Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive209

User:174.0.70.87 reported by SpecMode (talk) (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:52, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543353738 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 2) 05:56, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543354311 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 3) 05:58, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543354606 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 4) 06:03, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543355345 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 5) 06:06, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "I can keep doing this as long as it takes until you are banned.")
 * 6) 06:07, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543355931 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 7) 06:09, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543356113 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 8) 06:10, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543356418 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")
 * 9) 06:13, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543356528 by 121.127.211.208 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—SpecMode (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The user was reverting vandalism, which is an exception to the 3RR rule. Also, the page has been semiprotected for a few days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:90.236.208.57 reported by SpecMode (talk) (Result: Block, semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 07:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:48, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 06:52, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 06:52, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543361681 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 4) 06:53, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543361758 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 5) 06:53, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 06:57, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543361844 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 7) 06:59, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543362342 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 8) 06:59, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543362556 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 9) 07:00, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 10) 07:02, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 11) 07:03, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543362908 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 12) 07:04, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543363015 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 13) 07:04, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543363153 by 90.236.208.57 (talk)")
 * 14) 07:10, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543363311 by Denisarona (talk) please do not remove sourced content like that see my edits first before editing")
 * 15) 07:18, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 16) 07:28, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comment: Possibly two users at the same IP warring with each other? Seems odd.
 * A second IP in the same network,, is now also reverting the same edits on this article. SpecMode (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

—SpecMode (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: IP blocked and article semiprotected one month by User:JamesBWatson. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Vickle1777 reported by User:Utcursch (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (diff)


 * 1st revert: (March 7)
 * 2nd revert: (March 8)
 * 3rd revert: (March 8)
 * 4th revert: (March 11)
 * 5th revert: (March 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

keeps removing citation needed tags added by other users, and keeps adding a self-published source.

Similar edits on Khalsa.

The user refuses to discuss the topic on the article's talk page inspite of requests to do so. When told about the Wikipedia policies on references and reliable sources, s/he says that one can't "ask for every reference for other details. I might go through the WIKI policies".

The user has been warned about unconstructive edits several times in the past, by multiple users. Instead of resorting to the talk page, s/he keeps on calling others as "vandals". Normally, I'd block the user myself, but I don't want to appear as someone who is abusing administrator privileges. utcursch | talk 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also Khalsa: The user keeps adding back unsourced content. S/he is not ready to even let the citation needed and original research tags stay. S/he insists that other users who demand citations are vandals, because "Citations demanded for something (which are fact) is as much non-sense as citation required for human beings consuming milk.".  utcursch | talk 12:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ended with "I am stopping responding to you." utcursch | talk 14:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * by . Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Vitvak reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Pages protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st edit:
 * 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:

Simultaneously, the user was edit-warring at Bus Beloyar, but only managed to reach three reverts there before the page was protected. Did not respond to any attempts to resolve anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've protected both pages for two weeks in hopes that'll encourage the user to talk. I will continue to monitor the situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2013; 21:02 (UTC)

User:108.41.255.230 reported by User:AngusWOOF (Result: 3 mos)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: after protection was lifted, IP added unsourced voice actors as he had been doing before
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: - tried to add his changes incrementally
 * 4th revert: - unreverted my undo

The trouble first started on January 7 when I removed his unsourced Gakuen Basara additions and he immediately reverted and continued to add more bogus information. 

I have requested protection on the article several times. The first time it was granted for a week. The second time it was granted for 1 month. The third time it was declined and referred to this page.

His current adding of information is under "Mini Sengoku Basara" which is a legit title for the mini-series, however, the particular voice actors are still unsourced; he apparently wants to add whatever voice actors he feels like adding for the part.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP has also changed other related voice actor pages with the same false information, and that required undoing by other editors.
 * - Maxey Whitehead edit history
 * - List of Negima! Magister Negi Magi characters edit history

IP has also logged on as a user which has been banned to try to revert changes.

I also asked for help on WP:ANIME :

AngusWOOF (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * – Three months. See the sock case at Sockpuppet investigations/98.116.98.50/Archive. That IP geolocates to West Islip, NY, as does this one. The common element for these IPs is disputing about credits for voice actors. The named account in that SPI has been indefinitely blocked, so I'm assuming this is a case of block evasion. This IP has not joined the talk page discussion where it is claimed by others that false information has been added to the article. After this closure, if more IPs from West Islip join the dispute I suggest 6 months of semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Well, he's doing it again from another IP 96.56.149.220:   He's disrupting a new editor who is currently fixing the data properly. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've semiprotected the article for six months. Yet another IP from West Islip, NY. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Oeneki reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)

Page:Mamluk User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * Mamluk
 * 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: I first noticed that User:Oeneki had removed Georgian from the article Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo). I checked both sources, of which the first one "The Georgian Mameluks in Egypt", by Alexander Mikaberidze, checked out. "1382-1517 (in fact till 1811, including period of supremacy of Ottoman Empire) - Dynasty of Burji ("Burgites") Mameluks, mostly of Georgian and Circassian origin. Their name has its origins in the Arabic word "burj" which means tower, castle or fortress where the Mameluk garrisons was deployed".

I went further and found 6 more sources quite easily. I provided the titles of the books, authors and links for each. User:Oeneki's response was a demand to "Show a ref for georgian Mamluk Sultan". Which has nothing to do with the article, judging from the sentence in question, "The sultanate's ruling caste was composed of Mamluks, soldiers of predominantly Kipchak/Cuman, Circassian and Georgian slave origin. Regardless, user:Oeneki has edit warred on both Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo) and Mamluk articles. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Opus88888 reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: Editor advised)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:36,  4 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:13,  5 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 19:45,  6 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542396922 by Jotamar (talk)")
 * 4) 21:23,  7 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 542592939 by Sun Adder (talk)")
 * 5) 18:51,  8 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 06:51, 12 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543259187 by McGeddon (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here reverted a day later with the edit summary "This user is a clon of another user")

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

Comments:

User:Opus88888 has edited the Paella article ten times this year to overemphasise the etymology of the dish's name in the first sentence of the lede, and is ignoring attempts to discuss this on the talk page. The user's single talk page response has been to quote a chunk of "Instead of deleting text, consider..." policy, and they have ignored other editor's replies to this. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also warned User:Opus88888 about edit warring and here Sun Adder (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, McGeddon and Sun Adder are probably the same person. I invite administrators to investigate the IPs. --Opus88888 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And your "opinion" is based on what? That they disagree with you? Take such accusations to WP:SPI, but make sure you have something to back it up. In the meantime, I suggest you stop reverting on the article and discuss the issue concretely on the article talk page. The only reason I haven't blocked you is because it's a slow edit-war and there's been no breach of WP:3RR, but continuing down the road you've taken may change my mind.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:,. I then received this response: and replied with this:.

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. I reported his edit warring behavior earlier today and received the following response from an administrator:. Because the editor in question returned immediately to edit warring rather than discussion, it seems to me that there is no desire on the part of that editor to discuss, just to revert. I further think the way he has turned the tables on the talk page to make it seem as if I am in the wrong to even make any changes without his permission says "article ownership" in neon letters. Article ownership along with edit warring -- these aren't allowed, are they? I have to admit, his response(s) on the talk page plus the previous administrator response to his obvious edit warring makes me feel as if I'm in the Twilight Zone instead of a place where people are supposed to work together at improving article content. Winkelvi (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned Ring Cinema. Since March 9 Ring Cinema only made three reverts, but their actions might be seen as edit warring. Winkelvi was the person on the other side of these reverts. I'm warning Ring Cinema to carefully consider his block log before reverting again. The parties might consider opening an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been watching alot of these film articles, and this one in particular. Ever since I first encountered User:RingCinema last year at No Country for Old Men I've found him to have a terribly bad habit of reverting first then discussing later, if at all, and usually with ownership issues as well as testy/obnoxious WP:IDHT attitude, as others have noted. See my talkpage archive as well as the 3RR report I filed on him (incomprenhensibly deemed 'stale') for more context. For some reason, he feels entitled to act the way he does from some apparent enabling behavior by admins and others at the Film Project. Frankly I think his contributions are not worth the incivility and battleground behavior, not least because it scares away other valuable editors and potential contributions. I've avoided interacting with him directly. I would support an RFC/U on him. El duderino (abides) 07:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:ClarenceHouseApts reported by Proper OH (talk) (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 01:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest dates are in UTC
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

This article is about a living person. The editor reverts to edits that are pejorative, unreferenced, and potentially defamatory.
 * . I'm going off-wiki and don't have time to review this. It doesn't appear to be an edit-warring problem, but a BLP problem stemming from a WP:SPA. At a minimum the edits are probably WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. I also note that the user name violates policy and may have something to do with the agenda of the editor.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours by User:Syrthiss for violation of WP:BLP and edit warring. See the comments left by Syrthiss at User talk:ClarenceHouseApts. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:93.141.66.201 reported by User:Marcus Qwertyus (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

Users 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Stone of the Pregnant Woman

Comments:

No comment. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ricojellyfro reported by User:Cavann (Result: Warning, semi)
Page:

User being reported: and IP's

Previous version reverted to: Complex case stretching couple of months. The user was reported before. Blocked 1 week, with a potential indef block if continuing same behaviour. Continuation of same behaviour after his block expired:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Result: Ricojellyfro is warned for edit warring and the article is semiprotected 3 months. This is a case of long-term edit warring and probable sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:82.41.107.134 reported by User:Izno (Result: 12h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=543609682&oldid=535400462]


 * 1) 1st revert: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=543612838&oldid=543610728]
 * 2) 2nd revert: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=543673389&oldid=543622961]
 * 3) 3rd revert: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=543682575&oldid=543678170]
 * 4) 4th revert: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sega_Genesis&diff=543730677&oldid=543704833]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A82.41.107.134&diff=543760523&oldid=543678154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No attempt has been made, but the user has been warned that his actions are disruptive at his talk page.

Comments:


 * The IP is trying to take this to the article page also. There is an established consensus for the current name of the article documented at Talk:Sega Genesis/FAQ. --Izno (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - 12 hours for edit warring, by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: Both editors blocked for 3 days.)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Mr. Ollie is engaged in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign on Wikipedia. Mr. Ollie is repeatedly editing Wikipedia article and  to remove pertinent page content related to another form of security token / multi-factor authentication, while specifically ignoring product content he wishes to promote. This is "promotion by censorship" and violates Wikipedia's edit warring policies.

Mr. Ollie was issued a final warning by User:ItsZippy on March 5 against continuing in this behavior (see this page archive history). Today, he again removed the information.


 * 1) 1st revert: 22:43, 4 March 2013‎
 * 2) 2nd revert: 11:59, 5 March 2013‎
 * 3) 3rd revert: 15:39, 5 March 2013‎
 * 4) MR OLLIE ISSUED FINAL WARNING TO CEASE BY User:ItsZippy 17:49, 5 March 2013‎
 * 5) 4th revert: 14:26, 13 March 2013‎

Note: I previously removed all vendor promotion form the above 2 referenced article sections, yet Mr. Ollie continues to remove the information. Mr Ollie's user talk page contains numerous complaints by other Wikipedia content submitters regarding similar malicious editing behavior. Also, Mr. Ollie does not respond to other editor requests on his talk page to cease his malicious censorship, nor for an explanation for his behavior.

In accordance with this page's guidelines, I have placed ANOTHER notice on Mr. Ollie's user talk page. - MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the reviewing admin, MesaBoy77 (and his IP 70.190.0.52), is a single purpose account devoted to promoting a trademarked product valled 'virtual tokens' by a company called Sestus (an external link he insists on including on the Multi-factor authentication article.) He's been inserting this stuff since November of 2011. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Response by MesaBoy77.  Mr. Ollie's statement is incorrect.  The information related to virtual token forms of multifactor does not promote any particular company or product, and it is no more unsourced than the "soft token" and "hardware token" authentication discussed on these pages.  Also, I am not a single source editor, having contributed content to several Wikipedia pages.  Finally, I did not  insert just "this stuff" since November 2011.  I am the original author of the majority of this page's content, including the "stuff" related to hardware tokens and software tokens.


 * These articles do not reference any particular company nor product (In fact, I personally removed all product references from this article, including those related to Sestus, RSA, Vasco, and Safenet). Below is the content Mr. Ollie is attempting to censor related to virtual token forms of authentication. As you can see, contrary to what Mr. Ollie alleges, it does not reference any product or any particular company:
 * "Virtual token MFA is fundamentally different from "soft" tokens in that soft tokens require the deployment of software to end users, while virtual token MFA does not. Virtual token MFA uses the user's existing Internet device as the possession factor, reducing the costs normally associated with implementation and maintenance of multi-factor solutions. Processing occurs "server-side" and facilitates the retrieval of one-time-use digitally-signed key and other information from a connected device using Internet-standard HTTP/HTTPS delivery methods. The retrieved key is then authenticated against the connecting device's digital fingerprint, the user's account details, and other data. Since the authenticating server is communicating directly with the connected device, the method is not as prone to man-in-the-middle attacks as other methods." ====


 * There are many different companies promoting virtual token forms of multi-factor authentication, none of which are cited within the body of these articles. Mr. Ollie simply wishes to remove ALL information related to virtual token forms of authentication in order to promote software and hardware token authentication within the online security market. This is "promotion-by-censorship" and is a violation of Wikipedia's policies. If Mr. Ollie can show me any particular company or product name referenced in the product, I will be happy to remove it.  - MesaBoy77 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I see now the link Mr. Ollie was objecting to. The link to Sestus on the bottom of the page was included simply because they were the first commercial company to introduce the concept of virtual token MFA.  it was included as a historical reference.  However, I have now removed that link.  Please instruct Mr. Ollie to cease his "promotion-by-censorship" activities on wikipedia. - MesaBoy77 (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:98.252.50.93 (Result: Page Protected)
Page: Nicolás Maduro

User being reported: {{userlinks|Somedifferentstuff} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Due to the nature and speed on which English users are researching this man, new topics arise quickly. I have had dialogue with User:Lguipontes regarding this, and I remain open to working with all editors for an objective and honest account of an individual. However, the consensus is moreso that your edits are the ones disturbing the ecosystem here, as you can see that I don't tend to alter other users, but you obviously stack your edits to prevent I actually touched base with you personally after your first torrent of edits, which you actually deleted from your own page.#

I'm sorry you also were also warned for a follow up, which you promptly deleted from your talk page. #

Or perhaps when you kept pushing his title to be "Acting President" not Interim and you actually reverted two other editors to push that single idea. Or perhaps this incredible edit by you, where you place a citation for a link in his family life, which when you click on it takes you to a Protuguese BBC page talking about CIA cassette recordings..#

Here is a co-editor of the page who I have respect and a report with, effectively calling you out on what you are doing, which your first edit was to strike the entire Controversy section. (cur | prev) 02:05, 12 March 2013‎ Lguipontes (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,647 bytes) (+337)‎. . (The whole paragraph won't make sense if we choose your version. Of course what happened is Chávez being against embalming and being embalmed himself and Maduro supporting, the sources presented are sufficient for it.) (undo)

This is you in your first 25 minutes on Maduro's page.

(cur | prev) 21:56, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (15,792 bytes) (-1)‎. . (→‎Interim President of Venezuela) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:54, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (15,793 bytes) (+11)‎. . (→‎Interim President of Venezuela) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:53, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,782 bytes) (-16)‎. . (→‎Interim President of Venezuela: Clarify. Taken from article.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:40, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (15,798 bytes) (-1)‎. . (undo) (cur | prev) 21:36, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (15,799 bytes) (-1)‎. . (→‎Personal life) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:34, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,800 bytes) (+5)‎. . (→‎Personal life: Ce.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:32, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,795 bytes) (-45)‎. . (→‎Interim President of Venezuela: Ce.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:31, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,840 bytes) (-42)‎. . (→‎Interim President of Venezuela: Ce. Removed link that is present in lede.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:26, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (15,882 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Foreign Minister) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:24, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (15,881 bytes) (-2,728)‎ '''. . (Removed section.) (undo)''' (cur | prev) 21:22, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,609 bytes) (-1)‎. . (Spacing.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:20, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,610 bytes) (+16)‎. . (→‎Vice President of Venezuela: Added date.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:19, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (18,594 bytes) (+2)‎. . (→‎Early career) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:18, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,592 bytes) (-463)‎. . (→‎Early career: Removed some unsourced material.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:16, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (19,055 bytes) (-9)‎. . (→‎Early career: Ce.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:15, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (19,064 bytes) (+29)‎. . (New section. Ce.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:13, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (19,035 bytes) (+7)‎. . (→‎Early career: Ce.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:10, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (19,028 bytes) (+340)‎ '''. . (Added box quote.) (undo)''' (cur | prev) 20:56, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,688 bytes) (-353)‎. . (→‎Foreign Minister: Removed unsourced material and tag.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:51, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (19,041 bytes) (+71)‎. . (Ce.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:49, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,970 bytes) (+56)‎. . (Order. Added.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:40, 11 March 2013‎ Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs)‎. . (18,914 bytes) (+9)‎. . (More appropriate pic.) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk)


 * because I don't see any discussion at all on talk. Also, 98.252.*: next time, you could easily just link diffs (as your formatting doesn't actually work at the moment)- Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:75.156.49.121 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked for 24hrs)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * ⇌ Jake   Wartenberg  08:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Burziq10 reported by GB fan (Result: 1 week block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 00:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 00:22, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:32, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 3) 22:19, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 23:32, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

—GB fan 00:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I had blocked a user whom I believe is the same person as this user in February for uploading copyrighted images of David Archuleta to Commons and then adding them to the article. This user started out the same way by uploading an image to commons and adding it to the same article.  I have also started an SPI.  GB fan 00:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * for edit warring. This might be extended to an indef-block, depending on the results of the SPI.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Brian82027 reported by Fandraltastic (talk) (Result: 3 day block)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:38, 10 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543249751 by TriiipleThreat (talk)")
 * 2) 19:43, 10 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543267534 by Fandraltastic (talk)")
 * 3) 20:46, 10 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543274609 by Flax5 (talk)")
 * 4) 22:39, 11 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543283614 by Fandraltastic (talk)")
 * 5) 00:36, 13 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543515057 by TriiipleThreat (talk)")
 * 6) 02:18, 13 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543731827 by Fandraltastic (talk) Seriously you need to understand what's right and what's not and let things go.")
 * 7) 01:55, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543826774 by TriiipleThreat (talk)")
 * 8) 23:21, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 543975851 by Flax5 (talk)")
 * 9) 01:47, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 544221933 by TriiipleThreat (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here and here

User refuses to stop adding non-pages to this template, despite multiple attempts to communicate this and warn about edit warring.

—Fandraltastic (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 3 days for blatant edit warring, and even going to far as to delete this report. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:98.252.50.93 reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: Page Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning Second warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is a strong POV editor. With the second Edit Warring Warning to his talk page I placed a comment making it clear that this was his final warning. That didn't work. I just noticed that he has now added material to the lead of the article where he directly copied and pasted from Al Jazeera. from source: Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

-My Response to SomedifferentStuff - That's why there is a citation, and that citation is already being used in this piece, I tend to actually read all the citations of a page, like all of it ... so I'm really curious. Unless you wanted to cherry pick that he was a union rep (but omit that a leading Venezuelan professor considers him a communist). If you have an issue with the citation, then you clearly have not read the prior citation, not even during your tremendous editing spree which is the direct cause for my own.

You have had a consensus of editors undo your changes, while you are the only one repeatedly editing and injecting alterations. My personal favorites is your use of "comandante" and rewriting the maduro cancer quote, making the sentence without the word cancer. What about your insistence on altering the long standing photo of maduro with your photoshopped/cropped one where he is awkwardly smiling? Or maybe when you posted a long in-line quote from chavez in a side box, and when I removed it, saying that the article already states that chavez wanted Maduro, and for you to use this as a citation, you simply reapplied the edit, no discourse, no writing on the wall.

If you want to write something on the article, then do so. If however you are going to dedicate literally all your time to rip apart my edits, or subtly castrate them like that remarkable edit you made to cloak Maduro's claims about Chavez being infected with cancer. Or perhaps where you tagged Maduro's jewish roots for further information when it had 4 citations in line. You drove the edit warning due to making 25 edits in a single day, and have had about 9 undo's from editors other than myself, in a span of what, 4 days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 02:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually touched base with you personally after your first torrent of edits, which you actually deleted from your own page.#

I'm sorry you also were also warned for a follow up, which you promptly deleted from your talk page. # — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * (interjected) The admin should've told you that you need to provide evidence for everything you are saying in the first three paragraphs of your response. As of now you've provided none. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * because I don't see any discussion at all on talk. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admin you should take the time to look into a case, as I took the time to formulate this complaint. I posted on the talk page of the article which did not elicit a response from this user. Locking a page does not address any of the belligerence demonstrated by this user, an example of which can be seen in his malformed complaint below. I'm very disappointed in how you've handled this. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's clear that there needs to be a discussion regarding the picture in question. Since there are issues going on regarding this article (as a whole - not just the reverts between you and him), protection is the better solution. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 04:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You're really arguing with the admin. Penwhale I would like to note that I respect your judgement on this, we can gain perspective. I would mention that Lguipontes, EeuHP, and myself have come to a consensus on the current photo. You may confirm that with them if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Admin, take a look at the talk page, last comment was by TFD on March 13. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to update you that Somedifferentstuff has also removed all criticism from Hugo Chavez's wiki page.

(Scroll down 2/3rds) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * Your diff shows that I changed the picture in the article to a more appropriate one. I know you have less than 100 edits but get a clue, in time your belligerence will likely get you blocked. I will not comment here further. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TRGUY reported by User:DeCausa (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I really thought i was right. Sorry for bothering.TRGUY (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Looks like TRGUY understands they were wrong and the situation has stabilized.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:70.56.59.36 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_365&oldid=543698790

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_365&oldid=544261847
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_365&oldid=544287385
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_365&oldid=544289196

This editor is trying to push a POV stating that Microsoft Office 365 is not a software as a service suite for various reasons, among other things, considering it a "buzzword" and "marketing gobbledegook" and supposedly inaccurate. Several IP's in a similar range (which I presume to be the same person) have made multiple reversions and very uncivil remarks on the matter on the talk page, and also went as far as to censor a reference to Office 365 on the SaaS page. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am sorry I don't understand how this reporting form works. I am trying to make honest edits to help readers.  But ViperSnake151 is better at throwing Wikipedia rules at me.  Please see Talk page below for rational explanations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Microsoft_Office_365
 * . Semi-protected for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:JudgementfromGod reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result:JudgementfromGod and IP both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:30, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 15:34, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Professional career */")
 * 3) 15:38, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 15:41, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 15:49, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 15:52, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 15:56, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 16:04, 15 March 2013
 * 9) 16:01, 15 March 2013
 * 10) 16:12, 15 March 2013


 * Diff of warning: here, also notification of this report on AN3

Likely same user: User being reported:

Time reported: 15:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 11:37, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Dismissal from FCAA */")
 * 2) 11:44, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Dismissal from FCAA */")
 * 3) 11:47, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Dismissal from FCAA */")
 * 4) 11:55, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 14:05, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 6) 14:07, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 7) 14:13, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 8) 14:14, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 9) 14:22, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 10) 14:27, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 11) 14:36, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 12) 14:40, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 13) 14:56, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 14) 14:58, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Afrijet */")
 * 15) 15:15, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* End of an Era */")
 * 16) 15:17, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "←Blanked the page")
 * 17) 15:20, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 18) 15:24, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note that the edits might constitute BLP violations. —Dawn Bard (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed these edits,blanking and reverts aswell, I tried to minimize the damage myself. Just showing some support for Dawn Bard here.  Site thief  ~talk to me~ 16:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * User:JudgementfromGod has been indefinitely blocked. The IP has been blocked for a week.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_2013&oldid=544448713

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_2013&oldid=544448936
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_2013&oldid=544427308
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_2013&oldid=544178596
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Office_2013&oldid=544121210

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Office_2013&oldid=544471897

Comments: Frequent uncivil conduct and restoration of unnecessary information, is not assuming good faith, proactively asserts ownership of article by reverting changes made to it by any member for being "inconsistent and confusing", claiming a lack of concensus, has engaged in inappropriate use of reversions on various other pages related to Microsoft products (see contributions and talk page). Left multiple messages on my talk page incorrectly claiming I was asserting ownership of articles, abusing warning templates, not assuming good faith, and attacking other editors. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This user has not even attempted to resolve this at the article's talk page - and many, if not all, of this user's complaints about me are a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.


 * As for the messages I left at your talk page, your message above itself demonstrates much of, if not all of, my reasoning for leaving them. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would now like to draw attention to the edit made to the "[d]iff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" above. This section at the talk page was started after my response above, and certainly after this case was opened. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

User:BlackJack reported by User:Jbmurray (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

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

There's been much discussion, but see particularly Talk:History_of_cricket_to_1725, RS/N, Wikipedia_talk:Englishness_and_Cricket, among others.

Comments:

--jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The person who should be reported here is jbmurray. A series of edits were made to History_of_cricket_(1726–1740) by members of a college assignment group who are here temporarily to learn about English cricket. They are using a source that is dubious to say the least. I am the main author of the article and others like it as I am a subject matter expert and away from Wikipedia I have written widely on the early history of cricket. I have no objection to anyone editing an article as long as they do so using credible sources. There are serious doubts about the credibility and reliability of this particular source which have been discussed at length elsewhere.

Seeing the numerous edits to the article I immediately spotted one statement re a set of rules drawn up for a match in 1727 and I knew immediately that the information was false. I have pointed this out to Murray during his edit war but he has, as usual, ignored the advice. Some of the other statements also seem dubious but I have not had time to check them in detail and I decided the best thing to do was to revert the article back to its last credible version. I did this in good faith to maintain the article's accuracy for the benefit of the readers. Murray is somehow involved in the college assignment (see Englishness and Cricket) and he is trying to prove a WP:POINT about this source book they are using. As a result, he has repeatedly reverted my removsal of the false and misleading information in this article and refused to take notice of my advice to that effect. He is therefore carrying on an edit war by trying to justify use of an unrecognised source against the advice of subject experts.

As the article is still "in development", I considered its future earlier today and decided that, when complete, it will be too long so I reduced its scope and moved it. I then made a number of appropriate changes to reflect the revised scope. Much of the misleading information is now out of scope in any case but Murray has ignored this too and has reinserted it, again showing no regard at all for the readers. The article is one that I have in my list to attend to. It is the sequel to History of cricket to 1725, a WP:GA which has also been subject to interference by Murray's group and was put under a form of protection yesterday to prevent their incursions, again using the same dubious source book.

If anyone wants more details, please drop me a line. Jack | talk page 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, what BlackJack says here is simply untrue. It's quite clear that I kept all the changes that reflect the revised scope of the article, with which I have no problems at all.
 * Nor is this in any sense "Murray's group." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And regarding the "credibility and reliability of this particular source," I opened a query at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, so as to resolve that matter. Unfortunately, BlackJack has declined to contribute. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He clearly does not understand the word "scope". The article is now about the years 1726 to 1740 and he has reinserted stuff relative to years following 1740 which are therefore out of scope (and also dubious). No, I did not go to the reliable source page. Why should I? Three subject experts in CRIC have agreed that this book is unreliable and we have set about removing dubious content taken from that book by people new to WP and with no prior knowledge of the subject. The accuracy and integrity of the articles take priority over any WP:POINT you wish to make. Jack | talk page 20:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi BlackJack, could you link to where the subject experts agreed Malcolm's book is unreliable? I looked through WP:CRIC's archives and drew a blank. Nev1 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not discussed at CRIC, only within article talk pages and the most relevant discussion is this one. Jack | talk page 22:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In that thread the only person I've seen demonstrate in-depth knowledge of cricket on Wikipedia is Jhall1, who said "I haven't read Malcolm's book, and it may be a very good one (and I accept that it qualifies as a RS)". Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If Jhall1 is the "only person" then are you saying that I have not demonstrated in-depth knowledge of cricket? Haven't you noticed who wrote the whole of CRIC's 18th century coverage and most of its 19th century coverage? And besides Jhall1 there is a comment by CDTPP who is new to WP but is also an expert. I know that he is a long-term member of the ACS and he knows as much about early cricket and its recognised authorities as I do. What Murray is saying is that we have to subvert everything the acknowledged authorities (Arlott, Wynne-Thomas, Birley, etc.) have written because he says that this man Malcolm is the definitive authority on the subject and we must populate articles carefully written over many years with crackpot theories like Lang's ludicrous Celtic origin. I'm beginning to believe that I really am wasting my time here and that I should forget WP and just concentrate on my other projects. Clearly, as YellowMonkey and jguk found out in the past, it doesn't matter that you are a subject expert. All that matters is "admins" like Murray who know everything and understand nothing. Go ahead and change the articles and fill them with rubbish and false information. Jack | talk page 08:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * BlackJack. I am far from saying that "Malcolm is the definitive authority on the subject."  I am not even saying that a) he is right or b) he has not been misread by the students in question.  I note that, from all appearances, you haven't even read the book.  All I am saying is that this is quite clearly a reliable source, as Wikipedia understands and defines the term.
 * But the place to debate that issue is over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard, which you still haven't deigned to visit. Here, what's at issue is your response to this disagreement: which involves repeated wholesale reversion, violating the three revert rule.  This is not how disagreements are dealt with on Wikipedia as you, a long-term editor, well know. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am of course aware of your contributions to cricket on Wikipedia, and happily consider you an expert. Back in 2009 I tried to lend a helping hand when you were being bombarded with socks. It is quite clear that you don’t think much of Malcolm’s book, so when you said “Three subject experts in CRIC have agreed that this book is unreliable” I interpreted this as meaning three other people agreed with you rather than “Myself and two other subject experts have agreed this book is unreliable”. Please excuse my misunderstanding. However all in all, things don’t seem as strong as you put.


 * You are very strongly attached to this article, and I think it would be a good idea to step back. People who are beginning to learn about cricket could benefit from your experience and knowledge, but getting into an edit war (and this is clearly a breach of WP:3RR) isn’t going to result in a productive dialogue. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've read the book and it's risible quite frankly and your comments seem to be attempted to justify nonesense from the standpoint that 'it's good to have a debate.' That's OK but Jack, and it is odd to find my self saying this, is an expert witness. You, with great respect are not, and we should be trying to make a valid encyclopaedia, not a catch all for peripheral theories.CDTPP (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Thanks, CD. And apologies to Nev1 for the misunderstanding above: I actually misread your comment.
 * Right, lets look at the 3RR thing. I read the edits done by two or three members of this class and, given my knowledge of the Articles of Agreement (cricket) drwan up by Brodick and Richmond in 1727, I realised immediately that the statement about "1727 laws" was completely incorrect and actually misleading. Check the quoted article which contains the actual content of the articles of agreement. Which means, given that the students have quoted Malcolm on this per the citation provided, his book contains false information about an aspect of the sport's history that, as CDTPP will agree and Nev1 will appreciate, is highly significant (i.e., the earliest known written "rules" in cricket history). If Malcolm is providing false information on such a fundamental question as this, then his book can only be considered dubious to say the least. I then looked at some of the other points added and, although I would need to check them in detail, I am very dubious about some of it while more (and this is student error) was simply out of scope. I therefore decided that the best thing to was revert back to the last good version by User:OhConfucius and that I would try and improve the article myself in the near future as it has not received attention for some time.
 * Next thing I know, Mr Murray comes along and reverts because he thinks I don't know what I'm talking about and how dare I revert material drawn from this wonderful book which CDTPP (who knows a great deal about early cricket, incidentally) has described with justification as "risible". I pointed out when again removing the false information that it is false and misleading, but Mr Murray is one of these who is always right and proceeded to escalate an edit war and then tried to blame me for it. What am I expected to do? Allow an article to be ruined by lies? Jack | talk page 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There are many processes in place to deal with content disputes, and making five reverts in a content dispute in less than 24 hours isn't one of them. Unless I'm missing something, this is a crystal clear violation of the brightline three revert rule. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is indeed. However, Jbmurray reverted four times, which is also a violation. Shall I block them both?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I hadn't actually noticed that when I posted my comment. I would be less inclined to block Jbmurray than BlackJack, since he's at least made an active effort to try to resolve the problem and hasn't demonstrated significant civility issues (he's brought it up at WP:RSN, WP:ANI, and the talk page of the article.)  Given that both have committed technical violations, if I were you (or if I had a mop) I think I would be inclined to ask each person if they saw what was wrong with their actions and block them if they didn't make a positive commitment to stop editwarring and resolve the content dispute through a more appropriate channel. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough, although I don't think anyone has asked the question anywhere yet, certainly not on my talk page. Right, lets go through this. First off, this article unlike History of cricket to 1725 is nowhere near complete and I subsequently decided to reduce its scope by moving it from 1726–1763 to 1726–1740. On 11 March, about five members of the Cricket and Englishness course introduced numerous changes all based on their single source which is a new book written by one Dominic Malcolm. I found these changes two days later and immediately, given my extensive knowledge of the subject matter, realised that this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". Obviously, I could just have removed that or revised it somehow but I had serious doubts about several other inputs too, including some outside the scope of the article (e.g., events occurring in the 1770s). I decided, therefore, that the best thing to do was revert and make a note to review and improve the article.

Later the same day, without making any attempt to ask me for the details of my action, Jbmurray came along and reverted my edit. In doing so, he reinserted information that is false, dubious (subject to detailed checking) or out of scope. His stated reason was that "Malcolm is far from being an unreliable source". Jbmurray knows little about the early history of cricket while both User:CDTPP and myself are experts. CDTPP has read and reviewed the Malcolm book and has dismissed it as "risible" (see above). I am convinced, having seen the edits done at History of cricket to 1725 and in this article that it is unreliable and is completely out of step with the consensus achieved by the subject's recognised authorities in their respective works which are the ones I have used when building these articles.

I am not going to stand aside and allow someone who knows nothing about my subject to insert content that is frankly rubbish and so I reverted Jbmurray's edit and gave an explanation within the limits of the edit summary: "Reverted; the stuff in Malcolm's book if quoted correctly is wrong; e.g., nowhere in 1727 "laws" is the stated text included: see Articles of Agreement (cricket). The source is unreliable". Any reasonable person would at this point have checked the 1727 statement against the content of Articles of Agreement (cricket) but Jbmurray did not do so. That article includes the precise wording of the 1727 "rules" and a quick scan shows the falsity of the statement which the students found in Malcolm's book.

After making this revert and directing Jbmurray to Articles of Agreement (cricket), I decided I would make some improvements to the article. I moved it because when it is eventually finished it will be too long if it covers a forty-year period so I decided on a 15-year scope. I made some content adjustments to comply with that and a few copyedits, nothing too extensive as I didn't have time. Within an hour, Murray made his third revert and he clearly had not verified that the 1727 statement was false. He did at least maintain the edits I had just made given the new scope. Again, he made no attempt to discuss the matter and just wrote in the edit summary that he was undoing a mass revert.

After that it was a case of not giving in. I am the subject expert and the only other expert in this area who uses WP, although he is new, entirely agrees with me that the source is unreliable. As I see it, I have to prevent articles losing veracity and credibility. Jbmurray on the other hand is simply making a WP:POINT about allowing this university class carte blanche. You can see what his attitude is like in other discussions such as this one with his "let the madness continue" jibe.

My initial action in reverting the students' edits to this article was bona fide and done in the best interest of the article. If the students had written to me to ask why I had undone their work I would have told them; and I would have explained it to Jbmurray if he would ask and also listen but he has shown that he does not listen and thinks that he can ride roughshod over other people's work and expect them to wave him through. I did not commence an "edit war". That began with Jbmurray's revert here and was then escalated by him with this revert here which was done after I had made a start on improving the article. His attitude and actions are completely unreasonable and taking his point to both this page and ANI is completely OTT.

Whatever the outcome of this dispute, someone should report Jbmurray to whatever process screens admins with a view to him being removed from the adminship. Jack | talk page 13:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I have commented at ANI and warned both editors there. The discussion should continue there, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:93.173.149.97 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Article is related to the Israel Palestine conflict and under ARPBIA 1rr restrictions. Dlv999 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Seems to have quieted down. There were warning issues here, which is why I did not take action earlier. I did add an edit notice to the article to help in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method reported by User:Adjwilley (Result: No action)
Page: and

User being reported:

For background on this case, please see this November AN3 case that resulted in a 48 hour block of Pass a Method. In that case, Pass a Method was edit warring on this very same article to include links to various small religions, specifically, Unitarian Universalists, Wiccans, Druids, Raelians, and Eckankar. While some of these eventually stuck, the Eckankar didn't. Today, Pass a Method effectively continued the old edit war, forcing the Eckankar link into the article.
 * Same-sex marriage

Previous version reverted to: (Check any of the 4 reverts above)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:46, 14 March 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 00:21, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "clarifying what i wrote")
 * 3) 01:15, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by StAnselm (talk) to last revision by Pass a Method. (TW)")
 * 4) 01:40, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "ok, added a source")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (not that a warning was required, since the user was blocked a couple months ago for edit warring in the same article, same section.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Pass a Method also breached 3RR at Pope Francis where they made a series of bold edits and reverts related to the headings of "Gay Marriage", "Gay Adoption", and a quote about Gay Adoption being the "Devil's work".
 * Pope Francis

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Bold edit 1 (create section headings for Gay Marriage and Gay Adoption); Revert 1, Revert 2, Revert 3. (Restoring headings)
 * Bold edit 2 (add "Devil's work" quote); Revert 4 (Restore Devil quote).
 * All edits were on March 14.

Diff of warning (note: not a 3RR warning):.

Comments:


 * The November report was filed by a sock who is currently blocked. Nevertheless i agree with Nat with what he said about bypassing redirects. Pass a Method talk  23:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realized that (in hindsight) and I'm sorry that I am filing a similar report to a sock puppet. But what does my conversation with Nat have to do with anything? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Anselm and Pass a method were edit warring, why does the report not include both? The report is now stale, it's been over 24 hours since any edit warring. From Talk:Same-sex_marriage it seems what was really needed was more opinions; not a block of one of the edit warring editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't report St. Anselm because they stopped at 3RR, whereas Pass a Method was at 4RR on two different articles. More opinions would have certainly been helpful, but in my opinion, what was really missing was good old fashioned BRD. I made the report because I'm tired of the BRRRRRR pattern (7 edits, 6 reverts). ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I stopped at three reverts and started the talk page discussion. StAnselm (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . Pass a method behaved badly in the article. The main reason I didn't block earlier was because the content issue seems to have sorted itself out, placing the Eckan thingamajigger in a diferent part of the section. Unless I'm wrong (quite possible), that seemed to resolve the issue. StAnselm is correct that they stopped at 3 reverts, although that doesn't preclude sanctions for edit warring (something to think about please in the future). As for the Pope Francis article, that has so much activity on it, it's like looking through a jungle. If some other admin wants to see whether Pass a method deserves to be blocked for their conduct on that article, that's fine, but don't forget all the other editors on that article who have probably reverted more than 3x in a 24-hour period. Block city.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Disturbedasylum reported by User:The Stick Man (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, unfortunately. I neglected to warn him.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I've given him disruptive editing warnings and tried to reach out to him through his talk page, pointing him to the article talk page and encouraging him to use edit summaries. Both attempts have been ignored. I find it impossible to communicate with him. He has broken 3RR, though I neglected to put a warning on his talk page. His edits are mostly to preserve what I believe to be an excessively large reception section.  TheStickMan  [✆Talk] 02:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Both editors breached WP:3RR. I have left messages on both editors' talk pages advising them that will not be blocked if they agree not to edit the article for 7 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Janicar reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User:Janicar and his IPs have started no discussion on the talk page and have ignored all calls to do so.

Comments:

User:Janicar and his IPs(131.180.143.48, 80.112.146.109) have reverted 3 other editors. Calls to start a discussion on the talk page have met with these responses; User:Janicar and his IPs have continued to edit war against 3 other editors, Users:Zheek, Bobrayner and myself. All attempts to have him take this to the talk page have failed. As a side note, I noticed IP 80.112.146.109 was heavily involved in edit warring on Imia/Kardak and subsequently blocked by Favonian. Prima facie evidence would appear to show that Janicar has been edit warring over numerous articles and simply logging out to do so. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) "undid disruptive editing"
 * 2) "Undid disruptive editing, please don't delete any contribution to wikipedia without consulting to the talk page yourself."
 * 3) "Undid disruptive editing, let's discuss this on the talk page before just deleting things". Note:Nothing has been discussed on the talk page.
 * 4) "Settle your disputes on the talk page first, before deleting any contribution for this artcile." Note:Rather odd, since Janicar and his IPs refuse to discuss anything!
 * 5) "Undid disruptive editing, see talk page". Note:There is no discussion on the talk page.
 * 6) "Undid disruptive editing, take your concerns to the talk page yourself, before disruptively editing. Delete by an unfounded claim. (How many accounts have you got?". Note: Accusation of sockpuppetry towards User:Bobrayner, which is ironic, since User:Janicar is logging out to continue edit warring.


 * I think this user and those IP users are socks of User:EMr KnG. Similar behavior, similar edits/edit warring, similar edit summaries (poor English), and same articles. For instance see the edits on this template and talk page: Template:History of the Turks pre-14th century. Zheek (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Another similar activities/edits on the article Khwarazmian dynasty. diff1, diff2. Zheek (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I have a few comments. First, it would be better for any one of the reverting editors to take the dispute to the talk page, not just "call" for Janicar to do so. Janicar might not respond, but at least then you would have tried. Second, there are multiple IPs involved, and although more than one geolocates to Ankara, at least one geolocates to the Netherlands. Third, with respect to the socking accusations leveled above (not by Janicar), please take that to WP:SPI. This isn't the right place. Finally, as for the some of the other pages mentioned, I advise all concerned to be careful of edit warring. I didn't block Janicar for breaching WP:3RR, which he didn't do; I blocked him for edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Vcohen reported by User:24.193.156.117 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 1 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544627113
 * 2) 2 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544631028
 * 3) 3 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544676147
 * 4) 4 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544679687
 * 5) 5 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544679687
 * 6) 6 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544690124
 * 7) 7 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544698276
 * 8) 8 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544709657
 * 9) 9 [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&oldid=544715769

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=6_(New_York_City_Subway_service)&action=history


 * . I blocked the IP. This is a resumption of an edit war the IP was warned about earlier this month. In addition, the edits themselves were disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Declined and Dogmaticeclectic warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I would ask that neither User:Mark Arsten nor User:Bbb23 handle this, as both of these administrators have previously been involved and, more importantly, both have - at least - shown serious errors of judgement.

The user being reported has now got one user (myself) blocked and another blocked from editing the article in question (the other user is unregistered and the user I'm reporting got semi-protection applied). Once the IP user was no longer able to edit the article, this user almost completely ignored the IP user's numerous objections at the talk page and continued to edit the version of the article this user preferred. After that, I stepped in and reversed most of the changes this user made against the objections of the IP user, but was subsequently blocked after this user filed a report against me for a different - though directly related - article. After I was blocked, this user continued to edit the article in question, including at least partially reverting one edit of mine.

This user has also recently been involved in edit wars at other articles: Microsoft Office 2013 and Windows 8. I placed a total of six (!) warning templates on the reported user's talk page as that is the minimum number of policies this user has recently violated. The user simply removed them all.

Additionally, this user seems to have been very deceptive in dealing with these matters: opening a WP:DRN case about the first article and even mentioning me by username, but not including me in the case (or notifying me of it) and opening a discussion at the second article's talk page after filing a report against me here and then going back and editing the "[d]iff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" to link to that are examples of this. This user has also made numerous accusations against multiple other users, many, if not all, of which are clear examples of the pot calling the kettle black, and at least some of which - the multiple WP:AGF accusations against me in particular - are actually groundless altogether.

As a final note, one of this user's latest edits involved reverting the IP user in question's relevant comments at the article in question's talk page (!), accusing those comments of violating WP:NPA - when in fact the comments in question would not be violating that policy even if they were not relevant to that particular talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is a retaliatory report. Dogmaticeclectic is warned that if they continue, they will be blocked for longer than their last block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&action=history

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544561674
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544447044
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544446852
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544374558
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flag_of_Syria&oldid=544155642

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alhanuty#Syria_red_flag

Comments: Frequent uncivil conduct and restoration of unnecessary information, is not assuming good faith, proactively asserts ownership of article by reverting changes made to it by any member for being "inconsistent and confusing", claiming a lack of concensus, has engaged in inappropriate use of reversions on Flag of syria, and i told him that wikipedia isn't a place to put your own opinion,and i gave the reasons and explanations why it has the article to stay as it is,then he says that the council doesn't represents me,asserting that he wants the article to go with his opinion and not go with consensus .Abdo45 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not putting my opinion , it's the truth , and what's wrong with you ? , COUNCIL DOESN'T Represent me, do you want it to represent me in your mind ?GhiathArodaki (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:98.252.50.93 (Result: Blocked)
This user, no less than 6 hours after the page was left unprotected, proceeded to use both his an an alternate account to make immediate edits without getting any consensus in the talk page or allowing his comments in the talk page to be mediated upon for any time what so ever. The user merely leveraged the talk page as an edit summary. Upon notifying the user to adhere to wiki talk page standards after getting mediation from Penwhale on the topic, the user undoes my remediation and claims I am edit warring. I am trying to follow the wiki rights, but this users must receive a temp ban for this. See his 'notification' that he is altering something.  This is the edits him and the socket puppet did (within same time frame, and same topics vein of topics).

This page must be protected again, or this user must be banned, he is in direct violation of the admin's request. Will an admin please research the users IP addresses User:Scientiom and user:Somedifferentstuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If you look at the top of this board you'll see a case I recently brought against this user. User:Penwhale handled that case. Today this IP violated the neutrality of a BLP article by removing the addition made by User:Scientiom. I placed an Edit Warring Warning on his talk page as well as a note on Penwhale's talk page. As evidenced by this malformed complaint, this IP has around 100 edits on Wikipedia. His belligerence is disruptive to the project. He blanked his talk page today as can be seen here. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTE TO ADMIN: I DID NOT REPORT THIS USER TODAY. HE FILLED OUT THE FORM INCORRECTLY. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I blocked the IP for edit-warring, personal attacks (sock puppet accusations), and disruptive editing (this report, among other things). I've changed the section header to show who reported this (Somedifferentstuff, no need to shout).

User:89.139.163.96 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. I am not directly involved in the article conflict.

Comments:

The user was warned after 3 reverts made to preserve their removal of a particular author's name from the list, and then they proceeded to blank their talk page to remove the warning and continued to revert to maintain their POV without concern for consensus. I have no direct involvement with the conflict on the page and have simply observed it from the outside. Ducknish (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, after these reverts, the editor continued to push his POV on the author with these additions., , and (which were then reverted ). Ducknish (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I blocked the IP for longer than conventional because of edit-warring on other articles. They seem to be tackling a lot of lists.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:94.156.112.192 reported by User:Aspects (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

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

Comments:

The IP address is changing an image repeatedly without edit summaries or talk page discussions and has been reverted by a few editors. Just 33 minutes after receiving a warning about their 3rr, they reverted again without any discussion. It is also possible that this IP address is a sockpuppet of a banned user and if so should be added to Sockpuppet investigations/Davion100, who made the same edit with two different accounts. Aspects (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * for sock puppetry and edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MoFreedom reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Fat&Happy hasn't warned or discussed, I added this after another user claimed removal of the POV was vandalism.

Comments:

POV warrior, a couple of previous insertions of the same material as an IP. While there has been a move in conservative circles to rehabilitate McCarthy, and it probably deserves mention, putting a vindication into Wikipedia's voice and offering editorial commentary is not appropriate.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to bring this here, too. User doesn't seem interested in working things out on the talk pages either. Location (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * User is definitely persisting in inserting his POV on both Joseph McCarthy and Army-McCarthy hearings without talking things through on the talk pages. Doesn't appear to show any inclination of stopping, either, and any further warnings are probably useless. I've requested a FP at WP:RFP for both articles. -Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Three more reverts.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by Coin Operation (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:18, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 544278197 by ViperSnake151 (talk)")
 * 2) 22:56, 17 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545052870 by ViperSnake151 (talk) no WP:CON at talk page (including about WP:UNDUE)")
 * 3) 23:06, 17 March 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by Coin Operation (talk): Take it to the talk page. (TW)")
 * 4) 23:17, 17 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545082813 by GB fan (talk) see talk page discussion")

Dogmaticeclectic was not warned this time, but has been warned many times about editwarning and just came off a block for editwarring on a different article. They should know the rules by now without being warned. There are only 3 within the last 24 hours but their last 4 edits are all reverts of the same info.

—Coin Operation (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As my edit summaries show, I've asked several users to take this issue to the talk page - where I have provided an explanation - instead of reverting. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Instead of edit warring why didn't you take it to the talk page? Coin Operation (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Not technically a 3RR violation, but continuing to edit war after various editors have told advised him not to over the past few days. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

User has been blocked during the past month, both times for a one-week interval, for edit warring at Southaven High School and has now repeated the exact same edit without discussion. For the record, during the most recent block, there was suspicious IP activity necessitating semi-protection of the article; I'm not filing a RPP request at this time. Rivertorch (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Has continued the same edit warring behaviour almost immediately after finishing his last block without any evidence that he's going to change. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:KhabarNegar reported by User:Patriot1010 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545162599&oldid=544859086

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=544859485&oldid=544859086
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545007502&oldid=545006687
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545007687&oldid=545007502
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545008203&oldid=545007687
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545012592&oldid=545011341
 * 6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545018967&oldid=545016321
 * 7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545046017&oldid=545039310
 * 8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545048340&oldid=545046946

Diff of edit warring http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=545046017&oldid=545039310 / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKhabarNegar&diff=545164777&oldid=545143981

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sanctions_against_Iran Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASanctions_against_Iran&diff=545061571&oldid=544869527

Patriot1010 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

It started with a simple edit, asking user to at least include information about Iran in a Contribution, then set up the portion on the talk page. He reverted and I pretty much just let it go, then two other users attempted what I did, the guy was a bit non-sensical, tried to talk to him, but either hes a little off-kilter or is having trouble with English as he is an apparent non-English speaker. Patriot1010 (talk) 07:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, The talk page of the article is yet not used by you Patriot1010, Please use the talk pages of the articles, Plus do not try to damage other users good edits buy putting false edits in between and then deleting them all together...
 * There are some points here below:


 * 1- I have no problem talking English.


 * 2- Check my edits, They have no problem. above user added edits and claims by false sources. And then another user came and delete a huge amount of the article good and false altogether. I asked so many time and beg to use talk page before deleting any sourced text. (Please check all my own edits.) All is needed here is that people use talk page before deleting any good sourced part, SEPARATELY. They two are cheating. Read history carefully to see what I mean.


 * 3- This one is very important: Please check recent edits by this above user (Patriot1010) he had done some edits which have claims which are not in the sources which he provided, plus some claims without any source.


 * They are trying to force a cheat, take time and see the situation (specially history) carefully, Thanks.


 * KhabarNegar (talk) 07:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * and look here!


 * above links (No.2 & No.5 & No.6 & No.7 & No.8) are mostly his own edits!


 * You see how they are cheating, They delete the whole good and false parts altogether, At once.
 * Without using the talk page before.
 * KhabarNegar (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . Although KhabarNegar was the only one to technically break 3RR, everyone involved was edit warring, so protection is the most appropriate response. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:FRANKDK2 reported by User:Bwmoll3 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

This user continually removed referenced, valid information from this article without any written justification

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No reverts since receiving a warning, and there have not been 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Those reverts listed span several weeks. While this is still edit warring (slow rate), the fact that the user hasn't been previously warned doesn't incline me to take action at the moment, although one more revert would trigger it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Ajithpithu reported by User:Yerpo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (example - the article has been developed between reverts, so there's no single version reverted to)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been constantly removing referenced criticism from the article about a controversial airport construction project, while occasionally adding promotional-sounding material about the contractor (example), which indicates that a contractor's representative is behind this username. I posted him several notices about this (he also got a sarcastic comment from User:Jagadeeshmv1990), to which he never replied, making dispute resolution impossible. He didn't really break 3RR, but edit warring to remove "unpleasant" information is clear. — Yerpo Eh? 13:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sefina reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:31, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Added that the university is secular and that claims exist that the university is a part of the Gulen movement.")
 * 2) 17:01, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "grammar")
 * 3) 17:06, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545238201 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) pardon me I did not see your agile hand again.")
 * 4) 17:14, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Put "claims" for both assertions. Removed the info from the INFOBOX as it does not present the unifying aspect of the article")
 * 5) 18:00, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545243161 by Vetevendosje (talk) I see your passion.  Wiki policies do not judge claims.")
 * 6) 18:10, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545247771 by Vetevendosje (talk) PLEASE go to the talk page to express your concerns before you edit.")
 * 7) 18:34, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "")

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff of warning: here
 * Talk page section that I started:
 * Note: aggressive and misleading edit summaries ("grammar", when the change was not about grammar at all). No idea what "pardon me I did not see your agile hand again" means...  Also, the first edit listed above is a revert insofar as it is highly likely that Sefina is, viz this edit from a few days ago.


 * Sefina's answer on the Note: As [User:Nomoskedasticity] is agile in edits, while previewing the sentence I noticed that it was not what I wrote. Hence, flagged my edit as "grammar" thinking that it was a part of my editing.


 * Further my edits are in conformity with the one that we came about with User: Mr. Stradivarius] as one can clearly see here (see below and the talk page of Mr._Stradivarius ).


 * Finally, I think that there is a huge bias on behalf of the reporting editor. The stigma of being in this or that movement is put on me by Nomoskedasticity and Vetevendosje. Thich is easily seen from his talk page :


 * Hi Nomoskedasticity. You would probably be interested to see the conversation at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#Epoka University. It looks like the University's website says that it is a secular institution, which might clash with the Oxford University source. This is probably one that needs to be debated at the talk page, I think. Let me know if there are any policy issues that you need help with, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. This is a frustrating editor to work with -- pretty obviously WP:COI, for one thing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree. User:Sefina is probably a member of the Gülen movement and should not be editing at all on this. I let Stradivarius know that this user is engaging in edit warring.Vetevendosje (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sefina (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Sefina


 * Whoever closes this might also want to read User talk:Mr. Stradivarius for some context. I would be inclined to fully protect the article for a few days to encourage discussion, but I won't close this myself because I have already expressed an opinion on the content. Sefina is a new user who is still learning how interaction works on Wikipedia, and they have shown a willingness to engage in discussion, so I think a block would be overkill at this point. I am a little worried about the alleged conflict of interest, though, and I urge Sefina to disclose any affiliations to Epoka University if they have any. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 21:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, willingness to discuss -- but also willingness to carry on edit-warring, to the extent of 7 reverts in just over two hours. I can't see why the article should then be protected -- unless it is first returned to a version prior to her editing it.  Apart from that, a block is fully justified because it's obvious that she would revert again if someone else rejected her preferred version.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sefina has now made seven reverts on 18 March, which clearly breaks the WP:3RR rule. She may be able to avoid sanctions if she will agree to take a one-week break from editing this article. I would not support full protection given that the current problem is due to just one editor. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear EdJohnston: I will not change the article again, but I would like that the other editors remove their bias and fully respect the sources, the WP rules, and the opinion of ♪ talk ♪ which I cite. My edits were protecting that agreement from putting disputed claims in Infobox or adding qualifiers to the sources not known to the WP policies. You may see my level of expertise in wiki editing (and even more in waging an edit war) from numerous formatting mistakes done and from not even knowing how shall I respond to your offer. I hope this is the right place and that I sign myself properly this time. Sefina (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Sefina


 * I'm inclined to suggest the full protection since Nomoskedasticity above explains himself that the discussions here are made for versions we like and that he has preferred versions. The only thing I care is that claims be supported by references and all the conclusions and formatting should be done in accordance with WP policies. In particular, the version that it appeared that I was fighting for is the version that converged from the discussion with him/her and Mr. Stradivarius.
 * It is really absurd to qualify sources used in a wiki page as independent since Wikipedia has the policies about the sources, and the existence of a citation indicates that the source has been checked for its quality by editors. Otherwise, a huge discussion would overwhelm the page if a source is independent or not, biased or not, relevant or not. This is regulated. My edits were done in the course of protecting these principles from him and User:Vetevendosje.
 * The willingness of Nomoskedasticity et al to bluntly push their version and dilute the infobox, and seek for further help from more senior editors, suggests that the page should remain protected for some time. I kindly ask EdJohnston to pay attention to all the details and see the entire context before coming to a fair conclusion. Thanks! Sefina (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)Sefina)
 * Sefina, EdJohnston's suggestion is not a negotiation. You must agree unconditionally not to edit the article for a week to avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi all: I did already agree on the terms. My further intervention is aimed to bring to your attention that the problem is not me learning the rules slowly and writing the content which was agreed, but persistent mutilation of facts and findings by the others who are in turn accusing me. I know that you don't have much time, but you should really see the context, as suggested by Mr. Stradivarius . Furthermore, I don't stand on any conflict of interests, and now I'm concerned if other two editors have. Thanks 79.106.109.173 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)User:Sefina


 * Result: Sefina has agreed not to edit the Epoka University article for one week in lieu of a block for 3RR violation. This restriction expires at 07:43 on 26 March. If you return to this article later, be sure to work for consensus or further trouble is possible. Sefina's comments above suggest she may not actually understand the WP:3RR rule. All parties should try to find better sources. We need to find reliable sources that are independent of the university. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TracedInAir reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 19:15, 15 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Further reading */")
 * 2) 17:26, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545150743 by SFK2 (talk) Again, clearly a relevant link that predates my minor edit and its inclusion is supported by other users. Stop the unwarranted deletion!")
 * 3) 18:50, 18 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545242218 by Ianmacm (talk) Ridiculous deletion. The inclusion of this article predates my edit and should be left alone. Deletion in this instance is clearly unwarranted persecution.")
 * 4) 15:14, 19 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545383849 by SFK2 (talk) Unbelievable. Stop it already. This link predates my edit. Two other users have approved its inclusion and rejected your deletions. You're edit is illegitimate.")
 * 5) 17:25, 19 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545457586 by Theroadislong (talk) Look at the history. Inclusion of link pre-dates my edit. I didn't add link, I merely cleaned it up & then it was arbitrarily deleted.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Note also that several users have tried to discuss these edits on TracedInAir's talk page and at this ANI discussion; I'm getting a bit of an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe. —Dawn Bard (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, user is at 3 reverts at Agonism, with the latest revert coming after the warning above. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Seeming as they are a newbie and they say that they didn't understand how to use talk pages, I am inclined to give them one more chance, but if someone else thinks they need blocking then feel free to do so. SmartSE (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The user in question has started a discussion on the article's talk page; I'm fine with no action being taken at this point. TracedInAir was frustrated and ready to leave Wikipedia a while ago, and now seems to be editing productively - this a much better better outcome than a block or page protection. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor has been engaged in adding mention of papers by Simon Springer to a bunch of articles. So far I wouldn't consider that to be editing productively. See also WP:Articles for deletion/Simon Springer and WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Since reverts have stopped no block is necessary. The editor has been warned, both on his talk page and at WP:COIN, about adding items to reference lists in the apparent effort to promote the work of a single author. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Maria0333 reported by User:Faizan Al-Badri (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The conflict is on this. The reported user is the claimed author of the image, and the user is now trying her best to move it on the top of all, and for it, the user has also tried to paste the image to un-concerned pages. It is an image of the ethnic groups of the Balochistan, Province of Pakistan, and has no relation with Baloch nationalism, Baloch Students Organization; but the user pasted them in these articles also with this un-constructive edit diff. In the article of Balochistan, Pakistan, she is trying to move the image to infobox, or below infobox, instead of the language section. I request the administrators to go through it. Numerous attempts were made on the user's talk page by multiple editors to resolve the conflict, but in vain. Faizan (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

. And I suggest to the nominator to wait for the deletion discussion on Commons to resolve before performing any more reverts. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks! Faizan (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But where the deletion discussion on Commons is being held? Faizan (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Commons is not about this map, but a related one. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Map on Dialects Of Punjabi Language.jpg. That debate is about a different language map also created by Maria0333. I would also caution Maria0333 against POV pushing in articles; see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Baloch_Students_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=544950361 this edit] mentioned by Faizan above. If she continues in this vein a warning under WP:ARBIPA may be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Johnston! Her edits are in-constructive, and if she makes an image, as she dis with Balochistan and Punjab lingual distribution images, tries to bypass all rules, to move them on the top. Faizan (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Shakin Pyramid reported by User:John (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

As the talk page discussion shows, the living subject identifies as English although he was born in Wales. British seems like a decent compromise. Three different editors (including me, which is why I don't just block them myself) have restored "British" but SP continues to revert. John (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Re-report if he continues edit warring this evening. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Abhidevananda reported by Location (talk) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 04:09, 19 March 2013  (edit summary: "Added, , , , , , , , ,  and  tags (within ), and  and  t..." )
 * 2) 05:53, 19 March 2013  (edit summary: "Please don't remove legitimate tags. If you have a question about any of the tags, raise it on the Talk page and wait patiently for an answer.")
 * 3) 04:20, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "Restored links that are still relevant")
 * 4) 05:03, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "The criticism is just more opinions, so better keep it as a subsection of the preceding section + added more tags")
 * 5) 05:51, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "Added still relevant comments and still relevant templates. Please consider the comments before removing them. This article is under construction. Hence the comments are certainly constructive rather than disruptive.")
 * 6) 06:12, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "Trying to improve an article under construction.")
 * 7) 07:48, 20 March 2013 (edit summary: "If the content is going to be so lopsided and lacking consensus, then these tags are entirely appropriate.")
 * Diff of warning: 05:20, 20 March 2013
 * Diff of warning: 06:42, 20 March 2013

Comments:

Edit warring report also pertains to Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point and Tag bombing. Location (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am willing to withdraw this report for the time-being since Abhidevananda appears to have agreed to take a step back after EdJohnston's warnings. Thanks! Location (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: I have [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abhidevananda#You_may_be_blocked_if_you_continue_to_edit_Sarkar-related_articles_against_consensus warned Abhidevananda] that they may be blocked "if you make any edit to a Sarkar-related article that reasonably appears to be against consensus". The background for this problem is in [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Obdurate_lack_of_cooperation_from_User:Abhidevananda a thread at ANI]. I don't personally intend to take any action so long as Abhidevanda refrains from any further controversial changes on Sarkar-related articles without first getting a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

What makes this more coincidental is that this user was previously cautioned after edit warring at WP:CHRISTIANPOV. Pass a Method talk  21:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. This seems to be a clear case of WP:BOOMERANG, but I'm glad that it's here, since for some reason this user and I have had several such conflicts in recent weeks. I should also point out that User:Pass a Method asked a question about me at User talk:Jimbo Wales, and got a clear answer back. Frankly, I don't know why Pass a Method insists on adding back material that has been reverted. Why can't he or she wait for consensus to be obtained on the talk page? This has happened on a few articles now. Sometimes I feel that Pass a Method is trying to drag me into an edit war. Anyway, I reverted three times in the space of about 23 hours - I wasn't going to revert a fourth time. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was merely thinking that you would take to heart the fact that you've been cautioned about deletions by 4 different editors in the space of 4 days. Pass a Method talk  21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . If you think there are other conduct issues that need addressing, please take them to ANI. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GorgeCustersSabre reported by User:Tanbircdq (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 08/03/2013
 * 2) 09/03/2013
 * 3) 16/03/2013
 * 4) 20/03/2013

Diff of edit warring

I have added a distinguish redirection of Humza Yousaf to the article on the basis that they have “deceptively similar titles” as per WP:DISTINGUISH. However the user has repeatedly reverted this edit based on his opinion that this redirection is “unnecessary.” I suggested on the talk page what I thought to be a reasonable request for the edit to stand until a valid reason is put forward for it to be removed, however the user is now resorting to reverting based on his opinion without any further discussion. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . GorgeCustersSabre has not breached WP:3RR. If anything, it's been a very slow, sporadic content dispute. I suggest that Tanbircdq obtain a WP:CONSENSUS for the change before restoring the hatnote. And when you file a report here, please read the instructions, which clearly tell you that you must notify the editor you are reporting.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kimedit14 and User:Thrillfreakunclesam reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Blocked Thrillfreakunclesame)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

The Phil Ranstrom article is a BLP. User:Kimedit14 user appears to me to be a Single Purpose Account created solely to Edit War on the Phil Ranstrom article. Also User:Philet309 (contributions) is making similar edits. It would not surprise me if they were the same person. Another (User:Thrillfreakunclesam) is adding information about a prosecution for attempted murder, armed robbery, home invasion, etc.], which the previous two are edit warring against. -- Marek  . 69  talk 00:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked User:Thrillfreakunclesam for 1 week for WP:BLP violations and edit warring. I decline to block the other editors based on the BLP exemption. The material added by Thrill was controversial and unsourced by anything but a primary source. I don't know if the two Ranstroms are the same, but the edit could not stand as it was done.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, I decided to update this report, but got an edit conflict. I've added the extra info now. It might be an idea to lock the page down for the time being to prevent any repetition, sockpuppets, etc. -- Marek  . 69  talk 03:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I declined the report you filed at RFPP. Hopefully, with the BLP-violating editor blocked, the edit warring will cease. I've also posted at WP:BLPN because the article is very messy and needs a lot of work if it's to remain on Wikipedia. As for the possible socking, feel free to file a report at WP:SPI if you feel you have enough evidence to do so. I'm too tired to think about it at the moment. Just so it's clear, even though I declined your report and blocked someone other than the editor you reported, no criticism of your constructive efforts was implied by my actions.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Matt Mohandas Gandhi reported by User:Cristian MH (Result: Stale; warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cristian MH (talk • contribs) 09:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Cristian MH (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . There was no breach of WP:3RR (close, though). There has been no discussion on the article talk page since September 2012. There was no warning of edit warring. I have warned the user for the future, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User: Neolaia Synaspismos reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Account with group name meaning in Greek "Youth of Synaspismos political party of Greece. Keeps adding their leader's image on the Greeks showcase. Political spam/propaganda account. Also reported at UAA.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Two 3RR warnings. 

Comments:

Political propaganda SPA. Does not respond. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours by User:Ronhjones. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Jay74b reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 24h)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:
 * Page:
 * Page: (now deleted per WP:CSD)

While he has not technically broken 3RR as of yet, I understand that persistent edit-warring in general and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point can be grounds for admin sanction. Since March 18, this single-purpose account, whose same edits were removed by another editor on March 5, has been WP:SOAPBOXing about a garbage facility he doesn't want in his neighborhood, starting with the same POV, "op ed" edits, at Yorkville, Manhattan and at Upper East Side.

He additionally wrote a screed about the facility as the "article" Solid Waste Facility Upper East Side, which an admin deleted. A sample of his POV posts: ""Due the garbage facility's impact on the neighborhood and environment real estate prices and values are under pressure. Mayoral candidate Christine Quinn is one of the biggest supporters of the "Solid Waste Facility". The 91st facility will be the only waste process plant in a residential neighborhood." [Note: That last sentence isn't even accurate; there's a waste facility in Harlem by Riverbank Park]"

I've gone to his talk page to initiate dialog, but he refuses to discuss. And even a shorter version that he's now pushing is uncited, WP:CRYSTAL about something that isn't even built yet, giving future statistics.

His three reverts so far at Yorkville, Manhattan
 * 
 * 
 * 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:. As well, I've tried to resolve this at User talk:Jay74b since it has involved three separate articles.

Comments:

As noted, he is only at the verge of breaking 3RR, but his disruptive behavior in general across three articles, and his complete lack of response, seem as if it would merit admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * His reversions to his uncited WP:SOAPBOXING and WP:CRYSTAL future statistics, not to mention WP:UNDUE in giving an entire section to what is at most a one-sentence mention, continues into its third day. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Jay74b continued to revert on 21 March after he was already warned of the existence of this complaint. He has never left a comment on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:MaddoxFN1234 reported by User:Sitethief (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: (I am aware that he has only 3 edit-blocks after I edited, I don't know if I am allowed to count other edits of him that removed and/or vandalized the page, regardless without 3RR it could still be an edit war).
 * 1)  (blanking the page again)
 * 2)  (disabling a reference by editting its link)
 * 3)  (Removing an entire section, and afterwards editting more weblinks)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Note that I thought the warning template about 3RR was enough to facilitate a discussion, it seems I was in error there and thus did not start a discussion)

Comments:

I know I violated the 3RR rule myself, but some of my reverts where of blanking a page, which is clear vandalism. I consciously made this revert, knowing full well that it could be a 3RR violation, I want to point out the vandalism included in his edits. This is the first time I report an edit war here, so I may make/made a few mistakes.  Site thief  ~talk to me~ 18:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . He is on three reverts, and the first of your four is a vandalism revert, so exempt. He looks like he does have a genuine concern about the article, and there might be a COI issue too. I've left a COI warning on his talk page, and also sent him a personal message encouraging him to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! By the way, I wasn't sure where to post this therefore I filed it under edit war.  Site thief  ~talk to me~ 18:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Te best thing to do would have been to approach the editor first - a personal message is often enough to get someone to edit constructively. If they do edit war, then this is the right place; if they are not edit warring but still being disruptive, ANI might be a better place to go. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Andromeda reported by User:Bloodofox (Result: Andromeda blocked 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

This is pretty cut and dry. User repeatedly re-adds the same pop culture information. User is reverted due to lack of references. User is repeatedly told that he or she requires references for said addition (WP:PROVEIT). User then simply says that it's not necessary since other pages don't have them and/or that the references required can be found somewhere else. User has violated 3RR (and any number of other policies on referencing). &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * All the works mentioned have wiki articles, which are linked, where the references can be found. LOTS of articles have references in the same format, and none has been deleted. I have added the same information to several other articles and nobody else has ever complained, only you. I have not added any unsourced information. I really don't understand what your problem is. It seems you have something personal or against pop culture information on the article, which I don't understand.

Andromeda (talk) 23:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I frequently add fully cited "modern influence" sections to related articles. The article you're repeatedly adding unreferenced content to was written to WP:GA standards. References are not optional. You do yourself no favor by telling others to go hunt them down themselves. Like WP:PROVEIT says, if you want the information to stand, cite it appropriately, or it can be removed by anyone for any reason. Meanwhile, you've clearly violated WP:3RR. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The references are on the each articles page, which are clearly cross-referenced, and even better done. I don't see the problem. This editing war is your fault, not mine. Andromeda (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose you didn't bother to look at the articles you're linking to, either. Can you seriously claim that articles such as The Mythical Detective Loki Ragnarok contain, well, any references at all? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Both Bloodofox and Andromeda seem to have broken 3RR. Nobody's reverts are excused by WP:3RRNO. It would be best if both would agree to take a break from this article and continue on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly where are you seeing me breaking 3RR? I have not made three reverts in a 24 hour period. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. You've made five reverts in two days, but only 4 reverts in 26 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Please take the side of the quality of the quality of the article here. I don't think that there's any reason that here in 2013 a mass of reference-less pop culture material should be allowed to be pasted onto a quality article, especially by way of violation of 3RR. We have policies against this sort of thing for a very simple reason; it does not contribute to the quality of the article. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Though your motives may be good, you have been edit warring. If you won't agree to stop, the article may need to be fully protected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, I have broke no policies. This user has. Please don't tell me that this is going to devolve into another case of Randy in Boise. Let's do what would be logical here: remove the unreferenced content until references can be produced for it (and WP:TRIVIA is another matter altogether) and give the user the usual temp block per WP:3RR. I don't see why this has to be complicated. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Andromeda crossed the bright line in order to simultaneously violate WP:V, which explicitly mandates the use of inline citations when material has been challenged. It's his second block for edit warring, so its 72 hours long. Bloodofox warned.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bacterioid reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 06:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:08, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545080530 by 92.40.254.40 (talk)")
 * 2) 15:08, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "/* Physical anthropology */ Removing POV weasel")
 * 3) 15:27, 20 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545701351 by Maunus (talk) Authoritarian POV weasel")
 * 4) 05:45, 21 March 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 545080530 by 92.40.254.40 (talk) See talk")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

There has been discussion on the talk page in regard to a book which an IP removed from the article and this editor continues to replace despite 2 editors (I'm one) disagreeing with him (the IP hasn't posted). Dougweller (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The second is not a revert. Bacterioid (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course it is. You were given a link to WP:3RR which says "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." You deleted text which had to have been added by another editor. I note that all of your edits so far are about Boas or articles related to Boas. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 3RR doesn't apply to removing text that was added in the indeterminate past. Otherwise removing 4 letters from "desert" spelled "dessert" would be 3RR. Bacterioid (talk) 06:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . I think it's stretching 3RR a bit to call the second diff a revert, just because someone added it at some point in the past, especially as the content Bacterioid removed has been there for at least 3 years. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have too literal a mind. I hope that Bacteriod will seek consensus rather than continue their other reverts. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am seeking consensus. Please feel free to address my point on the talk page. Bacterioid (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus & discussion are good; I'm pleased to see discussion happening on the talk page and the edit warring to have ceased. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Bacteriod has again reverted without achieving consensus. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If it matters, note that this editor seems to be an WP:SPA. Dougweller (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at this again in detail and in context with other edits by Bacteriod, his edit removing the text I've struck out in this excerpt: "However Jonathan Marks; a well-known physical anthropologist and former president of the General Anthropology section of the American Anthropological Association ; has remarked that this revisionist study of Boas's work" - virtually all of Bacteriod's edits are in some way to criticize Boas, and I'd say that this is in line with the rest of his edits. To say it should not be counted as a revert doesn't seem based on anything stated at the policy page and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2012/February on this issue doesn't seem to show consensus that reverting old edits don't count. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded at my talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc reported by User:GeorgeLouis (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: There were 9 reverts, all covered by the below diff 1-9

The article in question is subject to the WP:1RR rule as noted at the top of its Talk Page.

The user went through each country in turn and checked out the sources, deleting each country if no sources were found. Her edit summaries stated in general terms as follows:'removed sections not containing any mention of "separation barriers" here or in the linked articles (nor citations)'

I messaged the user on talk page as follows: "I don't get it. You made a bunch of revisions, but the article is under a WP:1RR restriction, isn't it? How do you figure that all your revisions are allowed?" She responded on the article Talk Page, and there followed a series of messages, which you can read here.

The question I have for an uninvolved administrator is: Were the series of reverts made by the user allowable under the WP:1RR rule? The arguments on each side are fairly well summed up on the article Talk Page.

Comments:


 * Comment - User:GeorgeLouis is under the impression that WP:1RR means that you can only edit the article once per day. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have quoted the policy from 3rr on the article talk page to User:GeorgeLouis but he just doesn't seem to get it: A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 12:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreement. I agree with Bbb23 and was at the keyboard to withdraw my posting here, but his decision beat me to it. I think I should be on the talk page of WP:3RR to bring up the rather (to me) obtuse wording concerning this matter. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Carolmooredc reported by User:Soosim (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on OR noticeboard: 

Comments:


 * Comment - i was in the middle of a discussion on the talk page of the article when carolmooredc decided to continue to edit the article in a disruptive and edit warring manner. she has threatened me in the past with doing this, and threatened to take me to this board (not sure why), but alas, her bullying needs to be stopped. just a day or two ago, she did take the discussion of this article to the OR noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard (which was a good start) but, like on the talk page of the article itself, the discussion is still ongoing. and yet, she felt she has the right to edit the page before an outcome has been decided upon. in addition, there seem to be some 1RR violations as well. but my main concern is her total disregard for the process, courtesy, and discussions on the talk page and the OR noticeboard (which she herself started!). i think some sort of discipline is in order. Soosim (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * CarolMooreDC response: "Separation barrier" is a neologism from the 1980s at earliest that is a highly political term used almost exclusively by the Israelis, though a few individuals have applied it to a few other countries' walls/fences/barriers. This article is filled with WP:OR promoting the term with whole sections on everything from the Great Wall of China to fences separating African game preserves called "separation barriers", with no references even using the term "separation barrier". (Until I added a couple there weren't even any relevant references about Israel!) Sooism refused to admit there was any WP:OR so I took it to WP:Original Research Noticeboard here where all the other editors agreed with me and some came to the talk page to agree. User:Sooism said "slowly" he'd put in references and has only put in 2 references, neither of which are explicitly about "separation barrier." A couple of us on the talk page have told him if he gets the references he can put back sections/material actually sourced by the reliable source. Wikipedia's WP:OR on this topic has been propagated through mirror sites and blog quotations on the internet and even books of Wikipedia material. This really is an abuse of WP:Neologism and WP:OR. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 12:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * More Comment - carol, do you have proof/RS that it is a neologism? you pretend that it is. but our discussion here is not whether it is or it isn't but why you chose to be disruptive in your editing. please do not deflect that back to discussing the other issue. (which we can do, but not here). Soosim (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * See Neologism and Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch) for how that is determined. Also, note I am not arguing to delete the article, only that "separation barrier" is enough of neologism that it cannot indiscriminately be applied to any fence/wall/barrier on the planet without a WP:RS. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 13:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * and again, note, that your comments above belong on the talk page. here we are discussing your editing behavior. Soosim (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . There's been no breach of WP:1RR. The second diff listed above isn't even an edit by Carol.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Colleabois reported by User:Mathsci (Result: Warning given)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a newly created account. The editor has tag bombed the article on Germans, a fairly neutral article. They have tagged numerous innocuous statements in the lede and throughout the article. They seem to be pushing a POV about Germans that could traced back to the Low Countries. They have tagged statements mainly it seems because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They have been reverted by three different editors now and added the tags four times to the article with a battleground response on the talk page. They write that, "I've re-added the tags once more; if this again made undone I will not re-add them, but instead REMOVE the currently unsupported statements all together per WP:SOURCE." That would result in the blanking of large parts of the article, mostly innocuous statements, such as how or when a German state emerged. My understanding is that none of the content that they are disputing is contentious. Mathsci (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: From the continued edit warring on Pennsylvania Dutch and Germans, this editor formerly edited as the Nijmegen IP . Indeed they have redirected the user page and talk page of that IP to those of Colleabois. They are not new to wikipedia and they are certainly not new to edit warring, as the IP received warnings for their edit-warring on Pennsylvania Dutch. Mathsci (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . However, the editor is being disruptive; I'll have a word with them on their talk page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is highly agressive and has accused me falsely of many, many things. From POV pushing, to edit warring, to vandalism.
 * I am not a new user, I simply have only recently registered.
 * I have not breached the 3RR, this required four reverts within 24 hours; there are only three. What I have done is restore the tags I added to statements which were either unsupported or invalidly 'supported' by sourced which are either inadequate, obsolete or invalid. This user has reverted all of these tags (all of whom I should mention, had a rationale written behind them in hidden script to explain their placement) without any proper rationale. Per WP:SOURCE I have every right to delete unsourced material and claims; I added the tags to address these issues, giving editors the opportunity to correct/expand/validate them while warning readers of the article.
 * Since I've only added tags (though including the removal of one or two sentences which I found beyond belief) I haven't added my 'point of view' to any content in the article, only to the talk page. In that light, I really can't comprehend which POV I'm supposedly pushing.
 * On the talk page, I have stated (after, in an aggressive tone, the above user accused me of breaching the 3RR) that I had not and never would. I have said clearly to him, that those tags have every right to be there and that, while I would not revert his counterproductive edit a third time, I would simply remove the disputed information; again per WP:SOURCE. This was not a threat of blanking the page, nor would it result in that. The article in question simply has a number of claims which are currently unsupported; this would result in a number of sentences being removed. Not whole sections, let alone large parts of the article. This would of course be unnecessary, as I am not so much interested in removing information as I am in seeing it correctly sourced.
 * The points I raise are valid, as a number of fellow editors have confirmed on the talk page.
 * All in all I find this all very aggressive, non-constructive and in fact counterproductive to the improvement of the article. Greetings, Colleabois (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The warning is clear enough. Mathsci (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Z554 reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Looked like vandalism so didn't.]

Comments:


 * First, the 3 reverts are all vandalistic in that they move neutral sourced material way down in the article and replace it with a lead that calls Mondoweiss an anti-Israel site, without any reference.
 * Second, when I brought matter up at his talk page he made reverted the personal attack made by a banned editor after an admin deleted it.
 * He also left questionable messages on the page of the other editor who reverted him on this article after his 3rd revert in 24 hours.
 * He earlier was hostile comments to another editor who warned him about WP:ARBPIA and it's 1RR.
 * Finally, there is a possibility this person is a long term sock of Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis who has been busy creating multiple socks a day, reverting everything I do, and leaving hostile comments all over, including doubtless this one mentioned above that User:Z554 reverted back. I've tagged his User page as a possible sock, but he reverted it. CarolMooreDC'' &#x1f5fd; 14:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . Not sure about the sockpuppetting; will ask at ANI. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:84.52.101.196 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I communicated with the IP through my edit summaries,, , , which the IP has clearly read since he responded to them in his own edit summaries. I have also, although admittedly late, commented on the talk page of the article. The edit war is over the price per unit of an advanced modern anti-tank missile, which was previously given as $875,000 per system (with each system consisting of one launcher and ten missiles, which is a realistic price for that kind of military hardware) but is repeatedly changed by the IP to a totally unrealistic $2,200 per missile, based on an obscure mention of an arms deal with Eritrea in 2005. A price that is less than what a primitive unguided AT-weapon costs. Others have reverted his changes earlier, only to be instantly reverted by the IP, without any discussion or explanation. I could add that the IP was blocked for among other things disruptive editing and WP:NOTHERE as late as last month, so he has a history of not wanting to collaborate with others. Thomas.W (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * you keep deleting well referenced information, changing it to your personal assessment based on the article in a newspaper which isn't even verifiable, since not available online. Wikipedia is not meant to be based on what you personally think is realistic and what is not. 84.52.101.196 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluerules reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: In Feb, he edit wars over the credit order because he believes Jim Carrey should be higher based on his personal interpretation of a film not yet released
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

More recently he is not engaged in a full on edit war over cast order, using various excuses. He cites the film credits should take precedence over anything else, but is more than happy to use the poster credits when it suits his order preference as seen here:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

First tried to explain it in edit summaries that we use the billing block, following the infobox guideline which says the same to avoid edit warring of this type and people ordering cast per their personal preferences. Then I took it to the talk page after he ignored multiple references to WP: BRD. User chose to ignore or find fault with any reasoning given while continuing to espouse his personal but all encompassing and overriding rule that the film credits are more important, except when they aren't because they don't suit him so he uses the poster instead. I removed myself from the discussion because he refused to budge on anything, and he chooses to take this as me submitting to his preference and so has begun edit warring over it again. Cannot be bothered with it anymore and no one else is getting involved so it needs intervention directly.

Since the film was released on the 15th he has made all of these edits purely about the cast order including copy pasting his old edit and removing sourced information in the process. He has right now, just re-edited again, he has no intention of stopping unless he gets his way. As seen here ( where it's all about his personal order of prominence and then a different excuse) and here where he is content to edit war with anyone, not just me, because only his way is right.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I want to make clear I do not care about the order this much, but the order is in place and we use that guideline for a reason, to stop people doing what BlueRules is doing, of course the rule doesn't account for people who don't give a wik, but I have seen the user doing this across multiple articles and his attempts to enforce his will here are aggressive and uncompromising, it is his way or the highway and so I come here because I need help, genuinely. I could just let him change the order for no reason but his personal preference, but considering what he is already doing, this will just become a bigger problem down the line.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

User:NotHelpingMatters reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:IP blocked 24h, NotHelpingMatters indef'd)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Got to this article from ANI, the IP editor is also up to around 10RR Darkness Shines (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I am attempting to bring the page up to the neutrality and professional standards of Wikipedia, which includes removing the needlessly graphic image that user Niabot is emotionally invested in including. If anyone should be blocked, it's him. He demonstrates a consistent pattern of unprofessional interest in including his personally created pornographic images in articles, which is not an attitude suited towards Wikipedia's intended purpose. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * And after being warned about edit warring and having been notified of this report he reverts again. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to a reversion by Niabot. Odd how you keep only mentioning what I do and never what he does. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, I have no idea if that IP is Niabot. You can see the IP is also mentioned in this report. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I misinterpreted that as referring to my own IP. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

NotHelpingMatters' only edits to Wikipedia seem to be seeking the removal of the image provided by Niabot to the article futanari. He needs to be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 01:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. I have also edited the text of the page to have it be less biased, to have it read more clearly, to remove weasel words, and to generally be more neutral and scholarly in nature. Furthermore, there is a difference between not being censored and including needlessly graphic images to illustrate minor details of a subject that is already graphic in nature. We do not need an image illustrating two hermaphrodites masturbating each other on a page of an online encyclopedia. 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotHelpingMatters (talk • contribs)


 * . The IP in question - which, from its editing pattern, might well be Niabot but which is not editing in violation of any policy beyond WP:3RR, as it is not editing at the same time or in concert with Niabot - logged-out editing is not prohibited if it is not done to mislead, which is clearly not the case here - has been blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. NotHelpingMatters has been blocked indefinitly as someone who is not here to improve the encyclopedia. The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Saddhiyama reported by User:Soosim (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on OR noticeboard: 

Comments:


 * Comment - i was in the middle of a discussion on the talk page of the article when Saddhiyama decided to continue to edit the article in a disruptive and edit warring manner. just a day or two ago, the discussion of this article was started at the OR noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard (which was a good start) but, like on the talk page of the article itself, the discussion is still ongoing. and yet, s/he felt she has the right to edit the page before an outcome has been decided upon. but my main concern is the total disregard for the process, courtesy, and discussions on the talk page and the OR noticeboard. i think some sort of discipline is in order. Soosim (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - GeorgeLouis and Soosim have been told told several times now that 1RR means "1 revert rule", not "1 revision rule". As the diffs clearly show there is no reversion going on by either me or CarolMooreDC. This and the above reports are frivoulous. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * More Comment - Saddhiyama, i didn't say anything to you about 1RR. please speak about what i said. (if it wasn't clear, i will try again: you are making disruptive edits while a discussion about said edits is taking place, instead of waiting for a resolution. it is poor ettiquette, disruptive, not helpful, etc.) Soosim (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Then you posted this at the wrong noticeboard. But for what it's worth here is a summing up of what occurred: You objected to CarolMooreDCs original proposal of cleaning up of the article. As your discussion with her on the talk page went in circles she posted on the No original research noticeboard which is where I and a couple of other editors was made aware of the issue. CarolMooreDCs position was clearly supported on the NORN. And several editors including me posted on the talk page of the article as well (1, 2, 3) supporting CarolMooreDCs revision, as her edits was perfectly in line with WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. Instead of adressing these points, by either making an effort to find sources or suggesting rewording of problematic sections your reply was "... i think it would be good (as i have suggested already) to get some neutral editors involved", despite this issue had already been brought up at NORN with a landslide consensus against you. As it was clear that your objection at this point was nothing but stalling, I, following the lead of editors GeorgeLouis and TippyGoomba (I'm curious as to why you haven't reported those as well), made some cleaning up edits in line with the clear consensus on the NORN and on the talk page. There is still multiple issues that needs to be fixed on the article, but at least it is a start. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * why is this the wrong board? this is for edit warring. says so at the top. if you have a better place for this, then please let me know (instead of being what i perceive to be 'self-righteous' and know the answer but not share). thanks, Soosim (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You haven't provided any evidence at all of edit warring, so there isn't any better place for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Soosim finds he cannot make a policy-based argument for keeping a mass of unreferenced and even unreferenceable material so he is resorting to frivolous attacks on editors who are complying with policy. I think this needs to be the subject of his Separation barrier related complaints with proper action taken. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 13:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * really? this is not frivolous. trying to make article useful. but you have never responded to my suggestions, and instead, just move forward with editing despite a discussion taking place. all of my suggestions were policy based.Soosim (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * . Soosim, stop with these reports, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * bbb23 - really? i never said there was 1RR but edit warring, which is the title of this page. why is it ok to edit an article when in the midst of an edit war and a discussion on the talk page? it appears that there is no relation, so a green light is in order, yes? Soosim (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Naturalhomes reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: Bringing attention and asking for help before 4th revert.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:John C. Maxwell

Comments:

Editor appears to have some kind of dislike or hatred toward the subject, at least based on the editors comments on the talk page and when making changes. Multiple sources have been found to support the claim of 5 million people trained and the editor continues to delete them. When I followed the instructions through Third opinion, the editor reverted the edits once again and the 3O editor backed out.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Response:

Paul McDonald has some kind of like or fondness towards the subject. This is substantiated by declaring one of the subject's books as a favourite of the editor's. The Third opinion intervention made it clear that there were strict guidelines for citation which the editor has not followed. I have clearly stated that if the editor finds a citation that complies with the standard I will agree to let the statement stand. It is a rediculous notion to suggest I have a dislike or hatred for the subject. May I point out the editor is discourteous towards me but despite his rudeness I hope this matter can be successfully resolved. --Natural Homes (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When have I ever been rude toward you? Granted, I've been somewhat apprehensive as you have been looking up personal information about me on the internet and posting it on the talk page of the article.  I admit that makes me nervous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * – I recommend that neither of you revert the article again until a conclusion is reached on the talk page. User:TransporterMan has been helping on talk with the sourcing issue. User:Naturalhomes should not make any more comments about Paul McDonald's off-wiki activities and should observe the spirit of the WP:OUTING policy. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)