 540908714 by Bondegezou (talk)")
 * 3) 10:42, 28 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 541196134 by Bondegezou (talk)")
 * 4) 22:15, 28 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 541329642 by 92.15.56.51 (talk)")
 * 5) 23:24, 28 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 541358881 by William Avery (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—William Avery (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Eastleigh_by-election,_2013
 * . I've blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. However, the editor has edited with at least one other IP address, so I'm not sure whether the block will be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Devilman52 reported by User:Wkharrisjr (Result: 24 hours for both)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:01, 28 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541335290 by Insomesia (talk). COI is not a reflection upon the subject.  This article is still an unmitigated mess of SPS and needs addressing")
 * 2) 21:06, 28 February 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541339902 by Insomesia (talk) stop your disruption")
 * 3) 21:31,  1 March 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Insomesia (talk): When the article is clean, we remove the tag. (TW)")
 * 4) 22:12,  1 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541595569 by Insomesia patience.  Editors are actively checking this article for sourcing.  Once the page is checked, it can come down per consensus.  Stop the petty disruption")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * User was warned about edit warring at 1:44, deleted the warning, and continued reverting twice more, gaming the system outside of 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User was notified about this discussion but deleted the notice from their talk page. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'll try to make the TL;DR version of this. The "edit-war" in question is (was) related to some COI tags being removed that I wished to keep in place until there was consensus to remove them. Viriditas correctly points out that this is outside of the 24 hour 3RR window. What he failed to notice in his apparent glee to report this to 3RR is that the tag was removed by myself 13 minutes before he filed this report, thus negating any 3RR -- gaming or not.

Why did I remove the tag? Not because I was worried about edit-warring but because other users on the talk page responded to my desire to remove the tag. I feel a warning for failure to AGF, hounding, etc is in order for Viriditas. Or a smelly trout slap. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the report I filed above represents a very select sample of your edits during this period. You made a great deal of additional edits, many of which might be classified as reverts. You've been engaging in battlefield behavior across many articles and you've refused to stop edit warring after notices have been placed on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There was wide consensus both at the COI Noticeboard and the article's talk page that this article needed a major cleanup.  Editors User:OlYeller21 and User:PaleCloudedWhite also made quite a number of edits to bring the article up to snuff.  Unfortunatley this 3RR report is disingenuous to say the least.  Viriditas has made no contributions to the article or talk page, so what is his interest here other than to poke?  I also notice that he failed to report our colleague User:Insomesia on this very same board even though he was restoring the tag against the desires of all of the other involved editors.  Why is that?  Note to the reviewing admin:  I'm not requesting that you block Insomesia for the apparent same transgression.  I'm willing to still AGF that he didn't like the tag and felt it should rightly come down.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please avoid distracting from this discussion with an appeal to hypocrisy. The question is, did you make other reverts within the time frame listed above that are not clearly labeled as reverts?  While you may continue to abscond your responsibility to avoid edit wars, you're going to need to recognize that I did not revert Insomesia in an aggressive manner, over and over again—twice after you were previously warned; you did. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You know damn well that lgr only had 4 blocks of edits during that time period. It's possible that other edits in each block were more clearly reverts than the ones you selected, and were not self-reverted, but a block of reverts only counts as one "revert" regardless of how many different sections are reverted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've warned little green rosetta about edit-warring, regardless of whether 3RR is breached. @Viriditas, your rhetoric here is over the top; tone it down in the future, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dimitri Lokhonia reported by User:CliffC (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * and more...

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

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

Comments:

Dimitri Lokhonia is the president of Bloomex and he would like to have all negative information about the company, no matter how well-sourced, removed from the article. This effort is more or less an annual event, generally before big "flower" holidays like Easter (coming up) and Mother's Day. Talk:Bloomex memorializes many attempts by him or the company's collection of sock/meatpuppets to manage the article since May 2009 and speaks for itself. Thank you, CliffC (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you (the reviewing administrator) wouldn't mind, also please reject the pending revision that got caught in the protection. It's messing up watchlists, and the IRC bot :) Plus, there's massive consensus in the form of two deletion discussions that were overwhelming keep and some (little) talkpage discussion. Thanks again, gwickwire  talk editing 05:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, right now the article reflects the unfortunate effects of Mr. Lokhonia's edit war; I request that an admin revert it back to its state at day-end 15 February. Thank you, 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not often I revert once an article has been locked, but given the history, I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:175.142.168.165 and User:91.64.185.69 reported by Armbrust The Homunculus (Result: 24 hours for both)
Page:

User being reported: &

Time reported: 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Edits of 175.142.168.165
 * 1) 07:11,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 07:26,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 07:33,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 07:35,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 07:38,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 6) 07:41,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 7) 07:43,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 8) 07:44,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 9) 07:46,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 10) 07:47,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 11) 07:48,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 12) 07:49,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 13) 07:53,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 14) 07:54,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
 * 15) 07:58,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germany is such a crappy country since it doesn't teach their citizens how to read and comprehand")
 * 16) 08:02,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 17) 08:04,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 18) 08:08,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 19) 08:09,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 20) 08:12,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 21) 08:14,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 22) 08:16,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 23) 08:18,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 24) 08:20,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 25) 08:22,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 26) 08:23,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 27) 08:25,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
 * 28) 08:27,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")


 * Edits of 91.64.185.69
 * 1) 07:24,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541670975 by 175.142.168.165 (talk)")
 * 2) 07:32,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541672839 by 175.142.168.165 (talk)")
 * 3) 07:34,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 4) 07:36,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 5) 07:39,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 6) 07:42,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 7) 07:44,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 8) 07:45,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 9) 07:47,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 10) 07:48,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 11) 07:49,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 12) 07:52,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */So a 10 year old GeForce 1 supports DirectX 11.1 too? lol")
 * 13) 07:54,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
 * 14) 07:57,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler supports the future and unannounced DirectX 20.2 with Direct3D feature level 11_0 LOL")
 * 15) 08:00,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Malaysian's are very aggressive and love to insult I guess (as we have already found out). And they also beleive that a 15 year old RIVA TNT supports DirectX 11.1 (with direct3D feature level 6_0) LOL")
 * 16) 08:04,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ This Malaysian beleives that a 15 year old Nvidia RIVA TNT supports DirectX 11.1 and the future DirectX 15,1 (with direct3D feature level 6_0) LOL")
 * 17) 08:07,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler does not support DirectX 11.1, because it only supports Direct3D 11_0. Nvidia RIVA TNT does support DirectX 11.1, because it only supports Direct3D level 6_0. This Malaysian doesn't get it though. LOL")
 * 18) 08:09,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler does not support DirectX 11.1 or Direct3D Feature Level 11_1. For the 100000000000th time.")
 * 19) 08:11,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature level 11_0 and therefore only DirectX 11.0. This Malaysian does not understand and has reverted to insults and an edit war.")
 * 20) 08:13,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to you both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
 * 21) 08:16,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ This Malaysian can't comprehend and understand computer architecture, but he sure knows how to insult. LOL")
 * 22) 08:17,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to you both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
 * 23) 08:19,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to you both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
 * 24) 08:21,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
 * 25) 08:23,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER FULLY SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1  LOL")
 * 26) 08:25,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER FULLY SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 - LO")
 * 27) 08:26,  2 March 2013  (edit summary: "Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER FULLY SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 and EVEN every future DirectX version")


 * Diff of warning: 175.142.168.165 & 91.64.185.69

—Armbrust The Homunculus 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This keeps going... can be stop this to waste fewer bytes? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * hello? it's been over an hour. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Blocked both IPs - got severe connection issues with WP. Materialscientist (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Longkhj reported by User:Puramyun31 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours for vandalism)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

and more...
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User:Longkhj have repeated the removal of infobox image without explaining a valid reason, so I asked him an explanation of the removal, but the user have ignored it. Also the user have removed infobox image on Korean Wikipedia as well as here. (http://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%EA%B9%80%ED%98%84%EC%A0%95_%28%EA%B0%80%EC%88%98%29&action=history) --Puramyun31 (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Because Longkhj has been repeatedly removing an image from an article without giving any reason, and without responding to any attempts at communication, I see this as a case of vandalism, rather than a content dispute. For that reason, I have blocked Longkhj for 24 hours. If this continues after the block expires, we might treat Longkhj as a vandalism-only account, and a longer/indefinite block may be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: No action taken, but warning to both editors)
Pages: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Italian general election, 2013


 * 1st revert: by IP that Nick.mon identified as his (see below)
 * 2nd revert: by same IP
 * 3rd revert: by Nick.mon himself
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert: by IP that Nick.mon identified as his
 * 8th revert: by same IP

Previous version reverted to:
 * Pier Luigi Bersani:
 * 1st revert: by IP that Nick.mon identified as his
 * 2nd revert: by same IP
 * 3rd revert: by same IP
 * 4th revert: by Nick.mon himself
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Italian general election, 2013

Comments:

Nick.mon was blocked for edit-warring only four days ago. On the second day after the block, he engaged in edit-warring again. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about it in the talk page..why my one is an edit-warring and the other aren't?? Excuse me. --Nick.mon (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Although I understand Nick.mon has some history here, he was not edit-warring alone. User:EeuHP was just as involved a Nick.mon. In addition, both editors were editing over the same picture issue in Pier Luigi Bersani.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, both sides are responsible for the edit war equally. So, please consider this a report against User:EeuHP as well. --RJFF (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do it not to be blocked again...I just edit without logged in. --User:Nick.mon (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick.moon, I have argued why my picture is more appropriate. You simply tell me that my photo is "worse". And you tell me that I disturbed others users when most of them are Ips. Despite our problems, I think that you and I can agree. I write the proposal in the discussion page.--EeuHP (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

One moment, what is this? , — Preceding unsigned comment added by EeuHP (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we can agree. Excuse me...I am not an expert of wikipedia and for sing myself I copied the users before me and I insert my name...in that case i forgot to insert my name...but I did it immediatly..Excuse me--Nick.mon (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please do not manipulate this report. If you decide to edit without logging in, you lose your right to keep your IP address secret. It is needed to show that the unregistered edits are identifiable as yours. --RJFF (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok excuse me but i think that it is not important to write it. Please. --Nick.mon (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems the conflict is solved:. --RJFF (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As RJFF notes, the dispute seems to have been resolved so blocking either editors now would be punitive rather than preventative. I will strongly remind both editors that edit warring is never appropriate, even when discussion is taking place. When we encourage editors to discuss an issue, this means that you should stop editing the page until you reach a consensus; continuing to edit war while you discuss is still edit warring and will still get your blocked. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have left personal warnings on both editors' talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Be-with reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: IP 31.200.181.224


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5st revert:
 * 6nd revert:
 * 7rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:   Warnings by CT Cooper, BarrelProof, Oknazevad and Favonian.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Beginning with Static IP address, user seem to be making regular repeated reverts for weeks without engaging in any talk in spite of several warnings. Poeticbent talk  22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * for 48 hours by User:CT Cooper.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:CartoonDiablo reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:49,  3 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541557450 by Arzel (talk) Not violating BLP please stop.")
 * 2) 20:28,  3 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541936617 by Arzel (talk) See talk, editors do not agree with BLP issue.")
 * 3) 21:52,  3 March 2013  (edit summary: "See talk, multiple RSs have called Ryan that and various "derogatory" articles list living persons.")
 * 4) 22:05,  3 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541950807 by Yworo (talk) Temporary revert per BLP noticeboard discussion.")
 * 5) 22:21,  3 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541954078 by Arzel (talk) Ryan was called that by an RS who defined the term, that is evidence enough")
 * 6) 00:45,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "Atrios is a reliable source, Fixed dead link, removed Daily Kos")


 * Diff of warning: here (22:27, 3 March 2013)

Last revert is to different material, but is still a revert, see article history. Editor has been blocked before for 3RR, so warning was not actually necessary, however the last revert does indeed occur after the warning.

—Yworo (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ironically the people edit-warring are Yworo and Arzel against the consensus reached by me, MelanieN and the BLP Noticeboard. And more importantly, I'm pretty sure none of those edits are actually reverts. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not permit you to edit war. Every one of those edits is reverting in part or in full, the edits of other users. I have only four edits to the article. The first two (unbroken by intervening edits) were to remove material in violation of BLP. I then reverted twice after you restored the material, and then stopped editing the article. Two reverts are a long way from the 4 usually needed to be blocked for edit warring. I haven't counted Arzel's edits, but you are probably right that he was edit warring. However, he was trying to remove material he believe violated BLP, which is exempt from 3RR. Putting such material back is not exempt. Yworo (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The first two listed were for returning of the image of Paul Ryan, for which if not a violation of WP:MUG there has been no concensus for inclusion at the very least. The thrid and fourth were reverts of the image along with text of the names of individuals which Yworo had initially removed.  The fifth was a revert of my removing the WP:UNDUE emphasis on Paul Ryan within that list.  The sixth was a revert of my removal of serveral non-RS sources.  I stoped anything which would be viewed a revert of actual material and if you read the talk page you can see attempts to discuss the removal of the non-RS sources along with the removal of the emphasis on one individual. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure edit-warring isn't allowed whether for BLP or anything else. But more to the point, when virtually every editor is editing to maintain consensus the only people edit warring are those against it (in this case you and Arzel). By your definition, me MelanieN, Buster, the BLP Noticeboard etc. would be "edit-warring." And again, none of those are even actual reverts (ie by clicking the 'Undue' button). CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." - That is from the policy.
 * There are exceptions. You should probably read the policy before making more arguments. Oh...and there is no consensus yet. Just because you like the first couple hours of a discussion doesn't mean it's closed and you win. --Onorem♠Dil 01:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * CD, it would behoove you to actually read the policies. It's all in there. Nobody's going to hold your little hand and point them out any more and continue pointing directly at them if you aren't going to bother to read them. Yworo (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

== User:Wiki Truth Finder007 reported by VanHarrisArt (talk) (Result: Wiki Truth Finder007 indeffed, Physeng blocked 31 hours, article semi-protected) ==
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:41, 22 February 2013  (edit summary: "/* Life and career */")
 * 2) 03:52,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 3) 03:53,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 4) 03:53,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 5) 03:54,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 6) 04:09,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 7) 04:20,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* rv unsourced negative addition to WP:BLP by the daily WP:SPA */") Note: by User:First Light
 * 8) 06:21,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 9) 06:22,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds */")
 * 10) 06:23,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* rv addition of negative material sourced to amazon.com message boards */") Note: by User:First Light
 * 11) 06:41,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542007156 by First Light (talk)")
 * 12) 06:45,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Reverted edits by Wiki Truth Finder007 (talk) to last version by VanHarrisArt */") Note: by User:Yworo
 * 13) 07:00,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542009172 by Yworo (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1) 06:48, 4 March 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1) 04:24, 4 March 2013
 * 2) 06:25, 4 March 2013
 * 3) 08:07, 4 March 2013

Comments:

Ping Fu is currently subject to a Human flesh search engine cyber-attack, which this user is part of.

User Wiki Truth Finder007 ignored warnings to stop violating WP:BLP, then ignored an edit warring warning. This user account is a WP:SPA, and is being used solely for the purpose of libeling Ping Fu.

Other user accounts are also being used for this purpose, including:

VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Wiki Truth Finder007 has been blocked indefinitely by Someguy1221 for BLP violations, Physeng blocked 31 hours by Drmies for edit warring. De728631 (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also semi-protected Ping Fu for one month. De728631 (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Flowers of the world reported by User:Dravidianhero (Result: page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I wasn't involved

Comments:

The user does these uniliteral edits for much longer than these 4 edits. The page has been fully protected earlier to avoid edit war. Now it's back again. He is a guy who deletes warnings from his talkpage--  Dravidian   Hero  12:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Have your tried to discuss the changes? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC))
 * The warning contained a talkpage request. He has simply ignored it. I initiated discussion on a similar edit war at Talk:Kamal_Haasan without any positive result.--  Dravidian   Hero  17:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also this latest ironic edit by him at Mammooty, diff, making a "fan" statement, something he constantly removed at Kamal Haasan, indicating a disruptive fan war attitude.--  Dravidian   Hero  17:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you like me to revert it to your last edit and we can all talk about the changes made together on the talk page? Would all parties agree to having the page reverted to User:Dravidianhero last edit and we can discuss the changes from then? (Lowkeyvision (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I doubt anybody would appear for a serious discussion in this and related articles. I have tried it once and nothing happened there. So I reported the problem directly now after I gave the warning by advice User_talk:Fvasconcellos.--  Dravidian   Hero  17:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Try WP:DR and see if the other user shows up. --regentspark (comment) 18:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to help on dispute resolution. If you file one please include me. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC))
 * I left them a message already. However the version should be reverted to my revert as this apparently forms the basis of dispute.--  Dravidian   Hero  18:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:216.81.81.80 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Leviticus&diff=542045314&oldid=542044434
 * 2st revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Leviticus&diff=542043909&oldid=542043756
 * 3nd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Leviticus&diff=541958706&oldid=541885759
 * 4rd revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Leviticus&diff=541701568&oldid=541622263
 * 5th revert: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Leviticus&diff=538612296&oldid=538576410

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Leviticus#Article_unprotected.3B_material_removed_without_further_discussion

Comments: PiCo seems to be edit warring and just editing in bad faith. This has been on the talk page and also the NPOV page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Book_of_Leviticus But he keep edit warring in bad faith. He is also threatening myself and other editors (I see he told MrX he would be banned if he did not do what PiCo told him to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.81.82 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I wasn't involved in the edit war, though I just made my first edits to the article and talk page today, so I've familiarized myself with the history. Regarding this report, there was no 3RR violation (the dates on the 5 reverts above are Feb 16, Mar 2, Mar 3, Mar 4, Mar 4) and the page has now been fully protected per a request at RPP. I believe this report can be closed without further action. (Note: This is in no way an endorsement of PiCo's actions.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * PiCo has been rather heavy-handed in reverting legitimate content from Book of Leviticus. Previous warnings and entreaties to join the talk page discussion (here and here) have had little effect on getting PiCo to work collaborative on improving content. The article has previously been protected because of edit warring and content disputes. After the last page protection expired, PiCo promptly reverted to their preferred version without any regard for the ongoing talk page discussion. When I warned PiCo about this, they tagged my talk page with an identical warning, even though my last edit to the page was 11 days prior.


 * Earlier today, PiCo posted this rather chilling message to my talk page "I've put in a request for the anon isp to be blocked. There's a reasonable suspicion that the isp is a sock. If you want to avoid the suspicion that it's your sock, I suggest you restrict yourself to the ongoing discussion at the NPOV noticeboard" (emphasis added). Between the edit warring, tendentious editing, dismissive talk page discussions and POINTY warnings, it seems that PiCo is more about WINNING than editing. The edit warring diffs above are text book examples of trying to fly under the 3RR radar in order to game the system. - MrX 20:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This arose because an anon isp-user reverted the article lead to a much earlier version, originally added by Mr and rejected by several editors. Mr has lodged a request for involvement by non-involved editors at npov noticeboard, where a very civilised discussion is taking place. Given this process the anon isp's reversion amounts to disruptive editing. As it supports Mr's preferred edit I thought they might be the same person, but I have no solid evidence apart from the coincidence of interest. PiCo (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Biala Gwiazda reported by User:ColonelHenry (Result: Protected, warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

Comparison between accurate information and present version resulting from reverting by User:Biala Gwiazda. All three reverts have been between these versions.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rutgers-Newark&diff=542090071&oldid=541851680


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

I attempted to resolve the dispute on his talk page. I have sought a third opinion, I have sought page protection. I started a conversation moments at Talk:Rutgers-Newark just before the most recent reverting action by the user.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Biala Gwiazda renamed the article "Rutgers University, Newark" on 27 February 2013 (10:43 UTC) claiming it was more "clean" and "professional" and keeping with the University of California system. This was a baseless rationale for an incorrect move. I asked at WP:RM for it to be moved back on 3 March 2013 citing the mistake and WP:COMMONNAME. It was restored to its original name on 3 March 2013 at 09:16 UTC. At this time, on 3 March, I reorganized and revised the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * P.S. User:Biala Gwiazda has also begun to resort to slight ad hominem attacks claiming that I should "take some time" to address "mental problems" just because I have strenously objected to his persistence. I anticipate any further discussion will resort in increased baiting and belligerence from this user.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost everything User:ColonelHenry stated has been taken way out of context and misrepresented in a way to make him look better and the other wrong. The renaming of the institution was incorrect and a mistake on my part and i clearly told him that after he posted on my talk page but instead he continued to spam my page with hateful and imprudent messages. That does not give ColonelHenry any right to constantly harass me and threaten me with comments like "you should not be contributing" and "I could care less what it was before" implying i dont know anything about the subject and acting like hes establishing some sort of authority over me and the article when really i was making positive and original edits to the page. ColonelHenry has been extremely negative and hasnt contributed anything to resolve this issue and only offered negative comments and remarks around me. This has been a personal attack on me and it appears like ColonelHenry is only targeting me because of my race. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That last claim is utterly ridiculous. Comments before that are taken out of context. Claims of positive edits to the page is disingenuosly baseless because of his obstinacy in the face of correction. The growing maelstrom of belligerency, 3RR, disruptive editing, and uncivil ad-hominem attacks (accusing me of having a "mental problem" and being a "racist") is unacceptable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If anything there should be disclipinary action against User:ColonelHenry for his constant harassment and remarks even for his references to my country. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The quote you called me a racist over was a basic statement of fact. I said only "User:Biala Gwiazda, an editor putatively residing in or from Poland, does not have any obvious connection to the university and his edits indicate a obvious lack of knowledge about it." This is innocuous. You, however, are too quick to resort to uncivil and inflammatory rhetoric.  Quite frankly, an apology from you is a bare minimum.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, Reverts 1 & 2 only count as one revert as they are consecutive, so this does not count as a 3rr violation. Still edit warring though. Monty  845  23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's easy to tell that the two parties are angry with one another but it's hard to tell what the dispute is about. They have finally begun to post something on the article talk, but the discussion there is practically content-free. There is an exchange of personal attacks (or at least, accusations of personal attacks) but not a single reference, and no mention of what wording each side prefers for the article. A reference would be very welcome. The only concrete thing I can discern is that one side wants it mentioned that this college is in Essex County. Can User:Biala Gwiazda say why they are opposed to mentioning Essex County? EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * – Article fully protected one week and both parties warned for personal attacks. The editors should use the article talk page. They should explain which references support their preferred version and try to reach a consensus. There is still an open thread at ANI about personal attacks. ColonelHenry should not argue that Biala's Polish connection implies any lack of competence regarding this article. If Biala continues to sugest that ColonelHenry "is targeting me because of my race" (see his comment above) he will probably be sanctioned. The level of harsh rhetoric on both sides is alarming. If the attacks continue, blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rossi101 reported by Pratanu.roy (talk) (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert: Pratanu.roy (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

User:Rossi101 was blocked before for copyright violations. He/she is persistently changing the title and contents without any consensus of the editors. Pratanu.roy (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * for persistent edit warring that culminated in redirecting an article while it is being discussed at AfD. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:78.145.92.13 reported by - MrX (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 21:24,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Film */  who ever is linking it to the "Chingari 2012" page stop it! That's a completely different movie you fucking retard! do some research before making shit up.")
 * 2) 02:03,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542109185 by John (talk)")
 * 3) 02:51,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542140876 Barek (talk) You moron do research he was a Caveman at the start of the movie, the scene with him in wasn't used but is on the DVD, Karl even makes reference to this in his book.")
 * 4) 03:04,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542143660 by Barek (talk) Reported for Vandalism. This is not an attack this is a correction with official references added as proof")
 * 5) 07:25,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542164031 by John (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

This user was also warned about making personal attacks on other editors, evidenced in the above edit summaries.

Thank you - MrX 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (comment) The user appears to be using a dynamic IP, and is now using . It may be more effective to use page semi-protection rather than IP blocks.  I'm involved, so I won't be protecting the page myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Page semi-protection would probably do the trick. - MrX 01:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . Semi-protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:70.190.0.52 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Users warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:33, 4 March 2013‎
 * 2nd revert: 23:49, 4 March 2013‎
 * 3rd revert: 14:45, 5 March 2013
 * 4th revert: 15:46, 5 March 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is an IP who has been adding promotional information about a product called 'Virtual Token MFA' from a company called 'Sestus' for about 14 months now. There is a parallel set of reverts on Multi-factor authentication as well. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC). Mr. Ollie is engaging in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign, removing pertinent information from Wikipedia pages in order to promote specific named products and companies. In this particular case, Mr. Ollie is attempting to remove a description of a type of multifactor authentication from this page (referred to as virtual token MFA) simply because it is a type of token authentication not offered by the three named token vendors Mr. Ollie wishes to promote on this page. This behavior is similar to a software token vendor removing the information related to hardware tokens from the Security token Wikipedia page in order to promote software tokens in the market. To try and accommodate Mr. Ollie's earlier edits and reversions, I specifically removed any reference to any vendor names related to virtual tokens, yet he continued to remove the information.

User:MrOllie reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Mr. Ollie is engaged in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign on Wikipedia. Mr. Ollie is repeatedly editing Wikipedia articles to remove pertinent page content, while specifically ignoring product content he wishes to promote.

By way of example, he has repeatedly attempted to edit several pages related to and also Multifactor authentication (under the guise of objecting to alleged spammer content). The information he is attempting to remove, however, does not reference any specific company or product, but simply describes another form of token authentication (in this page, virtual token MFA). Mr. Ollie conspicuously does not remove specific company named products from the pages (i.e. RSA SecurID token, Safenet's eToken, and Vasco), suggesting he is engaging in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign, deliberately removing information related to other forms of authentication in order to promote specific named products and companies on that page.

I am the original author of most of the named page content (see history going back to 2009). In an attempt to satisfy Mr. Ollie's earlier edits, I specifically removed all vendor names related to the virtual token form of multifactor authentication, leaving only technical information related to authentication method. Yet, Mr. Ollie continued to removed the entire section, effectually censoring pertinent MFA information from the MFA page in order to promote product content by RSA, Safenet, and Vasco.

Mr Ollie's user talk page contains numerous complaints by Wikipedia content submitters regarding similar "promotion-by-censorship" behavior.

In accordance with this page's guidelines, I have placed a notice on Mr. Ollie's user talk page. - MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've moved this report under the one above because it's about the same incident. Will respond in a moment. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Both MrOllie and 70.190.0.52 are at but not over 3RR on security token and multi-factor authentication. I hope that I do not have to block either user or protect either page. I think discussing this issue on the talk page of one of the articles would be helpful - it seems that it could be possible for a compromise to be reached. If this becomes difficult, there are various dispute resolution procedures that can be followed. If anyone refuses to take part in discussion and continues to edit the article disruptively, they will be treated as a disruptive editor, possibly resulting in a block. I also strongly warn all editors involved to cease all edit warring behaviour, whether or not a discussion takes place. Any further edit warring (even without technically breaching 3RR) will be met with a block. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Tiller54 reported by User:50.201.54.129 (Result: 2 x 36 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

User makes inaccurate claims of notability and consensus requirements to list official candidates for office

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * . I have suggested asking for a third opinion or RFC to both parties. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 reported by User:GabeMc (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: PBP refuses to allow any of the content at VA level 3 to change without prior authorization from him. He is edit-warring and showing ownership issues at the page. He reverted two hours of my work without any discussion about why. He keeps invoking WP:BRD, which would seem to apply only to article space. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  23:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's inaccurate, in that I started discussing before I reverted your BOLD edit p  b  p  23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * FTR, you started the discussion at 22:25 and reverted me at 22:50, 10 minutes after I joined your discussion at 22:40. Then you reverted me again at 22:57, while discussion was still occurring. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User fails to follow BRD at Vital articles, restored BOLD edit while discussion was still going on and no consensus was achieved for his position. Expresses ownership by making these bold edits to a stable revision with long-standing consensus. Also ignored numerous entreaties to follow BRD and/or discuss edits before making them. p b  p  23:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to learn to let things evolve. Are you here to defend the long-standing consensus that beer and wine should be listed rather then simply alcoholic beverages (what about whiskey, rum, and vodka)? Isn't linear algebra and matrix redundant with algebra? Are there any geographic regions of Mesoamerica not already included in Latin America? Why have you now decided that you are the "enforcer" of previous consensus? Consensus can change, but you disagreeing with me is not proof of anything but your inability to collaborate with others. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with several of those, yes, and also the removal of Color. I don't disagree with.  And making BOLD edits without any discussion, then crying foul when they are deleted, can hardly be construed as "collaboration".  I've proposed changes to this page and to its Meta counterpart.  Each time I discussed them before making changes  p  b  p  00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You should re-read WP:BRD. Its, 1) bold, 2) revert, and 3) discuss, not 1) discuss, 2) after PBP agrees, bold, then 3) what would three be under your interpretation? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . The two of you have been here before, and no action was taken then. I've locked the article for a week. It was either that or block you both. Try to work things out. If you can't, go edit a real article (I still don't know what WP:VA is).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A WP:VA is a rather arbitrary list that means very little to anyone. You get extra points at WP:TFA for noming VAs, that's about all the advantage that I known of, perhaps its a Wikicup issue as well. FWIW, more than 60% of my edits were made to article space (including 3 successful FACs in the last 6 months), but VA was a nice respite from the daily grind. However, PBP is slowly convincing me that I should take your above advice, go back to article space, and leave that meaningless list to control freaks and edit-warriors. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, but, for me at least, it only begs additional questions. Where is WP:VA mentioned on WP:VFA? And what exactly is WP:VFA - meaning, what kind of a page is it as pages normally fit into some predefined category like policy, guideline, essay, project page, etc., and are so identified at the top (perhaps I'm being too rigid, but I do like orderliness).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, well, I didn't invent the VA concept (which dates back to 2007), so I can't really answer your questions. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But you deserve credit for trying - appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22:31, 5 March 2013


 * 1st revert: 22:36, 5 March 2013
 * 2nd revert: 22:44, 5 March 2013
 * 3rd revert: 22:53, 5 March 2013
 * 4th revert: 22:59, 5 March 2013
 * 5th revert: 23:10, 5 March 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also see: -- especially the unblock requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. The edits above are each referenced additions during edit conflicts of new material for a recent death that needed updating to get posted. (I never once removed another editor's material.)  And Macon has been trying to get me blocked for various reasons for months now, see his attempts to do this at Addshore's, and David Levy's talk pages, in addition to comments to Ryan Vesey, and on the Ref Desk talk board, etc., ad nauseam.  (I'll search for diffs if asked.)  The original block to which Macon refers was for my having given a star to someone for a good reference at the reference desk, it was reverted.  Editors will also note Hugo Chavez has been updated with five sentences and three refs per ref desk requirements diff and was posted diff, and except for Macon's desire to see me blocked for whatever reason at whatever cost, the issue is moot.  I would ask that an admin ask Macon to stop stalking me regarding edits/articles he is not involved in for the sole purpose not of improving the project, but of getting me blocked. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So your position is that adding the words "Under his socialist rule, inflation had soared, and the Venezuelan murder rate had quadrupled" to the article six times in a 39-minute period is somehow not edit warring? The edits on the other side of your war show no evidence of edit conflicts. In fact, those edits look exactly like a bunch of different editors deciding that material about socialist rule, inflation, and the murder rate had nothing to do with his death, and you re-inserting the claim every time someone new deleted it.
 * As for me trying to get you blocked, as has been explained to you several times. that is a distant second choice. My first choice would be for you to stop edit warring and stop editing other people's talk page comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . The block was partly based on the edit-warring and partly based on the edits themselves, which were inappropriate in any circumstances but particularly given the article's presence on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:69.156.51.130 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Anonymous IP editor has added the purple Express Pass icon to a team won the second Express Pass used on the recently third leg given from the winners of the first leg received the pass on the current season of The Amazing Race. ApprenticeFan work 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have advised the reporting user about WP:BOOMERANG and have given him an edit warring warning as well: &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for this, I rarely forgot to write a new section on the article's talk page and it's currently empty. Nothing since the article's recreation back in January and until now. ApprenticeFan  work 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTE: I withdraw this report and this is neither a vandalism or BLP violations. So, it's not a proper statement. Case closed. ApprenticeFan  work 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action. Some revert warring has been going on and at least one IP-hopping editor may be involved. But since no reverts have occurred for 24 hours it does not seem that any admin action is needed. It is disappointing that nobody has used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Cessna38671: reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

User has resumed making the exact same edit on the exact same article that led to a block for edit warring less than two weeks ago. Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . User has recently returned from a block and is continuing the exact behaviour that got them blocked before. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:59.163.10.123 reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: 36 h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 08:13,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "Restored old version which was more accurate and elaborate.")
 * 2) 06:42,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Names and images of persons listed are indeed agarwals so why remove that")
 * 3) 07:08,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542169306 by Sitush (talk)")
 * 4) 04:07,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Restored older version which is more accurate and elaborate")

Page:

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


 * 1) 08:54,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541598819 by Sitush (talk)")
 * 2) 06:43,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542022542 by Rocketrod1960 (talk)")
 * 3) 07:10,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542169166 by Sitush (talk)")
 * 4) 04:09,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542211878 by Dawn Bard (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Diff of warning: here

The content the user keeps adding is unsourced, poorly written and poses potential BLP problems. —Dawn Bard (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I did try to explain the problems here prior to issuing a high level EW warning. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . De728631 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Niemti reported by User:Jasca Ducato (Result: Warning to both editors)
Page: |

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

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

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

Comments:

Effectively, Niemti simply removed all text from the article and placed in on the talkpage, under to premise of a major "re-write". He then proceeded to simply remove character sections from the talk page and place it (effectively) verbatim back into the article, save and repeat. This was reverted by myself and a request to store any major rewrites on his desktop and only make the changes to the live article when completed; since then the user has continued to persist in his non-use of the preview button and, despite a friendly alert that such behaviour is frowned upon, has continued to do so.

As such, the entire history page is filling with "Niemti" and it is stopping users from make edits. This has also spread to the talk page where Niemti has "stored" the information he is adding back to the article to boost an edit count. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's always funny when an edit warrior reports others for edit warring.

The article was being tagged for:
 * in-universe since May 2011
 * needing additional citations since December 2011 (having only 37 refs for 179 KB of content, and that's including fake citations)
 * an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience since January 2012

Now it's much better. --Niemti (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As of "boosting the edit count" (lol wut), it's 41,000 edits in 4,894 articles (including 454 files and several hundred brand new articles, categories and templates as well). "Jasca Ducato" has only 1,545 edits total, but apparently cares for these numbers for some reason. --Niemti (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't class myself as an edit warrior; I would class myself as an individual who finds the act of repeatedly failing to use the 'preview' button on an article annoying, at best. You have cited the above tags as your reason for rewriting the article, which I have no objections to, but your inability to rewrite the article somewhere besides the live article (as well as your insistence on adding the information to the talk page before simply moving it back) is, at best, objectionable. Simply put, I am of the opinion you have done this purely to boost your edit count (which, as far as I am aware, is against site policy) and your attitude that it "will be tolerated" is childish.

I also fail to see how comparing my total edit count to yours has any relevance to the fact that you continue to ignore the preview button. I would have thought that somebody with over 40,000 edits would know how to use it by now... --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't care what you would "class" yourself, you're an edit warrior for edit warring with me, which you continued to do even after being warned and told to discuss this on talk page, and actually even after filing this very complaint where you cried to the admins about how someone dared to edit war with you - while you yourself continued edit warring even now when the admins look at it (the pot and the kettle, or maybe you really think you're a special case and just don't get the irony of what you do). Oh, and "won't be tolerated" is not "a friendly warning", it's a silly threat. --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: This link quite clearly shows that the majority of your 40,000 are the result of an inability to locate 'show preview', so please do not try and use your high edit count ni defense of your position. I shall not be discussing this further until a third party has joined to mediate. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol. You forget to notice the thousands of articles, categories and templates. Anyway, what you "shall" is to revert this latest edit-warring edit (not to matter pushing badly written unsourced content, trivia, and original research) to come clean before admins. --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, and also now tries to scare me into allowing him to spam with an "excessive amount of intricate detail", unsourced trivia and original research again. Eccept it won't be allowed. --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For a simple reference, the Great Edit War of 2013 (not really) was between thrse 2 different ideas of what Wikipedia is:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Assassin%27s_Creed_characters&oldid=542593976 (my version in progress, despite all the continued disruption by "Jasca Ducato")
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Assassin%27s_Creed_characters&oldid=542594637 (168 KB(!) of unsourced, badly/horribly written, unorganized, original-researched, extremely trival content mostly straight from The Assassin's Creed Wiki)

--Niemti (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC) In chronological order:
 * "Jasca Ducato" files the complaint above (about the supposed edit warring involving only 2 people, that is me and..."Jasca Ducato")
 * and then continues to edit war like if nothing happened:

And that's even despite being warned by me (which I did after he warned me), and still not getting it. Tl;dr: after the above was filed I refrained, but "Jasca Ducato" didn't.

Also, their edit warring was only disruptive (just reverting), while I've actively kept editing the content (which was making a rather horribly written and incredibly bloated article into something hopefully better).

Oh, and the old content was, of course, being stored on the talk page for a future reference for anyone willing to edit on the new version (which is a rather normal procedure for removing content from the article, maybe just not on all the Wikias where "Jasca Ducato" is so active). --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to show some similar articles that I previously either totally rewrote myself or helped to totally rewrite:
 * List of Mortal Kombat characters
 * List of Resident Evil characters
 * List of Street Fighter characters
 * List of Tekken characters

Which is basically what I'm aiming for with this list there (and the "main article" articles in these lists were in large part split by me). --Niemti (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is an edit-warring noticeboard, not a bickering noticeboard, so stop airing your pettinesses here. Jasca, you are supposed to list diffs, not links. In any event, there's been no 3RR breach here. Niemti has reverted twice, counting the first wholesale removal of material. Jasca has also reverted twice. So, the two of you should work out your differences in content and approach, or both of you should stop editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, if I submit another 3RR complaint in future I shall remember to post the diffs. I would submit however that, combined with the reversions on the talk page which effectively serve the same purpose, there has been well in excess of three reversions each. The main source of the edit confilct stems from the fact that Niemti refuses to utilise the 'preview' function provided by Wikipedia and then cites this (as reason for his high edit count) as evidence that he has more right to edit the articles in a way he sees fit than I, for example.


 * Niemti: You continue to fail to grasp the point in this discussion; I applaud your efforts to help improve the article, but your method (which I have mentioned above numerous times) is in breach of policy. I would also like to point out that your additions to those various other "List" articles is besides the point, we are discussing this article, not those ones. Also, after filing my complaint, I haven't touched he articles at all, mucha s I requested you do not. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Jasca, you filed this report at 14:47 and reverted the article at 14:53. If we're going to use the talk page to aggregate reverts, then you both should be blocked. I've seen talk pages used before as a repository of material from the article, although I don't believe I've ever seen anything on such a grand scale as here. I haven't researched the issue, Jasca; can you cite a policy that prohibits Niemti using this "method"? Frankly, I don't like it, myself. I think they would be better off doing this in their own user space and then citing to it on the talk page for comments, but I'm not sure it's prohibited.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Odd, I did all three edits at once. My contributions lists reads:

15:53, 7 March 2013 (diff | hist). . (+137,253)‎ . . List of Assassin's Creed characters ‎ (A 3RR warning has now been placed on your talk page. Until this is dealt with, please refrain from further editing this page.) (current) 15:52, 7 March 2013 (diff | hist). . (-147,784)‎ . . Talk:List of Assassin's Creed characters ‎ (A 3RR warning has now been placed on your talk page. Until this is dealt with, please refrain from further editing this page.) (current) 15:51, 7 March 2013 (diff | hist). . (+1,856)‎ . . User talk:Niemti ‎ (→‎Preview button) (current)
 * I've had a look around and it seems you are correct, it is not technically prohibited to not use the preview button, just highly recommended and something any user with more than a few hundred edits should be aware of. It is clear this discussion stems more around the fact Niemti and I have different views on what is acceptable behaviour when editing an article, although his increasing hostility in this discussion is worrisome. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe we're talking a bit at cross-purposes here, although I agree with your ultimate conclusion (putting aside the hostility comment). First, I'm talking about the filing of this report and the revert on the article page, not other edits. Second, I wasn't talking about the Show preview button, but about Niemti's method of removal from the article, insertion on the talk page, and piecemeal restoration to the article. The Show preview button is kind of unimportant, at least in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Moehmoud101 reported by User:Bob K31416 (Result: indef blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

The following is evidence of edit warring by Moehmoud101.

Moehmoud101's editing of Al-Ahliyya Amman University began 8:03 5 March 2013 with the deletion of two sourced sections of the article. All the material was restored by Uncle Milty.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again at 8:15 5 March 2013. along with other material around the same time. All the material was restored by Wtmitchell.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again along with other material at 22:18 5 March 2013. All the material was restored by Bob K31416 and a warning was left at Moehmud101's talk page.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again along with other material at 22:39 5 March 2013. All the material was restored by Bob K31416 and a message was left at Moehmud101's talk page to discuss the matter. A message for Moehmoud101 was also left at the article talk page.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again along with other material at 22:56 6 March 2013. As of now, the material hasn't been restored.

So far, Moehmoud101 has chosen not to discuss the matter after requests to do so at the editor's talk page and at the article talk page. As seen above, the editor's only response was to revert again. Although it is clear that the editor is edit warring, the editor may have avoided violation of 3RR in a 24 hour period, depending on whether the first deletion of material is considered a revert, i.e. an undoing of another editor's work. In any case, I think there is sufficient evidence of disruptive edit warring behavior to warrant blocking per WP:3RR which states, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked: this SPA has no interest in improving the project. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Final warning to all editors)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: sopher also has another revert even before edit-warring

This is a tic-tak report. Several editors are engaging in "edit warring" on whether or not a tag should be placed.

I should further make note that I was warned after the fourth edit was made. To which as you can plainly see on the page timeline, I ceased and desisted editing the page as instructed. Sopher99 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As a third party (I am not involved in the dispute) it would seem that there were several editors involved (not just Sopher) and that there is currently a discussion taking place about whether the article truly needs a POV template on it. In such cases, I believe the protocol is to revert the article to the state it was in prior to the dispute taking place (ie, no POV template on the page) until the discussion is completed.  In these cases, I "THINK" the 3RR does not apply because the editors in question are just trying to follow wikipedia protocol.  Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * yes several editors are involved but the only one to break 3rr is obviously sopher99..the 4th revert was partial but indeed still a revert & ontop of that there's a 5th revert in the same article ..i have discussed the POV issues here ..so this isnt about a pov template consensus issue. Baboon43 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My last edit was at 17:05. I stopped editing. You warned me at 17:59. I continued to not edit despite ongoing conflict. Then you "report" me at 18:24. Mind guiding me through that logic? Sopher99 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * those are the new protocols when making reports here..it said to warn user if i had not done so, i guess its for future references. Baboon43 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Basically I did technically break the 3RR by removing questionable templates, as I wasn't certain if the placement of templates count as edit warring content of a page. But when I was warned that I was engaging in edit conflict, I stopped. Sopher99 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I've left a final warning to all editors on the talk page of the article, which seems to have resolved this for now. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Estlandia reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this one or this one, hard to say due to edit conflicts.

Today:


 * 1st revert: (followed up by another revert)
 * 2nd revert: (WP:BLP "recently deceased" violation)
 * 3rd revert: (personal attack in edit summary. I don't even like this Kaczynski)
 * 4th revert: (personal attack and bad faith in edit summary)

March 5th:


 * 1st revert: (WP:BATTLEGROUND edit summary)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Estlandia began edit warring on the article on March 5th. I raised the issue on talk. Estlandia has not responded. I've also alerted him to the fact that he was pushing against the 3RR bright line rule (Miacek is user Estlandia ) and requested that he discuss the issue on talk. Estlandia did not respond, though he did stop edit warring, after 3RR/24hrs. For one day. He resumed today, two days later, as the diffs above show. Note that I did revert him twice today, the second revert actually occurring accidentally due to an edit conflict.

Miacek/Estlandia has been here since 2008. They have received several blocks for edit warring and 3RR violations previously. They know this was a "no no". They have not participated at all in the talk page discussion. They have used inflammatory and battleground producing edit summaries including personal attacks in them (though if it wasn't for the 3RR vio I wouldn't care).

Volunteer Marek 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

First, I have not received 'several' blocks for edit warring, but just two. Last time in 2010 (unlike VM, who was blocked as recently as on 19 July 2012). Second, I reverted the same content just 2 times today. E.g. the last diff he brought up reflects a separate revert of incomprehensible content. Whilst reverting same content twice may not be ok, it's exactly the same thing that VM himself did

today:


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert - note the removal of adequately sourced notion 'Polish nationalist'.

On March 5:


 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It is simply untrue that I was blocked for edit warring on July 19, 2012, as Miacek is trying to imply (it was for mouthing off to an admin who blocked someone else, in my opinion, unfairly. And yes, Miacek violated 3RR today, and skirted the line on March 5. Volunteer Marek 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 3 RR rule covers 3+ reverts of same content, which was not the case here. You reverted same contents just as many times as me.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't and no I didn't. The rule says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.". You know this well since you've been up here a few times before. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've not been a frequent guest here I did not know that definition above. I thought in good faith that reverting the same contents is not allowed. So I've undone my last revert of that page. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your subsequent edit, which you did not self-revert, would also be a revert. Volunteer Marek 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Marek, wasn't the edit at 20:25 a self-revert? Are we okay now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He made two consecutive edits both of which undid the edits of another users. For purposes of 3RR these count as 1 edit (the 4th one) but if you're going to self-revert you should revert both of them, to the last version before you made your 4th revert. Volunteer Marek 04:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This dispute could be winding down. Let's hope it is. Meanwhile, it is hard to see Estlandia's edits as adding to the neutrality of the article. I suggest that a formal warning of Estlandia under WP:ARBEE might be considered if this keeps up. It is possible that WP:1RR could be imposed on the article by a single admin under the discretionary sanctions. Of course, there is nothing that requires Volunteer Marek to keep reverting Estlandia's changes every time. A bigger and better talk discussion is one of the options. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Vcohen reported by User:24.193.156.117 (Result: One lock, two warnings)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&oldid=541897653
 * 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&oldid=542012311
 * 3rd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&oldid=542160022

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

!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . R62 (New York City Subway car) locked by User:EdJohnston. There hasn't been any disruption at R62A (New York City Subway car) for about 24 hours, so I'm not taking any action. Both Vcohen and the IP have been edit-warring on both articles. I will warn them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Barlafus reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Barlafus first attempted to turn this article into a redirect without explanation on 5 March. After I restored the article, he has attempted the same edit a further four times since.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

In addition, he has removed the article from the navigational Template:Sammarinese elections five times. 

Whilst Barlafus has not violated WP:3RR, he shows no signs of stopping. I requested that the page be protected at WP:RFPP, but was pointed here instead.

I have attempted to discuss this with Barlafus, including asking him to start an AfD or RFC if he wants the article deleted, but he continues to revert, even after I warned him that I wuold report him here. I also asked for outside intervention on Elections & referendums WikiProject, but to no avail.

Can someone please restore the article (I'm getting tired of reverting what is effectively page blanking) and put a stop to this? Thanks, Number   5  7  00:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a joke. User:Number 57 is the sole and usual edit-warrior (here his four reverts without SOURCES. I tried to discuss with him showing official, reliable sources, but he continued with his reverts without adding any new source for his attitude. I think he should be warned. --Barlafus (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 21:06, March 7, 2013. Restored the word "innuendo"
 * 2nd revert: 21:30, March 7, 2013. Restored the word "innuendo"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:41 March 7, 2013.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None – article is under 1RR so violation came too quickly.

Comments:

Roscelese removed the word "innuendo" on March 2. Beleg Strongbow restored it twice on March 7. The article is under 1RR supervision because it discusses the topic of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to make the same report. However, it's not the simple removal or restoration of a word that's at issue: Beleg, a single-purpose activist account at this article, rolled back a large number of changes by multiple users on both sides of whatever "debate" existed in the article, destroying a hard-won consensus in favor of his own desire to promote the film and its theories. I will also note that the article has a 1RR edit notice, and that Beleg has been warned about his 1RR violations at the article on the past, and that the edits he reverted had indeed been worked out through discussion on the talk page, which he did not contribute to. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . The link to the October warning was helpful, thanks. Just to be clear, there is a "notice" on the talk page, but there is no "edit notice" per se. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User:188.216.240.13 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 13:15,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541046771 by 89.143.112.161 (talk)")
 * 2) 13:17,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 541032718 by Geni (talk)")
 * 3) 13:17,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 540898720 by Aarska (talk)")
 * 4) 17:59,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542371939 by OniceMars (talk)")
 * 5) 23:14,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542405837 by 89.143.113.202 (talk)")
 * 6) 15:20,  7 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 22:13,  7 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542667074 by Aarska (talk)")
 * 8) 23:05,  7 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542695306 by Aarska (talk)")
 * 9) 13:40,  8 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542764761 by Aarska (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Dawn Bard (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Edit warring by IPs who don't participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User:159.53.46.142 reported by User:Wctaiwan (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (not exact, there have been changes to other parts since)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This editor has repeatedly reinserted the same content despite 6 editors either reverting or disagreeing with them. While they have responded on the talk page, they have continued to edit war in the time since.

Previous POV pushing from IP editors at this page have been dealt with semi-protection for increasing lengths of time, but the problem consistently resumes after protection expires, and the long durations cause a fair bit of collateral damage. If possible, I want to request a topic ban against the editor using IPs within 159.53.0.0/16 for articles related to Taiwan and the Republic of China, broadly constructed, until such a time that they're willing to get an account. (Disclosure: I had unknowingly reached 5 reverts on the same page yesterday and only realised afterwards, though I will note that only 2 of the reverts are related to this incident. I recognise that I may rightfully be blocked over it.) wctaiwan (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the page for a month. If you want a range block, it would be best to list all of the IP addresses involved so a range can be calculated. The range you suggest would hit 65,534 IP addresses. From looking at just a few of the IPs who have edited recently in that range, according to Geolocate, they are corporate IP addresses from JP Morgan Chase; I have no idea how many legitimate edits are done by Chase IPs. Finally, as far as I know, a "topic ban" on a range of IPs is possible only through an edit filter, not a range block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Yeoberry reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 15:42, 8 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Hate group listings */ more about terrorist attack on Family Research Council, SPLC labelling dissenting political groups "hate groups"")

2. 15:54, 8 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542830830 by Wikiwind (talk) these were not unreliable sources and the Laird Wilcox was only barely mentioned, not described")

3. 16:13, 8 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542833641 by MrX (talk)not poorly source, the article as is suffers from too much reliance on primary sources which makes this article practically an ad for the SPLC") 17:23,  8 March 2013]  (edit summary: "previous editor's characterization of my POV tag as "drive by" is simply dishonest. I tried to revise the article some but some reverted. It's clearly a biased article, based mostly on primary sources with alternative sources suppressed.")

4. 17:30, 8 March 2013  (edit summary: "these are accurate sources that makes important points; this article needs balance")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Editor has been warned about edit-warring in the past. Dougweller (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also check editing history at Family Research Institute and List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups; there's edit-warring going on there, too. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This user has been edit warring on both Southern Poverty Law Center and Family Research Institute. Efforts by several editors on the user's talk page, my talk page and both talk page articles to get to get Yeoberry to stop edit waring have failed. - MrX 17:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . If this continues after the block expires, a longer block would be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

User:176.251.25.150 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked for 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I am not really involved in editing the article, my single revert was due to the IP having no consensus for his additions. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * Reverts
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=542890421&oldid=540803953 8 March 20:25] (effective rv of [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=451875483&oldid=451875316 this] older edit, which was the outcome of much discussion)
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=542997749&oldid=542987772 9 March 09:16]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=543000255&oldid=542998867 9 March 09:47]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=543021561&oldid=543021306 9 March 13:45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HistoryofIran&diff=prev&oldid=543010312]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surena&diff=prev&oldid=543010239] (ignored by HistoryofIran)

Comments:

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit-warring exacerbated by personal attacks: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=542997749&oldid=542987772] ("the most stupidest thing i have ever read"), [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Surena&diff=543021561&oldid=543021306] ("can you read English? ... stop vandalism").
 * User also reverts in retaliation on a different article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persian_language&diff=543022418&oldid=542989149] (reinstating a blatantly disruptive edit that broke multiple wikilinks, falsified several literal quotations and turned several passages of text into self-contradictory nonsense.)


 * I have made some very good edits about a person named Surena, i have even added two sources and made many more things, but this guy keeps deleting it, can you please tell him to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talk • contribs)

Update: HistoryofIran is now on the article talk page, and stubbornly refusing to accept that there is such a thing as a WP:RS policy, arguing that he simply knows the truth about this topic because he is Iranian [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Surena&diff=543043865&oldid=543041772]. I have no more patience with this person. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked History for longer than usual for a first block because, in addition to violating WP:3RR, they have made personal attacks and been otherwise disruptive in their approach in the short time they've been on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Info2012 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page: and

User being reported:

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

Note: the user has not yet crossed 3RR, but overall behavior clearly violates WP:EW, will explain below.
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * Note that there is a similar sequence of reverts on Indian rupee

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (templated warning by another editor), and a followup personalized one by me at

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussions on the user's talk page at User Talk:Info2012 and User Talk:Info2012 as well as WT:INB

Comments: As mentioned above, the user hasn't broken 3RR; they're at 3 reverts in 24 hours, and 4 reverts in about 28 hours. But the user's attitude as expressed on his talk page make it very clear that he has no intention of stopping. As he explained on WT:INB, he describes reversions of his edits as vandalism, despite the fact that several other editors have reverted him and explained the problems (WP:DUE and WP:RS mainly). In this diff he called the person reverting him a "Government troll". I have to assume this person is personally connected with the court case he's trying to shoehorn into the article, given the strong emotions he's presenting. Given that reverting and discussion have failed to make any impression, I think we have no choice but to block. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . In addition to the edit-warring in multiple articles, Info2012 has personally attacked editors who don't agree with Info's "truth" (calling an editor a "government troll"). There is a crusading flavor to Info's comments and edits, which is not conducive to improving articles collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Giorgio Forelli reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: Re-adds MEDRS-noncompliant statements after they were removed (This is a revert; see prior history of the article)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: n/a, article is under 1RR per ArbCom (and previous community-imposed sanctions)
 * 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - Warning to the user after a previous violation of 1RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Some brief discussion on Talk:Abortion debate where GF posted a single time and never responded after his comment was addressed; previous discussion of the source took place at Talk:Abortion in Chile (I'm not sure if GF is the IP there who was editing other users' comments or not). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Giorgio Forelli is a single-purpose account, the purpose of the account being to add this non-peer-reviewed study to the article in order to push an anti-abortion POV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Buthsop reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Malformed)
Page:

User being reported:

User's entire contribution history seems to revolve around spamming their Puddle Duck Racer boat design and WP article (now at AfD). This includes spamming ELs, edit-warring, POV See Alsos to the top-level article at Boat with "PDRacer The Easiest Boat To Build Yourself" The article might be notable (it's now at AfD to discuss this), but it's certainly not supported by any non-SPS refs at present. I removed the see also link tonight just to see it return within a couple of minutes. Looking further and this has gone on for a couple of days (EW for sure, probably bright 3RR). GF prompted a warning, and leaving it that, but looking a bit further and this same issue has gone on since 2011 with very little else in the way of edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This editor has a long history of edit warring without discussion at articles and has been blocked more than once for same. I want to discuss, but he doesn't seem to be interested. In my opinion, most of his changes to my edits were wording that didn't make the article better, it just reverted back to the wording he inserted previously. I'd like to know why my edits were (in his words) wrong or incorrect, not just that they are wrong or incorrect. One more thing: I reverted back to the changes he had reverted without discussion. At this point, I do wish I hadn't done that and first came here instead. It was my error, and I'm willing to own up to that. Winkelvi (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Ring Cinema has only reverted twice, as have you. Your list of diffs above is incorrect. Please read WP:3RR on what constitutes a revert. Consecutive edits without interruption by another editor cannot be counted as more than one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:86.146.130.247 reported by User:Edinburgh Loon (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff=543029430&oldid=542440669]
 * . I have locked the article for 3 days. Both parties were edit-warring. I have removed the material at issue because of the BLP implications and have commented at an ongoing discussion at WP:BLPN. Whether the material should be included can be decided by consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TransVannian and User:92.13.78.204 reported by User:92.13.78.204 (Result: Locked for a week)
Page:

User being reported: ,

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

92.13.78.204
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

TransVannian


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

92.13.78.204

TransVannian 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: i engaged in an edit war with User:TransVannian on this template because i thought his revision constituted as original research and the sources he provided were dubious. he started a discussion on the talk page but i did not participate. i asked him to assume good faith and be civil after he said i was editing anonymously for malicious reasons. he also said he would revert every time i reverted. i no longer wish to edit war but i believe something must be done about this. 92.13.78.204 (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not engage in any edit war but you did. And why don't you create an account? Of course this user would have been banned in the past. I'm sorry I called you an idiot but it was becaus eyou keep reverting the timeline even after I provided a source for my edit. As far as I know only one reference is required to confirm an edit. Also you say it yourself that you're too are getting an edit war. I do not wish to revert your edits again and again but even after meeting all requirements for properly sourcing an edit. Also I've asked you to create an account so I can post comments on your talk page about this situation and help in solving it. You yourself said this statement "while a consensus can be used to resolve a dispute or resolve a debate, it does not mean contributors cannot make edits consistent with wikipedia's policy without a consensus. contributors have the right to cite the MoS when editing or forming a consensus" while editing the template. Also I do have more than 1 source ready for proving there exists an alternate timeline. I'll provide another one if you want but after that don't say that just two sources don't confirm it. As far as per wiki guidlines only one source is required to confirm an edit. Also I request you again to please create an account. TransVannian (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you didn't participate in the discussion that is your fault. I invited you to discuss about this situation. I tried to sort out and discuss this situation with properly but you didn't even discuss. So basically it's more of your fault than mine. But I appreciate that you accepted it and reported yourself too and I apologise for calling you an idiot. I'm really sorry. TransVannian (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also I'll like to notify that this user gave himself a block warning. Check his talk page His actions really seem suspicious to me since we all know that it will not prevent a user from editing wikipedia. TransVannian (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I locked the template for a week. Both of you are edit-warring. @IP, as you acknowledge, you should have participated in a discussion of the content dispute. @TransVannian, IP-editing is perfectly acceptable; you should stop insisting that the IP create an account. The don't have to. Just as with all editors, they have to edit in good faith and abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - they don't have to create an account. I'm not sure what your basis is for thinking that the IP has been "banned", but you, yourself, have only been editing for a short time on Wikipedia, at least under this account. So, unless you have evidence of misconduct, drop the accusations. The two of you can now talk on the template talk page and work this out. If the battle conduct resumes after the lock expires, either or both of you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 you said I have no evidence against him. Look at this . He knows many policies of Wikipedia and his edits make it seem like he is an experienced user. Also from the link you will find that there's not even a single mistake at all in his edit descriptions. Only a user who is experienced and has been using Wikipedia for much time can edit and type so fluently. My accusations are not at all baseless. And do you know why he is not creating an account? So he can get away no matter what he does. Even if his IP or IP range is blocked he still will be able to edit wikipedia easily. It's a simple process of turning your internet modem off and on you have anew ip. That way the only one who will be blocked will be me and he will get away with it. TransVannian (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (last reverted version but the reverts include other details too)


 * 1st revert: (reverting my restoration of the first version per WP:BRD)
 * 2nd revert: (reverting Guzhinjeri)
 * 3rd revert: (reverting Arianit (Serb forces to Yugoslav troops and Serbia to "Serbia and Montenegro"))
 * 4th revert: (again reverting "Serb forces" to "Yugoslav troops" and Serbia to "Serbia and Montenegro")
 * 5th revert: (readding the "Serbia and Montenegro" part)
 * 6th revert: (reverting bobrayner's and Arianit's latest edits)
 * 7th revert: (reverting bobrayner)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (various comments by involved editors)

Comments:

As the content of the reverts indicates Evlekis disputes the use of terms like "Serbian prisons"/"Serb" etc, although they are the terms used by the sources. Throughout the discussions he has often accused others of POV pushing to tarnish the Serbian name. Note that he has a quite long history of receiving the "final warning" message as regards edit-warring-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To the admins. Welcome to ZjarriRrethues' latest smear campaign against an editor merely guilty of introducing precision on a poorly sourced article plagued by ambiguity and tententious content. First, this is negligible - it formed part of a separate dispute for which the other editor and I reached a consensus and the presentation in question remains pursuant to the fellow editor's preference. The fact is that I have made a total of 22 contributions to this article of various descritpion, needless to say, I have also worked hard to bring users to discuss by making 15 contributions to date on Talk:Bardhyl Çaushi. I appreciate that the admin to handle this may not be versed in Balkan affairs but if if I am to refrain from making personal remarks regarding ZjarriRrethues' WP:NPOV issues, then I would be lying if I were not to contend that this user struggles to understand source content and how to use it on Wikipedia. For example, my assertion that Serbia in 1999 formed a part of FR Yugoslavia can hardly be POV when it is an unequivocal fact. Indeed some sources may simplify activities from that region so as to brand everything Serbian - that does not mean we must quote the publication verbatim. I've also noticed that ZjarriRrethues - who has evidently taken time to collate his scheme - conveniently "overlooked" this self-revert in all but one element in which I found a more prudent solution, rather than present Serb or Yugoslav, how about state forces - it imparts the correct information that orders came from the top regardless of entity name. Be that as it may, following some discussion on the talk - I began to concede (mainly on the prison affair) but decided to do so cautiously by re-inserting Serbia but parenthesising its status within the contemporary federation. Sadly this was the bone of contention for the three-party alliance (ZjarriRrethues, User:Bobrayner and User:Arianit). Here Arianit has blanked factual and relevant information which he dismisses as POV and wiesel wording but notice that he removes Wikilinks too which corroborate the point. He also earlier removed a valid link here as an "attempt to mislead". Very interesting how neither he nor his allies here have inserted what the real link should be, and let's face it: the biggest subject and reason for the article, should it not be linked? Of course it shouldn't. They have one option if they don't want Military of Serbia and Montenegro which happens to be Serbian Army but given this did not become active until 2006 whilst the subject events were 1999 and 2005, they know it is a misnomer. So who is POV-pushing now? And since this post began, I confess to one more which was to deal with this: from Mr.Rayner. To the admin, I work hard to keep things neutral and it is hard to play fair when up against multiple concerted opponents who game the system by staying on the right side of 3RR. My edits are approved by Antidiskriminator and WhiteWriter but I am not calling for their help on this. Furthermore, I am happy to take more steps back by introducing this section - one in which I am only too happy accept "Serb forces" once a user confirms which paramilitary was involved by citing a source. Instead of that I get no reply except for this 45 minutes later. Everyone is playing a dirty game. I suggest lock the page and push everyone into the discussion hall; still, I bet you will never reach a consensus. The others are not interested in clarity, not interested in facts, not interested in precision, they don't want sidenotes, they don't want disclaimers, they don't want anything other than another page that slings mud at the Serbian nation. Yes there is edit-warring but each user must answer for his own actions, so far the others have not surrendered one iota of content. They are clinging onto the "source" hoax relentlessly, so please take this into consideration. Either close this talk (and lock the page) or block each of us. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Evlekis, on what grounds are you asking other users to be blocked? For example, I made a revert yesterday per WP:BRD and then stuck to the talkpage as is the proper way to deal with disputes. Btw you do realize that accusing other users of "wanting to create pages that sling mud at the Serbian nation", "forming alliances" against you and accusing me specifically of a "smear campaign" against you (although you blatantly breached 3RR and disregarded the sources) is unacceptable and in contrast to every policy and decorum of wikipedia, don't you? And WP:IDHT by asking for sources, which were presented to you in full quotes is disruptive.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Come now ZjarriRrethues, I was on the dirty end of four AN/I inquiries within a short space about six months back and you were instrumental in each of them, whilst you have nothing other than 'soft technicality' on which to blow the whistle. You know very well that the Balkans is a sensitive area yet you never try to edit neutrally, it's your lop-sided angle or nothing at all. We don't see you edit-warring, but why would you need to when you have the whole User:Sinbad Barron franchise or User:Keithstanton who can just "pop up" any time of day or night and restore your edits. It makes no odds to you them getting the block because there is more where they came from, very handy for 1RR ARBMAC issues, and you stay clean as a whistle. Well my friend, it was you that initiated that excuse of an article in the knowledge that you were prepared to sidestep facts for glamourous outlook. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(unindent)Right..it's all an elaborate conspiracy against you (how does Keithstanton who hasn't even noticed the article relate to this?). Btw for someone who "never" edits neutrally according to you I've done pretty well. Enough said and I'll inform Zippy. Personally, I've had enough mass disruption and ignoring of the sources.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So you know User:Keithstanton "hasn't noticed the article related to this"? I find this concerning, you may just have said more than you meant. I always suspected that the man behind the mask was a friend of somebody's and now we know for sure. I don't care how many DYK entries you have, you aim to present all pages per your slanted viewpoint once you finally get the operation on the road and that is what counts. You say I ignore sources, STALE - I say that your points are not supported by your sources. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I "know" that he hasn't noticed it because he hasn't edited it. Seriously, if you want to contribute meaningfully you have to start acknowledging your own disruption instead of looking for "alliances". Btw if you really think that there's some sort of conspiracy against you, take it to WP:AE. Enough said.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked the article for 5 days. Several editors have been edit-warring on the article, which was recently created by ZjarriRrethues, although the number of Evlekis's reverts outdistances the others. The final warning given by User:ItsZippy to Evlekis was in July 2012. I'm not sure if ItsZippy wants to act on a warning from that long ago. In my view, the article should be under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC, and I've templated the talk page accordingly.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and thanks. It is up to Zippy and I'll inform him myself. Meanwhile, can I suggest Bbb23 keep watch of the talk page developments because this will need contributions from all persons. No good the article lying frozen five days only for a relaunch of battleground editing once it is released. ARBMAC is best, but sooner or later somebody will summon a new incarnation of User:Sinbad Barron (if User:Keithstanton is not the "incumbent", I cannot comment on that) which helps with 1RR, and we won't know who he is until it is too late.  Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't raise this issue but since my name was raised I should respond. There is a concerted effort by Evlekis and his friends to portray all war crimes in Kosovo as Yugoslav war crimes (allegedly to be precise), which detracts from the substance of the sources, the war-crimes, the power relations in the Yugoslav federation, and who the perpetrators were. Yugoslav army (effectively Serbia) did not abduct civilians in Kosovo, it was the paramilitaries and police forces that did. This attitude by Evlakis is specifically designed to confuse the reader and now we have a grand fine mess which he has created in all articles related to war crimes in Kosovo. Similarly, in biography articles of anyone born in Kosovo, Evlakis will list every single administrative division Kosovo was under, deliberately confusing the reader as to the true birthplace of the person, instead of simply stating the geographic location. In every single article mentioning Kosovo Evlakis will make sure to add the highly politicized footnote stating that Kosovo is a disputed territory although articles may be talking about a beauty pageant and nowhere in it is the political status of Kosovo a point of discussion or even mentioned. He would like to think that he wants to be precise, but I find it strange that this position aligns 100% with the political attitude of Serbia towards Kosovo. Among his other sins from my personal experience: reverting citation challenge tags without explanation, adding unspecific sources which upon further examination do not back up citations (i.e. making up citations), attempts to write every name in Kosovo in Albanian latin alphabet and Serb Cyrillic because they were born in Kosovo while denying the same treatment to Serbs born in Kosovo, and aggressive posture against new editors who are turned away in disgust by the reception they receive. The file is quite big should someone want to restore sanity to our corner of Wikipedia. --Arianit (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Evlekis for 24 hours. The three-revert rule was broken, and Evlekis should understand our rules on edit warring very well by now. Further, since Bardhyl Çaushi was protected, Evlekis proceeded to continue a different conflict (over a similar issue) at Ukshin Hoti here. I endorse Bbb23's placing of Bardhyl Çaushi under discretionary sanctions. I am also concerned by the long-term disruption caused by Evlekis and wonder whether a further community review of his actions may be necessary (at ANI or RFCU). Finally, the other editors involved would do well to avoid allowing these edit wars to happen in the first place. I know three reverts are technically allowed, but any amount of edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the number of reverts. Discussion is rarely fruitful when an article is being edited back and forth - if consensus cannot be reached, either seek outside help or cease editing the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you extend the block. 24hrs isn't enough, all he does is push pro-Serb propaganda onto tendentious articles, doesn't respect concensus and editwars with neutral editors. Keithstanton (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have explained on my talk page why I blocked Evlekis for 24 hours, why I don't believe an indefinite block is the right thing to do, and why it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally indefinitely block him even if I did. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:92.234.251.18 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

This IP, for essentially his entire editing history, has made a series of edits that were variously WP:OR, WP:BLP-violations, WP:POV, or simply vandalism. He frequently uses the edit summary "ME", which I assume means "Minor Edit", for edits that are not, in fact, "minor". The vast majority of his edits have been reverted by a long list of editors, his talk page is a litany of warnings, and he's edit-warring again at Jewish diaspora, inserting material that got him blocked in early February.

Comments:


 * - One week for long-term edit warring. The previous block for warring on the same article seems not to have got his attention. EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:121.127.211.208 reported by SpecMode (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:50, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543353410 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 2) 05:55, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543353925 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 3) 05:57, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543354520 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 4) 06:02, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543354712 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 5) 06:04, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543355432 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 6) 06:06, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543355818 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 7) 06:08, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543355980 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")
 * 8) 06:10, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543356288 by 174.0.70.87 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—SpecMode (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)