Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216

User:117.200.157.144 reported by User:Uncletomwood (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

he/she is reverting my edits and then says he will warn me!think it is the same person accusing me of being a sock!

I don't understand why IOFS officers would be sent to National Academy of Direct Taxes. They have nothing to do with taxation. LBSNAA is a general public administration academy set up by the Govt of India to train officers from all India serives and the Central services. It's mentioned in the citaion I've provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.157.144 (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed points. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:OrangesRyellow reported by Manofwar0 (Result: Manofwar0 Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

reverted 5 times today in total Manofwar0 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Broke 3RR on Anjem Choudary alone Manofwar0 (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Prodego.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Archcaster reported by User:GSK (Result: 48 hours each for Archcaster and Beerest355)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558484557 by Beerest355 (talk) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Wikipedia is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558484557 by Beerest355 (talk) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Wikipedia is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."
 * 1)   "Undid revision 558484557 by Beerest355 (talk) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Wikipedia is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers (season 4). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* User page */"
 * 3)   "/* User page */"
 * 1)   "/* User page */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:


 * First of all, I am not doing edit warring, the User:Beerest355 is, I have nothing to do with this. He started the edit war, I didn't. Honestly, I don't know why the User:GSK was dumb enough to report me anyway over some reliable source that the user typed in as a blog and me undoing his edit is a problem. Also, what does the user page situation have to do with this, Nothing! --Archcaster (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For someone who has been edit warring you have quite a mouth. Skip the uncivil comments. They only make matters worse for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This doesn't concern you User:Bbb23 and yes I have a mouth because I was born with it, thank you very much. --Archcaster (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As an admin, this case does in fact concern Bbb23. Archcaster, even if you feel you're right, continous reverts are always edit warring unless they remove outright vandalism. Archcaster and Beerest355 have been blocked for 48 hours. De728631 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Holothurion reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Trivial crap, but 4RR is still a bright-line, last time I looked.

Original

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

Wotan is one of the Norse gods, aka Odin. This name also appears as Wōden in some languages. In German though, at least mid-20th century German, it was "Wotan". This led to the military codename for the German WWII X-Gerät radar radio navigation device being "Wotan" (and not "Wōden"). The name is probably the best-known aspect of this radar radio navigation device, at least in the UK, owing to RV Jones' book and TV series The Secret War, where this injudicious choice of codename let slip a significant military secret. I have no idea of the linguistic / historical preference for Odin/Wotan/Wōden and I make no comment on which should be the canonical WP article name, but for WWII German radar electronic warfare the name was clearly Wotan.

In the article List of Rainbow Codes, itself about military codenames, the piped link " " was used, because Wotan already appeared earlier on the line.

‎Holothurion is now changing this piped link, not from any claimed virtue or for any content reason, but seemingly because "redirects are bad". I'm unaware of this. Are redirects to be switched off shortly? Is our regular call "redirects are cheap" no longer accurate? This is a minor point (as is almost everything at ANEW), but
 * This is a change, a change driven by one solitary editor, and in such cases it's our usual practice to want to see some improvement achieved, not merely editing for editing's sake.
 * Wotan is correct in this context, Wōden is not correct. The link target is visible from the hover text and as the piped link isn't the most obvious link ever, readers are likely to look at that text.
 * 4RR is 4RR

The only comment from Holothurion is on the lines that its redirects that are simply the problem, not text itself (with a side-order of gratuitous vandalism accusation), "Redirectioning must be avoided as much as possible. Stop changing it back, or you will be reported as vandalizing"

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Andy Dingley's arguments would be correct and valid if the link pointed to an article named "Wotan" and I was changing it to the one pertaining to another deity, related or not (p.e. Jupiter and Zeus). But, since the link in the text in fact redirects to the Wōden article, I'm only changing it so it points to said article without any redirection involved which - being that there's not actual "Wotan" article nor is a case of it being renamed/moved - is in this event unnecessary and avoidable; I'm taking into full account the rules and guidelines described in Redirect. The content, purpose and meaning of the aforementioned text in List of Rainbow Codes remains completely intact.
 * Regarding the report warning (which I recognize was overdid on my part), it was given to Andy Dingley with the best of interests in mind pertaining both of us and the three-revert rule, and also in the grounds that the user was about to start/started an edit war that could be avoided and resolved through discussion instead of continually resort to changing/reverting the List of Rainbow Codes article. With all that said, I should point out that neither of us violated the 3RR. — Holothurion (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Why (per WP:NOTBROKEN) is this redirect "broken", so that you are having to repeatedly "fix" it?
 * If it is not "broken", so that there is nothing to "fix", then why are you repeatedly changing it?
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . I have left a message on Holothurion's talk page informing him that he has in fact breached 3RR and explaining what he must do to avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Message answered on my talk page. - Holothurion (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . Based on Holothurion's self-revert, acknowledgment, and promise, I'm closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Unrelated issue, but I've now had yet another abusive and trolling email from "Reisio" (who I'm sure isn't ) claiming that because Wotan wasn't a radar then my point is invalid and I should be indef blocked for edit-warring and stupidity. I am getting just a little fed up with these (Four now). I know that WP can't/won't do anything about checkusering, but I have notified your ISP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:46.239.60.21 reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

UPDATE: 5th revert:

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

This article is only a sample of this IP's massive edit warring all over the place. The IP based in Bosnia (which apparently changes every 24 hours) is contentiously 3RR edit warring (with bias) against all users on multiple articles all over the place. Previously edit warred all the same articles as User:46.239.14.76 yesterday, User:109.165.188.100 the day before... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've started disscusion of Template talk:Yazdânism and i've informed three admins about the issue. Til Eulenspiegel and his fellow IP-POV-pushers didn't leave any constructive comments, just forcing their POV as in other cases. This editor is falsely accusing me of being sock also. --46.239.60.21 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note this IP is also the subject of an SPI now, for being the sock of User:Shaushka. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * by another admin. This is playing out in other forums.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ystino19827 and User:0987nervewracker reported by User:Epicgenius (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

Users being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edit warring is happening over a period of several days, with at least four registered users, as well as an IP involved in the reversions. Several users, including Special:Contributions/80.42.234.237 Special:Contributions/80.42.230.238 and Special:Contributions/139.222.18.162 have been trying to un-revert these users' changes. I am not involved in the edit warring; I have simply reverted it back to the pre-edit war version. Epicgenius (talk to me • see my contributions) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for a week. The registered accounts are not auto-confirmed. However, the material is too inflammatory to leave in, and I've removed it as unreliably sourced (blogs and other similar websites, plus a YouTube video).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Obiwankenobi reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

This is not a 3RR report, but a report for edit warring over two days about terms used for, or comparable with, female genital mutilation (FGM). This is a contentious issue and the editor has been made aware of that here. He is adding terms that are not equivalent to FGM, or are already discussed or linked in the article, and has reverted in whole or in part against three editors who have removed them.


 * His 1st edit to the article: 01:24, 6 June, added two terms to See also
 * 1st revert: 01:34, 6 June, restored one of the terms (partial revert)


 * 2nd edit: 03:22, 6 June, added a hatnote linking to three terms
 * 2nd revert: 03:45, 6 June, restored hatnote (wholesale revert)


 * 3rd edit: 04:44, 6 June, added alternative terms to infobox
 * 3rd revert: 21:11, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
 * 4th revert: 22:03, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
 * 5th revert: 22:39, 7 June, restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)

SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments
I'm reporting this because Obiwankenobi has been involved in other serial reverting recently, and seems to feel that he can revert up to 3RR. See his comment in this edit summary when removing a warning: "3 reverts is not 4".

The other reason I'm reporting it is that I believe he followed me to female genital mutilation after I opened an RfC to change the title of Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). He is strongly opposed to the Sarah Brown RfC, and shortly after I first commented on that talk page at 19:18, 5 June, he appeared at 20:21, 5 June on the FGM talk page to add links to page moves, his first-ever edit to the talk page or article. It's possible that it's a coincidence but it's unlikely; I had made FGM-related edits just before my first comment on the Sarah Brown page, so they were obvious in my contribs.

Obiwankenobi's edits to FGM were accompanied by going to several redirects to FGM, or related articles, and changing them, apparently to match the edits he was making to FGM. Examples:        It's not that's there necessarily a problem with all these edits, it's just that there was a sudden interest in edits about female genitalia. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I do not appreciate the attempt by SV to link these two sets of edits - they are quite different. One set of edits was around linking to existing wikipedia articles for Clitoridectomy and Clitoridotomy, while the other set of edits was around adding terms widely used in the literature "Sunna circumcision" and "Pharaonic circumcision" to the infobox ; both of these terms are already mentioned in the body of the article - my change was to simply add it to the info box. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are not equivalent terms for FGM. This is the problem with editing the article to make a point, and not being familiar what is a complex and sensitive issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the forum to discuss the substantive issues, but the notion that you know and I don't, as well as the assertion that I'm trying to make a point (what point might that be?) is a bit misguided here. I'm emphatically *not* trying to make a point, by any edits, full stop.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Slim Virgin / Boomerang
Slim Virgin has 4 reverts in the same exact time period.
 * Revision as of 21:30, 5 June 2013
 * Revision as of 21:47, 5 June 2013
 * Revision as of 23:43, 5 June 2013
 * Revision as of 17:02, 7 June 2013

So WP:BOOMERANG should be considered here. But I'd rather not impose sanctions against anyone here, if possible. But if you look carefully, every single line of text I've tried to add to the article has been reverted by SV, so there is also an issue of WP:OWN here.

I admit to being frustrated and doing 3 reverts above, which I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that - it's just the edit summaries said the names weren't backed up by sources, but the actual source linked backed up almost every single name, and other sources in the article back up the other names - so I was frustrated that people were reverting without reading any sources while claiming that the edits were not sourced. I was wrong to revert though.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the reverts above, and it won't happen again, I will take it to talk earlier. As to SV's other allegations, I've added "old moves" to a number of articles, and FGM is one I'd been meaning to do for a while; seeing it mentioned on SVs and other people's talk pages reminded me to do so. That's it. I'd also rather SV not insinuate I'm up to something nefarious, when in fact I corrected some long-standing mistaken redirects per the edits above. I'm a gnome, so when I come across an article, I fix what I feel needs fixing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Most of Obiwankenobi's comments are misguided. However, based on their apology, I have left a message on their talk page that they may avoid a block if they agree not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Obiwankenobi has agreed not to edit the article for seven days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz reported by User:Taroaldo (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 558849262 by Lord777 (talk) Until this article is fixed, the tags must remain per Wikipedia policy. Removing them is disruptive and can easily get you indefinitely blocked."
 * 2)  "restore some well sourced information that impacts the article's notability"
 * 3)  "adding resume tag"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 558857432 by Taroaldo (talk) the clean-up is not complete, so tag should remain"
 * 5)  "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."
 * 1)  "adding resume tag"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 558857432 by Taroaldo (talk) the clean-up is not complete, so tag should remain"
 * 3)  "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."
 * 1)  "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."
 * 1)  "Take it to the talk page. Two editors believe this is OK. You are edit warring and appropriately warned."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Second Warning Re: Uncivil Behaviour"
 * 2)   "Warning: civility"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Puff */ c."
 * 2)   "That's a lot of puff!"


 * Comments:


 * Through 'recent changes' I noticed an uncivil edit summary given by AfricaTanz to Lord777 regarding edits he was making to this page. AfricaTanz feels strongly that the page is written like a fan page, and I agree. I attempted to begin making some dramatic changes to bring the article more into line with Wikipedia standards. I achieved a result sufficient enough to remove the "fansite" tag, but AfricaTanz again responded with hostility, this time toward me. So far in this encounter, AfricaTanz has not behaved civilly at all -- to any of the involved parties, and has shown no inclination to assume good faith, despite my attempts to make some of the changes to the article that he seemed to want. Lord777 had also expressed some of his feelings about the encounter on my talk page, if you wish to review it. Thank you. Taroaldo (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . A short time after I filed this report, this popped up on my talk page. Taroaldo (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A previous 3RR report for same user may be relevant: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive199 —Psychonaut (talk) 06:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked AfricaTanz for violating WP:3RR. In response to other allegations, @Taroaldo, if you are going to accuse an editor of being uncivil, please include diffs. @Psychonaut, it would take me a fair amount of time to analyze your sock puppet allegations. If you feel the evidence is strong enough, you should file a report at WP:SPI. If no other named accounts are involved, you will have to rely on non-technical evidence as it would be unusual for a CU to be performed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not alleging that AfricaTanz has violated the policy on multiple accounts, nor do I think I ever have. The previous report demonstrates that before creating an account he was active as an anonymous editor with a dynamic IP, though there's nothing wrong with that.  The IP range was already blocked for disruptive editing, and that block (combined with semiprotection of some of the affected articles) led him to create an account.  (This was more or less the intended effect—we wanted him to register so that we could engage in discussion with him.  We had no guarantee that he noticed any of the messages editors were leaving the IP talk pages.)  I don't have any reason to believe the he has been editing from anything other than the User:AfricaTanz account since its creation, so there's no reason to take the matter to WP:SPI.  I linked to the previous 3RR report here only to provide some further context to the present dispute. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, and I appreciate the clarification. However, in my view if a person is blocked for disruptive editing and then registers an account without disclosing their history, that is problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mhazard9 reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: 48h)
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:

Mhazard9 is edit warring to add nonstandard capitalization of common nouns, as well as repeatedly re-adding other disputed content. His edits have been undone by four separate editors. Mhazard9 has responded to neither my query on the article's talk page nor my non-template warning on his or her user talk, instead reappearing at the article to reinsert the disputed edits for the fifth time. Rivertorch (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Some action needs to be taken regarding Mhazard9. The editor simply refuses to accept policy and consensus on a broad swath of issues from non-free content use requirements to NPOV to matters of style, and continuously reinserts their preferred text and content, usually with opaque and generic, if not outright deceptive edit summaries. All efforts at discuss prove futile. Blocked just six weeks ago for repeatedly removing copyright issue tags. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User has been blocked before. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Faizan (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 558908618 by Darkness Shines (talk) the sources only says that women were raped, not men, also the info should be only about the rapes as per the title"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 558909546 by Faizan (talk) unexplained revert"
 * 3)  "re-added disputed tags, see talk page first before reverting"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Rape against Biharis */ re"


 * Comments:

Constant disruptive editing. Reverting users, adding tags without context. Multiple reverts, not sticking to the guidelines. Last option was a report here, and I was compelled to make it. Fai zan  14:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Kmzayeem has only 3 reverts that I counted, he has also started a section on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had made only 3 reverts. Adding tags is not nonconstructive, I had added the tags after posting in the article talk page. In addition, User:Faizan had also reverted my edits without any explanation, , . As it is related to the context, I would also like to bring the issue of this article where User:Faizan is continuously removing the POV tags without reaching a consensus .--Zayeem (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached. I tried my best for it, you did not elucidate your concerns in talk. I provided you the diffs of the improvements of the article is talk, but you don't cooperate. The tags are redundant without explanation. Secondly, you have reverted me several times there. I instead, tolerated it and even self-reverted my self many times. Fai  zan  15:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Secondly for the POV tags, an RfC is also under progress. Fai  zan  15:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Bbb23. Fai  zan  15:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's only you who is assuming to have reached the consensus. You have also reverted many edits of mine and some other users. You are just putting the ✅ mark without actually addressing the issues. I've already stated my concerns. The issues are still not addressed and you went on to remove the tags.--Zayeem (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did not I expand the sections you cited? I even provided you with the diffs of my improvements, now let the people decide in the RfC. Fai  zan  15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Consensus has been reached. — Please provide the link! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 15:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . I see no 3RR violations, although both the reporter and the reported are at 3 reverts. I see no consensus. I see no RfC, at least not on the article talk page. I do see a lock coming if you folks can't stop battling in the article. Keep it on the talk page until there actually is a consensus. At this point, no action other than my advice is warranted.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Maccabipage reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on San Remo conference. (TW)"

Warning by Zero0000
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Warning by Nableezy

Warning by EdJohnston


 * Comments:

Article is subject to 1RR.
 * . Although Ed generously left the user an opportunity a few hours ago to possibly avoid a block, the user has not responded. In addition, the user has never edited an article talk page, and the last time they edited a user talk page was in 2011. Finally, they were warned more than once about their continuing violation but just kept ignoring the warnings and reverting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could someone undo this editor's latest reversion on the article? I have already reverted once, as have several others, and the article is covered by 1RR. RolandR (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Digifan23 reported by User:AzaToth (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 7 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by 98.200.40.18. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted 3 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 2 edits by FanforClark14 (talk) to last revision by Digifan23. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Related to reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV → Aza Toth 00:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Orhan-27 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:Staleish )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "menu added"
 * 2)  "faculre"
 * 3)  "about change"
 * 4)  "about change"
 * 1)  "about change"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Near East University. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

(I'm using Twinkle to report this for the first time. I guess I'll see how it works after I've submitted it.)  This article has a history of contentious editing by SPAs. Some, like this user, are affiliated with the university (they acknowledge that). I tried to explain to them on their talk page what they should and shouldn't do and why, but it apparently didn't penetrate. I blocked one of the SPAs a few days ago for breaching WP:3RR, but having challenged the content itself with this new editor, I am now WP:INVOLVED. Some of the problem may be incompetence stemming from language difficulties, but these continued edits by partisans cause a lot of disruption to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like the editor has stopped editing since this report and since they only have 7 edits I'm going to close this as I think a block would be bity. Nudge me if you need a semi prot on the page as there appears to be a concerted effort to control this content by the subject. Spartaz Humbug! 19:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: Withdrawn by Rehevkor )
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:

POV pushing/unreliable sources Withdrawn, duplicate of more comprehensive report below: [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] Яehevkor ✉ 17:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:Withdrawn Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC) )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user has competency issues along with the edit warring, he seems to think you can have a WP:SYNTH from just one source. He also accuses me of misrepresenting the source, yet he has not even checked it, and I quoted from the source on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: User:Darkness Shines removed the disputed tag from the article without reaching a consensus and I've re-added it, I don't think it's a 3RR violation. My concerns about the dispute can be shown in the article talk page and they are still not addressed.--Zayeem (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kulturdenkmal reported by User:Pc-world (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558970577
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558973204
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559064920
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559075747

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Many people removing and readding the "Known Counter Measures" (later renamed to "Discussed counter measures") section without participating in the discussion on the talk page.

--pcworld (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I participated in the discussion and I didn't revert the site four times today as you pretend - you mix up today and yesterday and you misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts (As you can clearly see here) ... @admins just read the talk page to see for yourself: Talk:PRISM_(surveillance_program) Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Many people" != User:Kulturdenkmal. And if it isn't four times, then prove the opposite. --pcworld (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again: You mix up today and yesterday and you misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts... so again admin, just read the talk page to verifiy that I am acting according to the discussion. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * All linked reverts were done "within a 24-hour period" (see the top of this project page). --pcworld (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself. Capscap (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @PC-World - Again: You just misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts. As you can clearly see here @Capscap you didn't bring up any arguements after your first points of "original reasearch" has been devitalized - as everybody can see by looking at your comments such as "It's neither significant nor a view" - your comment "I think maybe 4-5 different users have removed the section and included valid reasons, " is just not true - stick to the facts. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I trust the admins can see the many comments from me and others. Capscap (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Your link proves what User:Capscap said: "You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself". And please do not randomly indent foreign comments on this talk page. --pcworld (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was one of the people who reverted the additions (though I removed myself from the editing situation short of 3RR). My edit reason even encouraged resolution on the talk page, but it was still immediately undone by Kulturdenkmal. I think maybe 4-5 different users have removed the section and included valid reasons, while one user has kept readding it.Capscap (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * @Capscap you indeed "commented" but your comment was in favor of violating WP:NPOV without bringing up any argument that would justifiy that kind of violation. So again: Stick to the facts! And please stop using : and comment function at the same time ... its annoying and it visually manipulates the discussion in a way that simulates two different users. Everybody uses : so please do the same! @Pc-world The NPOV rule is quite relevant and of course users who just want to censor aspects of a debate are simply in violation of that rule such as Capscap was - so your point ""You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself"" is not true - my "opinion" is sticking to the WP rule of NPOV and so should you! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that Pc-world and I are two different users, right? And again, you have admitted that you were ignoring the discussion and acting according to your opinion. Capscap (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, you are ignoring WP:NPOV without bringing up any argument to support this violation. So you are just misrepresenting the situation I am not acting according to my opinion but according to Wikipedia policy! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * → Aza Toth 17:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, I originally was not going to comment on this before, but Kulturdenkmal seems to believe that WP:NPOV supports the idea that inserting an entire section on countermeasures to PRISM that should fall under Internet privacy is ok. It seems that he fails to understand that the scope of the article does not include information of that sort, and he has been ignoring reasons to the contrary and reverting the article instead of waiting for further consensus, resulting in an edit war. Kulturndenkmal also keeps saying that the users who believe that the information does not belong in the article violates WP:NPOV when the issue is whether that information falls inside the scope of the PRISM article. This should probably be given another look. --RAN1 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. And he only responds with the WP:NPOV argument without addressing others' arguments, contrary to consensus-building. RAN1 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . So much bickering. Kulturdenkmal has breached WP:3RR. I have left a message on their talk page about agreeing not to edit the article in exchange for not being blocked. I will await their response. On another front, Capscap has been blocked for edit warring on the article. So, consider this a warning to all editors editing that article. Be careful that you adhere to policy. Although not a featured article, it is on the main page. Some leeway may be given to editors' attempts to improve the article ("Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page."), but disruption will not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Kulturdenkmal has agreed to the condition, so I am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 72 hours for MrT and 2 weeks for DS)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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:


 * Read below to get the whole picture, it is Content Dispute on my part (most editors opposed his edits), that is typical of DS, he is the one who has been causing disruption with the help of a few socks. Mr  T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reads the talk page will know that Darkness Shines hardly tried to resolve any dispute, he just wanted his way or highway. - 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you again accusing me of sockpuppetry? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There goes assumption of good faith, DS. Mr  T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked. Spartaz Humbug! 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Mrt3366 (Result: No action)
User being reported:

DS is edit warring on multiple venues and persistently pushing hideous, and occasionally insidious, POVs as well. He is going on adding unhelpful tags to pages simply because the discussion didn't yield the result he wanted, but not when it's against a version he likes. The list of articles are (at least):

as well as his filibustering on


 * Facts
 * DS was blocked by Bwilkins for two weeks because of his extremely derogatory personal attacks against me. RegentsPark, an editor involved with me as well as DS, unblocked him, Bwilkins wrote this: "[...]As much as I'm not 100% happy with RP's unblock, it appears to be the 'lesser of 2 weevils' right now - and further provocation/similar actions by either party will not end well (emphasis mine)"
 * Then DS left some condescending and fairly provocative, pugnacious comments (my "mind is closed", that he "was entirely correct in [his] previous assessment of" me, I will need luck in future, that sort of thing) on my talk I really had to forcefully make him stop.


 * He got very upset when his move request from 2002 Gujarat violence to Anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat 2002 failed. So he indignantly created Anti-Muslim pogroms in India with cherry-picked sources that suit his cause while omitting other-sides of the argument.


 * Fut.Perf wrote on talk of,  "'If this had been written by a newbie, one might consider it a one-off mistake. But it's been written by an active, long-term contributor with a months-long involvement in POV fights. From such a contributor, this is inexcusable. It deserves a ban.' (emphasis mine)"


 * He was already very clearly warned by Fut.Perf here. "″That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE.″ (emphasis mine)"


 * But still he ignored the warning and carried on with his POV pushing. Nothing seems to be enough to calm him down. Mr  T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He, despite his previous block for incivility, defiantly continues to behave uncivilly and recently he said that I am a hypocrite by deliberately taking irrelevant things out of context and applying it to something that is drastically different. At least 4-5 editors (including admins) have disagreed with him on multiple counts concerning his NPOV, but he doesn't give a damn and repeats the same mistake again and again. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly! He is pushing PoV and edit warring in multiple articles! --Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You do know this is not actionable without diffs right? And as I have not gone past 2RR on any article you may have trouble there. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * At one point, when asked for clarification, DS, after failing to satisfy any queries, dismissively said, "'You seem to think I need to discuss this further, I have no need to do so. I am right, you two are wrong. It is that simple and as such the clarify tag will be removed. ' (my emphasis)"
 * That is hardly showing any willingness to discuss, <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As is evident, he is still defending everything he is doing. There is no sign of remorse, amicability about anything he does. The whole environment has been turned upside down because of his unilateral and redundant disruptive edits and remarks. <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="brown">Mr <font face="verdana" color="red"> T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 19:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:kww & User:Hell in a Bucket reported by User:Knicksnyc (Result: Knicksnyc blocked)
User KWW has engaged in, apparently, long term malicious editing of the article for musician Marc Mysterio. He has now deleted, three times, valid quotes from the artist that were broadcasted on Russian National Radio and reported in both Digital Journal and All Voices, both reliable sources.

Its unclear what KWW motives are. I've just begun editing on this site and it took me 5 minutes to notice he has taken some sort of personal vendetta against this artist. I suggest that action is taken against him should valdalism continue. There is a difference between maintaining reliable information in Wikipedia, and trying to make wikipedia your own personal blog which KWW appears to be doing, at least in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * From what I see here not only did you post your report to the wrong board but you are adding Digital Sources which is also a contribution site which is apparent when you look at the authors bio that made the article you are trying to cite. When I review your contribs I see a Single Purpose Account completely failing to understand the purpose of wikipedia. This is normal when people first start but KWW is doing what an experienced editor should be in this instance. So basically this report is not actionable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "A media business where everyone can contribute and engage. We set out to build a media company where anyone can play an important role, so we can break news faster, tell stories better and take an alternative and fresh view on issues of the day. We recognize the audience offers incredible authority and expertise, and people have important stories to tell." found [] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@Hell You fail to note that the company is headquartered in Toronto, Canada and shares advertising revenue with citizen journalists who report for the site[6] and it has control mechanisms to ensure content is accurate and well written.[7] Contributors submit a sample of writing and are asked to demonstrate expertise to Digital Journal's editorial board. The company has an assignment desk where contributing journalists are informed of news items ripe for press coverage. It is not a free for all.

This is not a matter of whom is right and whom is wrong. The purpose of wikipedia is to educate those whom wish to learn so long as to ensure the post is indeed accurate. If you are attempting to assert the writer is in some way biased to the artist, that would only further substantiate that the quotes are authentic. We are dealing with an artist of global repute. Not sure why this is in question. Have you not hackers to chase?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267102 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2008/04/24/digital-journal-launches-revenue-sharing-for-its-citizen-journalists/


 * I can see that you do not understand what we consider reliable here as I mentioned on my talkpage please see WP:RS, and also WP:AGF. You now have two very established editors telling you that there is a problem with what you are adding. You are new here by your own admission, you can continue to insist you know the project better then us and assume bad faith but you will likely see that your time will be short. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . I blocked Knicksnyc for violating WP:3RR and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ratnakar.kulkarni reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 Hours )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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:

Comments:

OK, are you trying to confuse admins here, 1st and 3rd diff provided are from the article Godhra train burning, the fourth difference that you provided is the one where you tried to add some undicussed material into the lead which was not even present in the body. I can understand why you added a new statement, it is because a similar statement by you were reverted previously by me, you seem to have played some smart trick in trying to bait me. I hope the closing admin takes the cognizance of your tricks.Also you never tried to resolve the dispute, first of all you did not even discuss anything about your edits there.-sarvajna (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours. Spartaz Humbug! 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Level 1 pending changes protection )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 12:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon removes unsourced claims (1RR)

01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC): 1st Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83

15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC): Mahjongg reverts (1RR)

00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC): 2nd Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83

07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (1RR)

12:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 warned by Guy Macon

00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 3rd Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83

00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Mahjongg reverts (1RR)

01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 4th Revert (2RR) by 121.72.118.83

06:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon reverts (1RR)

08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 5th Revert (3RR) by 121.72.118.83

08:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 posts to User talk:Guy Macon (WP:NPA)

08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (1RR)

08:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 invited to discuss by Rehevkor

09:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 6th Revert (4RR) by 121.72.118.83

09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (2RR)

11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 finally posts to Talk:Raspberry Pi -- about a different part of the page than the one he has been edit warring about.

11:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 7th Revert (5RR) by 121.72.118.83

13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon reverts (2RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Previous page protections:

New Zealand IP addresses that have edit warred over same material:

121.72.118.83:

121.72.121.67:

121.72.221.156:

121.74.158.215:

121.74.142.75:

121.74.137.8:

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see much point blocking a dynamic ip if we can shut them off the page for a week. I have semi prot to give you a break. If they don't lose interest after that let me know and we can consider rangeblocks or further semiprot. Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is now under level 1 pending changes for a year, which nicely refutes the IP vandal's claim that " You can't possibly block every IP address I can use." I took the liberty of updating the result in the header. Please revert if this is a problem. I think we are done here and this can be closed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Ping Spartaz... Now he is edit warring and removing other editor's comments on the article talk page. This is one persistant vandal. Could we please have a short-term anonblock range block (to make it harder for him to start being disruptive on other pages) and short-term semi-protection of Talk:Raspberry Pi (to make it harder for him to run experiments to find unblocked IP addresses)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I semi'd the talk page for 3 days. I have never done a range block and I'm not entirely sure its safe for me to do one now without breaking the internet but I agree that a rangeblock is now necessary. I'll ask another admin to look at it, Spartaz Humbug! 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:67.60.33.227 reported by User:Federales (Result:Page semiprotected )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] This is an IP editor who has only edited the one article and never edited until 45 minutes before this report. I doubt he even knows there is such a thing as a Talk page.

Comments:

Page protection has already been requested for this brand new, high-profile BLP that seems likely to be a magnet for this kind of disruption. The IP is determined to insert his inappropriate material over the objection of three other editors and shows no interest at all in learning Wikipedia policies, nor is he interested in obtaining consensus.
 * . Clear violation, but now very stale. The page has been semiprotected Slp1 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:RocketLauncher2 reported by User:75.15.222.126 (Result: Stale)
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: Editor still edit warring during the page still semi protected until June 16, after being warned to stop and continues to add an unreliable source since it is currently outdated after Aaron Dykes left the show for good. He also refuses to stop harassing me after his reports were repeatedly rejected on the Administrator intervention against vandalism based on false accusations.


 * I don't get why you are reporting reverts from late May and early June. It's been over and my recent revert comes from after leaving a message on the user's talk page where he says it's okay to revert his changes. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, they aren't false accusations. If they don't see a reason to block you then I leave it at that. I reported again because I decided to actually provide evidence that I didn't provide last time, which is probably why no one considered it. I'd say anything against you is far more damning than me trying to add a producer's name in. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) "I'd say anything against you is far more damning" I'll just leave this here for you. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">GSK ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

. No evidence of continue disruptive activity. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Corvoe reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result:No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  This one I reverted to show you guys something.
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

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

Comments:

This guy Corvoe thinks he doing those edits per the film infobox template on this movie. He's not. He's not looking at the movie poster that list the names of those on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm looking at the billing block of the poster currently up. Here it is, and as you can see, all of the names that were there ARE listed on the poster. However, they are NOT listed at the bottom, the billing block, which the template explicitly says to base off of if it is available. To quote:
 * Under the "starring" portion of the parameters section reads this:

"Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release. If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits. Other additions by consensus. Use the Plainlist template for multiple entries, and link each actor to his/her article if possible. Don't add additional text (such as "with" or "featuring") or punctuation to the list.


 * As you can see, it says to use the billing block, which upon close inspection of the high-res poster I just linked, only listed Butler, Eckhart, and Freeman. It's available, so we use it.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The names of the other actors are listed below the title name. They may not be listed in the billing block, but that doesn't change a thing about this argument. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Except it does. Policy says to use the billing block, which does not necessarily include all of the names listed on the poster. For instance, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has a lot of actors listed on its poster. However, its billing block varies in both order and names listed considerably. The billing block is still the correct source for the order and inclusion of actors' names in the infobox.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That maybe true and I understand the reason for that. But there are many film infoboxes that list them by poster and many of them prefer that way. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That's true, but preference and policy don't always go hand in hand, and this instance is a very good example of that not happening. There isn't really anything we can settle until an admin comes along, though.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Corvoe changed the infobox twice in the last 24 hours and BattleshipMan reverted it twice. A word to the wise, BattleshipMan, that it isn't a good idea to report an editor for something you've also done yourself!! Luckily here neither of you have broken the 3RR rule and so neither of you will be blocked.  On the other hand you seem to be having a good conversation about the content under dispute, which is exactly what should be happening -though not here.  It should have happened earlier, and on the talkpage of the article.  I suggest you continue your discussion on the talkpage and if you need help from others to resolve your disagreement, use dispute resolution such as WP:3O  Good luck!!  Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:Sonsoftheserpent (Result: Sonsoftheserpent blocked 72hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: 02:26, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist). . (-1,950)‎ . . Fistful of Metal ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Sonsoftheserpent (talk): Where to start? a. blp violation. b. excessive detail. c. long quote probably falls foul of fair use. d. overwikilinking. (TW))
 * 1) [diff]

02:35, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist). . (-2,129)‎ . . DeathRiders ‎ (→‎Tours:  non-neutral and improperly verified (world famous, etc). blabbermouth is not a reliable source, and namedropping is not an acceptable way to attempt a claim to notability) (current)  [rollback] [vandalism]
 * 1) [diff]

02:36, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist). . (-18)‎ . . Template:Anthrax ‎ (Undid revision 559326586 by Sonsoftheserpent oops--clicked "thanks" instead of undo. false claim of vandalism. previous edit summary was misleading. band not "associated" as far as I can tell)
 * 1) [diff]

02:40, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist). . (-1,950)‎ . . Fistful of Metal ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Sonsoftheserpent (talk): Rv for the last time: BLP violation here, in addition to a host of problem caused by lack of competence. (TW))
 * 1) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Sonsoftheserpent (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as I sometimes feel like it, I can't see that blocking User:Drmies here would be justifiable. On the other hand, Sonsoftheserpent is clearly in an edit war with multiple editors and clearly knows about our edit warring policies or he wouldn't have been able to post here. Blocked 72 hrs.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:



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

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:

First of all, I want to note that this is not the only page that there is a problem with edit warring with Faustian. He also has been cyberstalking-cyberhounding anonymous contributions by IP address here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&action=history and here: en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church&action=historysubmit&diff=558478063&oldid=555908985 (completely unsupported anti-Polonism, anti-Lithuanian, anti-Catholic POV) Rather than engage in dialogue with other editors he arrogantly labels such contributions "anonymous disruption" since they conflict with with Ukrainian Nationalist POV.

He has used this tactic to harass anonymous contributors, even going so far as attempt to get IP's blocked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#IP_anon_at_it_again His provocative behavior has resulted having anons blocked from contributing to the discussion of Steran Bandera. We also have edit warring here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stepan_Bandera&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stepan_Bandera#Recent_IP_edits I don't know if that needs an additional complaint or if it should be included here. I don't know what the rules are about this, but it is becoming tedious because there is a clear pattern of harassment, cyberstalking/cyberhounding by someone not interested in anything approaching a neutral point of view, and that is obvious from his home page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Faustian

I have attempted to engage this individual in discussion, and I have cited a leading Ukrainian historian who is internationally recognized in Poland and the UK for her knowledge of Ukrainian nationalism in the Second Polish Republic: Iryna Shlikhta in Nationalism as a Play: Ukrainian Nationalists Playing in the Inter-War Poland http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probing-the-boundaries/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/irynaplaypaper.pdf http://www.polishhistory.pl/uploads/media/Narodowosci_i_role_spoleczne_program.pdf His response was to simply revert all comments here as "restore referenced information and removed blatant falsification of sources": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland&oldid=558758400 DIFF: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland&action=historysubmit&diff=558758400&oldid=558756495

I have also noticed that he removed reference to a Polish Ph.D., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiktor_Poliszczuk, here as a "unreliable source": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Unreliable_Source Essentially, anyone Polish, Ukrainian or other who's views he does not concur, whatever his or her academic credentials, or standing at a university like Oxford University is removed as a "unreliable source".

Lastly, I concur with other contributors that this topic needs to be merged with something else, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland

I really don't know where to go from here. All of these procedures are confusing, but I think this problem is beyond a simple edit war. It crosses into other pages from cyberstalking/cyberhounding and the harassment of attempting to get pages locked and IP's shut down to prevent anonymous contributions. I also suspect there is a sock puppet or meat puppet here who is working with him across pages.

Edit to add that this should fall under Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARBEE Sanctions are being requested.


 * This IP has a history of disruptive edits, removal of referenced information, and making controversial changes without seeking consensus on the talk pages. I also suspect sockpuppetry.  WHOIS of the IPs involved in this harassment of me and disruptions of various articles reveals it is probably one person.  194.44.15.214: ; and 213.174.5.82 ; this one is from the same city: 176.104.185.203  and is probably also the same person.  Abusive behavior by this IP here:  "Rabid Ukrainian Nationalist Faustian".  About a month ago there arose a similar situation with an IP behaving in a similar way, resulting in a block of that IP due to blatant misrepresentation of sources.  That situation complete with diffs is here: . The current disruptive IP appears to be writing from a different geographic location but behavior is quite similar. This is not the place for discussing content but a brief example of the IPs misrepresentation: .  Phrase "Ukrainians were worse off in Poland than they were in neighboring Czechoslovakia.  In that country, the first Ukrainian school system was only established in 1918 and already by 1921-1922 89 percent of Ukrainian children were enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools" taken from Janusz Radziejowski. (1983). The Communist Party of Western Ukraine: 1919-1929. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press at the University of Toronto, pg.7, was replaced with "Ukrainians unhappy with Polish language instruction were free to study in the Ukrainian language in Vienna or Czechoslovakia" which is not what Radziejowki said (this can be confirmed on googlebooks here. The source stated "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries...in Transcarpathian Ukraine the first Ukrainian school system was only in 1918, when this area was incorporated into the new Czechoslovakian state. But already by 1921-1922 89% of Ukrainian children were attending Ukrainian schools") and is clearly adding a POV spin. This is the type of disruption typical of this IP.


 * Note that when an established user unconnected to this dispute entered this discussion, there was nothing disruptive going on and the IPs claims were not supported: . Note also that on my user page, which this IP claims is evidence of my pushing some sort of Ukrainian nationalist POV. On the user page it is evident that I have received awards from editors of various nationalities.  Also, I have maintained a clean block record with respect to eastern European issues, after many years of editing in these very contentious areas.


 * I am requesting a block of this IP or at least semi-protection of articles being disrupted by it. Ironically, this IP engages in the same behavior it accuses others of.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected two months. Conducting an edit war using a fluctuating IP violates WP:SOCK. Questions about the usability of the proposed sources can be referred to WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Faustian (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, but you have just rewarded Faustian for his conduct here. Upon further review, this complaint is beyond simple edit warring and demonstrates a pattern of disruptive editing against anonymous contributors and harassment. Faustian justifies repeatedly reverting edits from anonymous contributions by simply labeling them “disruptive” rather than attempting to address the concerns stated of the lack of a NPOV. Wikipedia permits anonymous contributions and the rules for editing their work is not different than from others who post under pseudonyms. Faustian improperly uses the label of “disruptive” to attempt to censure content and then limits debate to discussion with another editor, Volunteer Marek, appears Deus ex Machina more than once across pages to agree with Faustian without himself ever demonstrating any substantial contribution to the page. It looks very much like he has been summoned to concur. It resemble puppetry and it should be investigated. Many other commentators on the talk page appear to disagree with Faustian's POV.

Claims of disruption are for the Admins here to address. Faustian has been acting as a provocateur here with his self declared right to revert any edit he considers disruptive without further discussion. Since his conduct was improper, it is difficult to know what comment should be included in response to an illegal edit. Having provoked such reverts with an illegal edit, Faustian then attempted, and partially succeeded, in limiting the ability of anonymous to participate and moderate his Nationalist Ukrainian POV on pages. After failing to get this IP address blocked, Faustian then continues his disruptive editing, cyberstalking/hounding, and harassment.

While this is not the place to get into the details of what should be on the page. What is obvious is that Faustian is promoting a biased POV about some great injustice done to those who spoke a Ruthenian language and where not at least bilingual Polish speakers. He is promoting a POV that Poland had some moral or legal obligation to continue the Hapsburg model of education that left the Hapsburg empire trailing Germany industrially. He refuses to acknowledge that Poland's policy of one national language was in the national interest of modernization and industrialization, that it opened educational opportunities to minorities in all Polish universities and polytechnical schools nationwide, and that Poles who had been educated in German, or Russian were also adversely affected by this policy.

Although the page is about the Ukrainian minority in Poland, he wants to discuss how other former Hapsburg nationals educated their Ruthenian populations, while ignoring the affects of the single language educational policy in Poland effected other ethnic groups in the Second Polish Republic. If we are to start comparing Poland's educational system linguistically with regard to the rest of Europe, it would need to include Germany where the Pomerianan language is now extinct.

To support his POV Faustian, relies upon a communist era historical work published in 1976 to support his claim of the mistreatment of the Ukrainian population.

The page should be merges with something else, perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonization

There is more here to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of false and (and sometimes abusive) statements that are typical of this IP's behavior, although I won't get into that here because it's not the place for it; just pointing out that this is what has been going on.Faustian (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Faustian was making illegal edits and then provoked a problem. Not everyone here wants to spend every waking minute warring like Faustian. Cyberstalking/hounding, harassing other contributors, etc is not acceptable and will be addressed in turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.44.15.214 (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Lexein reported by User:ApolloLee (Result: Article protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Note: The description of this is written in the comments at the bottom, which should make this more clear. I am not sure if the full issue will be clear from just looking at the different versions. This article is about a company that had a large ethics scandal. When I put additional information in about that scandal (all sourced from major newspapers), it was erased and I was attacked over it. More details are below.

Version before yesterday's reverting by Lexein (May Version): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&oldid=556073774

The current page displaying is the reverted (March) version that Lexein wrote originally: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&oldid=559157357

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This issue is more about edit warring & an editor being overprotective of an article that needed updating to accurately reflect what occurred with this company. Here are diffs of Lexein's 2 reverts and one done by a random person who never had any other contribs...but the problem is not really the reverting. Rather, there were 20+ sources erased along with all of the work I (and others) added (see comments below)


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559157357&oldid=559137978
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559137978&oldid=559134055
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=558844199&oldid=556073774 (mystery user)

I stated the problem & warned him on the article talk page and his page with the template provided.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Journatic (see the bottom section that Lexein created - the dispute is concentrated there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=559143804 (heading Journatic)

Comments:

When I tried to discuss the changes to this entry with Lexein, he responded to my comments with “TLDR” [too long didn’t read] on his talk page and things like “it sure as fuck wasn't Journatic's PR material” (when I pointed out the article was citing “The Journatic Journal”) and “Jesus fucking christ on a stick” (for posting on his talk page) and “do not fucking republish redacted text. That's just fucking rude” (for replying to a prior version of a page that I didn’t know he updated). So, I obviously cannot talk to this person - but I will not let my contributions to the article (which took about 8 hours) be bullied out of Wikipedia by this. He just reverted back to his last copy in March. That was not the solution given that he erased 20+ new sources and a lot of information.

Since I added 20+ new sources and a lot of new text, the article should be reverted back to my last version in May and then opened to discussion on the talk page to remove the material that Lexein finds problematic. As an aside, I never even intended to edit the much article at first - but I posted about 15 sources in the talk page for someone to use to revise the article to be more comprehensive. When nobody did anything, I expanded the article directly from those sources (but was perfectly happy for anyone else to do it). Lexein has reverted it twice since then to his original March edit.

He is claiming it looks like a “bully pulpit” and violates WP:POINTY. I don’t agree. Journatic is a news service, and their cover up of how they generated content overseas and printed it with American names is not a small issue. Since they are a young company, they were operating under false pretenses for most of their history as well. They only stopped when they got caught (when an internal employee leaked it). Almost all details relating to this were removed from the article (though they are clear on the NPR transcript cited in my version & other reports - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/468/transcript - see "Act Two" among many other articles as this grew). Some sources are even more “pointy” than what I wrote. Regardless, it can be edited down easily from the last version. Erasing 20+ new sources is not the solution. The reality is that this company engaged in a lot of unethical behavior and they would like it glossed over and covered up. Its CEO lied to a lot of people about many things that he was doing, which got covered extensively in many reliable sources. This was uncovered in the summer of 2012, and given the short life of the company & new (controversial) business model they are using (stated by others, not original research by me), it’s appropriate to include. All other companies and CEOs that have had these kinds of scandals have them included in detail (e.g., Enron has its own page on the scandal alone). By nature, outsourcing "local journalism" from the USA to Asia will be controversial, and that was explained in the article. Also, the “benefits” and “criticisms” sections existed before I edited anything (which Lexein erased as well).

While it is not appropriate to take a negative POV about their unethical behavior, minimizing all of it & rewriting history is not appropriate either. Journatic has already done that on their marketing/PR materials. Every other source that I cited (e.g., NPR, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Crains Chicago Business, Poynter, SF Gate, Houston Chronicle) has the real story about this company, and those sources were included in my edits (but wiped out by Lexein). They were reverted because Lexein thought I was being “obsessive”. I was being accurate & depicting a chronological series of events as shown in the sources. He also claimed I was going overboard because it was limited to Chicago, which it is not the case at all (Houston and San Francisco are included, among others - which is clear if you read the article). I am not going to waste time in an edit war with this person. He will not communicate in a civil manner and has already reverted it twice (possibly 3 times since another screen name appeared out of nowhere and reverted it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559157357&oldid=559137978

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=559137978&oldid=559134055

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Journatic&diff=558844199&oldid=556073774 (mystery user who didn’t use revert but copied all the old text. User has no other contribs)

I would like it to be reverted back to reflect the 20+ new sources and accurate depiction of the company. Lexein should not be able to revert this back to his personal March version. It can be edited from there to remove things that are supposedly POV once all of the sources are read by the respective editors - not based on their emotional reaction to a factual article or other possible conflict of interest. It should also be pointed out that Journatic links directly to this page on their blog - http://journatic.weebly.com/about-journatic.html. So, they have an interest in keeping it looking "nice" as well. Thank you. ApolloLee (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Response by Lexein:: What this is, in my opinion, is an article which grew out of control with POV in one direction, then was heavily edited to reflect a strong POV in the other direction. I erred in not reverting the whole mess sooner, and farther back, and I've apologized for that in Talk. I think my baseline is neutral, and progress on the article should proceed from there, and I've explained that in Talk:Journatic. ApolloLee is quite willing to spend hours and days arguing with voluminous, repetitive text, rather than just rewrite with neutral tone. This is wikilawyering, and it wastes time and effort. The dispute would have been over and done with sooner if ApolloLee had just followed my advice. AFAIK, we have a duty to remove strong POV from articles ASAP, rather than leave it up to be gradually edited. I am not a pro or anti partisan in re Journatic, and I reverted to "my" so-called version from months ago, because it was the last one that seemed neutral to me. In Talk, I strongly suggested that further changes be discussed in Talk first, specifically to avoid revert battles. To me, literally all the other versions were taking brickbats to either the company or its detractors. If ANEW concludes I'm wrong, so be it. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Response by ApolloLee: Re: "ApolloLee is quite willing to spend hours and days arguing with voluminous, repetitive text, rather than just rewrite with neutral tone." - I said I was willing to rewrite what was already there and take out what was repetitive from the last version I edited on May 21. This was the first thing I wrote to you after your revert. I said, "At this point, if it is repetitive, then it makes more sense to edit rather than to revert..." - and you replied "TLDR" among other things. Regardless, I don't see why I (or any editor) should start from the March version you reverted to which erased 20+ additional sources that took 8-10 hrs to write the first time. That makes no sense to do. It is not "wikilawyering" - it's a ridiculous use of time given that the article had so much put into it already. What if you don't like the next version after 5 hours of additional editing (and the same sources that you erased, likely) - are you going to revert it again? Who would want to edit it then? Anyway, it is not so horrendously POV that it has to be taken back to a 3 month old version. All of my statements are sourced without my personal opinion stated anywhere. If my last version seemed non-neutral, it could be edited down instead of being reverted back to your version from March with the 20+ new sources gone. As soon as editors who thought it wasn't neutral started reading the source material, they dropped that viewpoint. Journatic did what they did - I just typed it in. I didn't white wash their behavior because it was the subject of 20+ articles.

When i found this article, it was heavily citing Journatic's materials and it did "grow out of control with POV in one direction" exactly as you said. Journatic's entire business involves hiring people all over the world to write content...so it's not surprising. So, I went to the talk page and posted many links to articles for someone to hopefully edit in over time. Anyone who read those sources would have written a very similar article to the one I did because the article reflects the sources. If it went too negative, let's start from that end point and edit out the stuff that went too far. I already took some out in the various revisions. It's much easier to take content out than to start from scratch (from March). All the sources are in the May version & the chronology is there as well...but it's gone in the March version. If it isn't neutral, that largely reflects the fact that 20+ articles about them were quite negative. The tone can be changed, but the facts are what they are. I know some was repetitive (e.g., I had a hard time w/ the opening paragraph sounding too much like the rest of article, etc) but I think it's definitely fixable from that point. Starting from the March copy eliminates way too many sources and information. ApolloLee (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop. Time to let ANEW respond. --Lexein (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Yes, I know they will respond, and I wanted them to have the most accurate details possible. This is the fourth time you have tried to control what I say on here for no legitimate reason.  First, you have a major f-bomb laden overreaction because I politely asked you not to revert Journatic on your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=559143804).  Thousands of editors use talk pages to discuss article changes, and your reaction was completely unnecessary.  Then, you had another similar reaction on the Journatic talk page telling me I was "fucking rude" among other things (for doing exactly what you told me to do & not responding on your talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AJournatic&diff=559158721&oldid=559157745.  Yes, I copied your "redacted" text because I never saw that you erased it.  Then, you demanded I rewrite this article (that I already spent hours rewriting) because you reverted it all back to your March version...all the while implying that you somehow hold veto power over the article's changes.  And now, you're trying to control what I post here - which is the last possible place I can even post about this.  I had no intention of continuing to post here now that the last details are clarified above.  I am just amazed you've made a 4th attempt at trying to control what I write, when I've never done anything wrong from the start.  I have certainly not reverted your pages & told you to rewrite them, swore at you repeatedly, and told you to "stop".  10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)ApolloLee (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Time spent complaining is not editing. WP:TIGERS. WP:NOT. Whatever you're expecting to happen here, you should lower your expectations. Nobody is here for you to vent at. If you had bothered to ask anyone (most editors with any experience would have told you that just because sources exist, does not mean every one of them has to be added to the article) you probably wouldn't have wasted hours of work. See also my essay SHRUG. --Lexein (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected three weeks. Some of the recent versions of this article make it sound like a hit piece. Even if all the negative claims about Journatic are correct, Wikipedia articles aren't usually written in that style. Lexein's comments about neutrality are well taken. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed material. You might be able to get advice at WP:BLP/N. Ask for unprotection at WP:RFUP if consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Underlying lk reported by User:AfricaTanz (Result: AfricaTanz warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&action=historysubmit&diff=551021105&oldid=550762296

Diffs of the user's reverts: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&diff=558687537&oldid=558186536 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&diff=559144379&oldid=558728187 (3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&curid=30118&diff=559334720&oldid=559269804

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnderlying_lk&diff=559263387&oldid=559163038 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUnderlying_lk&diff=559338355&oldid=559333978

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article and user talk pages: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559340759&oldid=552349426 (2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAfricaTanz&diff=558851321&oldid=558762017

Comments:

This user is also highly incivil and disruptive. (1) Misrepresentation of my edits and the purpose thereof: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559149086&oldid=552349426 (2) Unapologetic and sarcastic admission of doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559334909&oldid=559264822 (3) Ridicule of myself for having been blocked recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Underlying_lk&diff=prev&oldid=559333978 (4) Same: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Underlying_lk&diff=prev&oldid=559338472

AfricaTanz (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I first came across AfricaTanz after reading the Tanzania article, and noticing that the GDP per capita figures were missing. I assumed they had been removed by a vandal and added them back. AfricaTanz then reverted me, insisting on their removal, as they were 'wrong'. As is customary in the case of content disputes, I dropped him a message to discuss the issue and offer a compromise. This greatly annoyed him, and he changed his tone, becoming outright obstructive. He admitted implicitly the absurdity of his stance of deleting everything when he restated the GDP figures, this time with a note pointing out his own 'right' calculations, which I removed. The rest of this petty argument is of his own doing, and his accusations are lies.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: User:AfricaTanz is warned not [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tanzania&diff=559265977&oldid=559144379 to add a critique of the IMF] to the article in Wikipedia's voice: "..erroneous International Monetary Fund estimates of 2012 population". This is your own personal opinion that the IMF made a mistake. That gives our readers the impression that Wikipedia is not neutral, and you are using article space to continue a feud with one editor. Use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary to settle the question of per capita income. EdJohnston (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Taroaldo reported by User:AfricaTanz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

(1) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558850063&oldid=558849262

(2) Omission of quote in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558849262&oldid=558731022

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(1) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=prev&oldid=558854097

(2) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857432&oldid=558857304

(3) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857885&oldid=558857728

(4) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558858177&oldid=558857885

(5) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=559326146&oldid=559269303

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558863977&oldid=558863567

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558864629&oldid=558864311

Comments:

Taroaldo has been edit warring in the Michael Omolewa article since June 7 and continuing to the present time. The next-to-last edit in that article (as of the date and time of this post) was another edit warring revert by Taroaldo. He has been edit warring about two related issues: the omission of revision article tags and the omission of a quotation in the lede. He is in favor of both omissions, and is the sole editor that favors omission of the quotation. Myself and Lord777 are in favor of including the quotation; however, Taroaldo has unilaterally overriden that consensus in favor of his own preference.

Not only has Taroaldo been edit warring, but he has actively promoted an "us versus AfricaTanz" incivil atmosphere. And he has gone to great lengths to punish me for disagreeing with him. Here are the diffs:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&diff=prev&oldid=558853072

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&diff=prev&oldid=558860104

(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=558862292

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lord777&diff=prev&oldid=558863253

(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taroaldo&diff=prev&oldid=558864311

(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Taroaldo&diff=prev&oldid=558866130

(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=559117217

(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=559122502

(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&curid=37569588&diff=559315505&oldid=559268506

(10) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=559315149&oldid=559313913

(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=559312650&oldid=559311807

AfricaTanz (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the third link in AfricaTanz's final list shows that he is being punished for disagreeing with Taroaldo.  Rather, Taroaldo's post was accepted as a good-faith 3RR report, investigated by an uninvolved administrator, and led to AfricaTanz being blocked for edit warring .  (In fact, most of the revert diffs he provides above predate his block, and form part of the very same dispute for which he was judged the party in the wrong.)  Upon the block's expiry AfricaTanz continued his combative behaviour, and twice rewrote Taroaldo's talk page comments in violation of WP:TALK  .   —Psychonaut (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is AfricaTanz's response to his block of 8 June 2013. His behaviour at the Michael Omolewa article was already discussed at AN3 here . AfricaTanz suggests I have "overriden" a consensus about edits to the Michael Omolewa page when, in fact, there hasn't been any productive discussion on the talk page . I updated the talk page to indicate that I was going to clean up some of the excessive weight and promotional tone, which seemed to be AfricaTanz's main concern as indicated by these edit summaries, ,.


 * Pattern of behaviour
 * A
 * AfricaTanz came back from the block and immediately restarted a dispute he was having at the Tanzania article regarding GDP figures . This is an "escalation" (based on the inappropriate wording used within the article) to the edit he made just before his block. His talk page contributions were not constructive, .He has subsequently been warned (see the report immediately above, or ).
 * B
 * He invokes User:Lord777's name above as one of his supporters, which appears to be an attempt to mislead this forum. AfricaTanz is in conflict with Lord777 about almost everything:
 * AfricaTanz's edit summary, which I encountered on a Recent Changes patrol, was a threat to have Lord777 indef blocked for removing a maintenance template after Lord777 had made good faith edits which he felt were sufficient to remove the template. (Note: When I found this edit summary on Recent Changes, it became my first encounter with either of these editors.)
 * Lord777 asked AfricaTanz to cease making reverts to the cleanup attempt
 * This edit shows the ongoing disagreement between the two editors
 * AfricaTanz suggested Lord777 could be blocked for discussing his (AfricaTanz's) edits on my talk page
 * Lord777 subsequently asked AfricaTanz to refrain from commenting on his talk page
 * After AfricaTanz had been reported to AN3, he placed a 3RR warning on Lord777's talk page
 * Additional
 * The "warnings" he cites above were placed on my talk page after discussion about his actions had been initiated at AN3.
 * AfricaTanz has cited issues other than 3RR here, and seems to be engaging in conflicts with multiple editors. This only furthers ongoing concern about his behaviour. It may be at the point where this whole situation should be moved over to another forum where the idea of a longer block for tendentious editing should be explored. Taroaldo  <font color="Red"> ✉   22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AfricaTanz has cited issues other than 3RR here, and seems to be engaging in conflicts with multiple editors. This only furthers ongoing concern about his behaviour. It may be at the point where this whole situation should be moved over to another forum where the idea of a longer block for tendentious editing should be explored. Taroaldo  <font color="Red"> ✉   22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * AfricaTanz has cited issues other than 3RR here, and seems to be engaging in conflicts with multiple editors. This only furthers ongoing concern about his behaviour. It may be at the point where this whole situation should be moved over to another forum where the idea of a longer block for tendentious editing should be explored. Taroaldo  <font color="Red"> ✉   22:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected for three days. Several editors appear to have an interest in cleaning up the article so it is unclear why they are getting in each others' way. Consider using the talk page to reach agreement on the disputed items. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:CSDarrow reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  17:20, May 19, 2013. New section. Added "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..." etc.
 * 2)  22:10, June 10, 2013. Restored section including "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..."
 * 3)  01:22, June 11, 2013. Reworked section but it still includes "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..." as a quote.
 * 4)  18:48, June 11, 2013. Restored section including "...mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers..." as a quote.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Men's_movement

Comments:


 * Note that the Men's movement article is under 1RR oversight.


 * With this reply to the edit warring warning, CSDarrow acknowledged that his most recent revert could be considered a violation of 1RR, but he invited some other user to revert in his name. This comment of his took longer to type than it would have taken to simply self-revert. In fact CSDarrow made three more edits in the next three minutes but none of them were a self-revert. I consider three minutes ample time to self-revert.


 * Note that there was abundant discussion about the text at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, a discussion that was initiated by CSDarrow, but not sympathetically received by ANI commenters. The thread was closed by Basalisk as "not going anywhere". Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CSDarrow's disruptive behavior needs to be addressed. He is at the heart of a debate about the Men's movement article, which practically reached a boiling point last night at AN/I, as a result of his false allegations that he was being bullied by four editors, including two admins (Bbb23 and Drmies). So he is fully aware that the content he has now added three times is contentious. More importantly, he is ignoring not only the three editors who have reverted his changes, but completely disregarding the fact that there is an active discussion taking place on the article's talk page about the disputed content. The fact that he once again re-added the same content (about 90 minutes ago) in the midst of everything that's happened is outrageous. It indicates CSD's inability to work cooperatively with other editors. He has already been blocked twice in the past three months for his editing in Men's rights movement - one for three days and the other for two weeks - so apparently he hasn't learned his lesson. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget that he was blocked for the second time after he removed a sentence in the lead which was supported by the SPLC in the article body. SCDarrow's fixation on the SPLC commentary about the men's rights movement took him to several noticeboards  and articles  and he has caused considerable disruption. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: I see that CSDarrow has just been blocked for a month, so this report can be withdrawn. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * — One month by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:FanforClark14 reported by User:Digifan23 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=19#


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Current programming (As of June 2013) */"
 * 2)  "/* Live-action */"
 * 3)  "/* Animated */"
 * 1)  "/* Live-action */"
 * 2)  "/* Animated */"
 * 1)  "/* Animated */"
 * 1)  "/* Animated */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FanforClark14&diff=558981010&oldid=558980026


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments: reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV


 * Result: Article has been semiprotected through 17 June by User:Diannaa. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:HistorNE (Result: No action)
This user is persistent in aggessively accusing me of being someone's sock, but despite all explanations, proving ranges are different, and consulting with administrator - he's doing same again and again. --HistorNE (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Case 1 - Talk:Lullubi (3RR)
 * 1) Revision as of 19:17, 11 June 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 19:25, 11 June 2013
 * 3) Latest revision as of 19:33, 11 June 2013
 * Case 2 - Requests for page protection (4/3RR)
 * 1) Revision as of 20:37, 11 June 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 20:39, 11 June 2013
 * 3) Revision as of 20:41, 11 June 2013
 * 4) Revision as of 20:45, 11 June 2013


 * This editor is lying when they keep claiming that the IP ranges "were proved o be different". It has been pointed out to this editor several times that the IP ranges were NOT proved to be different, and they are obviously the same as recently indefblocked User:Shaushka who has stated their intention to continue maximal disruption. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I analyzed the edits from the entire range and would like to opine that a rangeblock is probably inappropriate at this time. Now when I have account my range can be analized at any time, and I assure admins that result will be the same. --HistorNE (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see User talk:King of Hearts. King of Hearts plainly clarifed to the user that the only analysis was to see that other, valid editors were in the range, and therefore a range block was inadvisable. He pointedly told the user that he/she was NOT cleared of sockpuppetry, yet he/she knowingly continues to try to fool people trying to see what's happening, with this one diff taken out of context. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I already contected User:King of Hearts and informed him that he can check it again. --HistorNE (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * HistorNE is definitely either a sock or a stalker. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it's otherwise, because when someone is assuming bad faith (persistent in aggessively accusing without basis), avoiding communication, harassing by threats (all your edits will be reverted on sight), there's no other explanation. Sorry but I don't consider it as civil behavior. --HistorNE (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . Regardless out of the outcome of the SPI, TE has a good faith belief that HistorNE is a sock. Therefore, I'm not going to sanction him for the edit warring. @HistorNE, I strongly recommend that you wait for the SPI outcome before continuing to edit here. @TE, you might consider whether it's necessary to revert everything HistorNE does. In other words, slow down a bit, everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TornadoCreator reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No, I won't take it to the talk page. Leave it the fuck alone. Either ban me, or watch as I keep changing it back. Is 2.2 million the correct number, or does Wikipedia like being wrong. There's a reason Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for anything."
 * 2)  "Prove that VGChartz isn't reliable, or leave it alone. Unreliable is better than flat out wrong, the Joystiq article is a year out of date. Therefore WRONG! Is Playstation a good enough source. Here. http://www.psu.com/a019417/"
 * 3)  "Yes it is a reliable source, no less unreliable than an out of date Joystiq article. Stop playing favourites."

See Talk:History_of_video_game_consoles_(eighth_generation)
 * Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Consensus indicates VGChartz is not a reliable source. Repeatedly reverts.

Also shows very rude conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. User has not continued to revert since being warned. If this resumes file a new report and mention this one. Their edit summaries don't suggest any good intentions. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Joeymattii reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 559470926 by MusikAnimal (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 559420165 by MusikAnimal (talk) nice try leo"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 559356358 by Graeme Bartlett (talk) baseless accusations by a hater"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jane Censoria Cajes. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jane Censoria Cajes. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Sys admin questioned user about intentions over a week ago, have received no response. User has been editing disruptively and warring repeatedly over the past two weeks, introducing inappropriate content and unexplained section blanking including sourced content. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 00:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is clear that this editor is only here to promote the reputation of a person by suppressing information inimical to that reputation, and that he/she has no interest in collaboration with other editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dogmaticeclectic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 559583468 by Dogmaticeclectic: WP:VANDALISM. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted to revision 543698790 by 71.208.18.191: it's time to finally WP:REVERT this obvious WP:VANDALISM. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Not assuming good faith on Microsoft Office 365. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Bad faith edit war, considers good-faith edits by me to be vandalism, continual restoration of promotional fluff that was trimmed to provide a cleaner, more informational article.

Conflicts have occurred between me, him, and other editors before, so this isn't the first time. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Removal of properly sourced content without reasonable explanation definitely qualifies as vandalism. Also, I removed a fake (non-revert) diff above. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I have stopped reverting at this time (at only two reverts) pending administrator involvement. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:VANDAL: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." Note the "non-frivolous" part. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that the warning was given after the second revert. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional note: this user has been reported at WP:AIV, where an administrator has considered a block. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No administrator "considered a block". One admin pointed out that Viper had provided a reason for his revert in an edit summary. You may disagree with Viper's edits but that doesn't make them vandalism. They're not vandalism. No one agrees with you that they are vandalism. You both need to spend more time discussing the content on the article talk page and less time discussing each other at administrator noticeboards. Basa <font color="CC9900">lisk  inspect damage⁄<font color="CC9900">berate 17:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring more particularly to the statement at User talk:ViperSnake151 that begins with "I declined blocking you for now". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you are quite clearly incorrect that "no one agrees with [me] that they are vandalism", and it therefore seems obvious to me that you haven't read the talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I dont know if this helps but I wanted to copyover the content from AIV so that it would be easier to see the arguments of each side in the same place.  — Soap — 18:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC):


 * – On Microsoft Office 365:. Removal of properly sourced content without reasonable explanation definitely qualifies as vandalism.. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The user claimed a reason. "Partial rv; you just restored TONS of marketing fluff, and what I did was NOT considered vandalism. Stop assuming bad faith. But, to be honest, I like having the table back here," wrote the user in an edit summary. Was the user properly warned? Bearian (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the user was properly warned but reverted again after the first warning. Also, "marketing fluff" does not qualify as a "non-frivolous explanation" per WP:VANDAL. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want a "non-frivolous" explanation of why I'm removing fluff, there is a reason why advert exists; his version contained a poorly sourced and promotional sounding explanation of each of the services provided by Office 365 (which were, per a mixed consensus on the talk page in past discussions, referred to as "products"). The article had been marked as having too many primary sources, a situation that was improved by my version, which introduced more secondary sources. The article right now is a mixture between his and my versions that tries to strike a balance between what he wants and what I want. Additionally, he skipped right to the "final" warning. I'd like to also note that this editor has had a history of edit wars and content disputes on Microsoft Office-related articles in the past.  ViperSnake151   Talk  17:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first warning I gave this user was a level 3 one. Also, you are (or were, at least) a single editor going against the consensus of at least two at the talk page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, but still. I considered there to be a lack of consensus due to the tendentious editing from multiple parties (primarily those IPs who kept going after me on the talk page no matter what I compromised with). ViperSnake151   Talk  17:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that I agree with (many of?) the arguments the IP user(s) presented at the talk page. Also, WP:PRIMARY does not justify content deletion (at least when there are at least some other sources)! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * An IP user from a few months ago doesn't exactly count as someone who agrees with you, given that they were a dynamic IP and clearly WP:NOTHERE (see the fourth bit of their last comment on the Office 365 talk page). No one agrees with you that the current iteration of the edit is vandalism; that is an unavoidable fact. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the fourth part of that last comment... but then you're probably just looking for an excuse to label me as WP:NOTHERE too. What evidence do you have for that "current iteration" bit? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, since you're making a controversial claim, the onus is on you to prove that Viper's edits were vandalism, and that multiple people agree with you. So far, you've failed to back up either of your claims. Also, did you seriously just make the comment that you agree with what was quite a clear personal attack? Are you trying every possible way of getting yourself blocked? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've backed up both of those claims.
 * Pointing out a clear fact about a username is a personal attack? Really? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI he's now using the same arguments to request full protection. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're actually complaining that I'm requesting protection for the current version? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That was not a complaint. I was only bringing up relevant developments. I did not show any opinion on the matter. ViperSnake151   Talk  19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:PantherLeapord reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result:Indef )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 559661861 by Tarc (talk) I know free is preferred but free shit is still shit!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 559661408 by Tarc (talk) rv as user obviously blind to fact that image is not illistrative"
 * 3)  "FFS! THIS IS NOT AN ILLISTRATIVE IMAGE! EITHER ACCEPT THAT YOU ARE WRONG OR AT LEAST DISCUSS ON TALK PAGE RATHER THAN FORCING A SHITTY IMAGE ON THIS UNDESERVING ARTICLE!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 559658965 by Onorem (talk) DO YOU NOT SEE THE HUGE LINE COVERING PART OF THE CONSOLE!? THIS IS NOT AN ILLISTRATIVE IMAGE!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 559658761 by Masem (talk) The glass corner in the way disagrees"
 * 6)  "Since the encyclopedic image needs to be replaced with a shitty image because free we may as well not have an image because of how shitty the one we have to use is!"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 559654521 by Masem (talk) See your talk page and answer there. Please EXPLAIN why you replacing the good image with a shitty image in talk before reverting"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 559653698 by Masem (talk) rvv"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 559652849 by Masem (talk)OI! non-free images CAN be used where there is no acceptable free replacement. This one is NOT acceptable as it does NOT properly illustrate the subject!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on PlayStation 4. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Constantly removes a free image that he believes is not of good quality. Has gone way beyond three reverts. We need action ASAP ViperSnake151   Talk  02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am NOT restoring the non-free image! Merely removing the absolutely shitty free replacement until a better one comes along! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Complaint corrected. But still, you've gone way beyond three reverts, and that's not allowed. You're also being very uncivil. That isn't allowed either. ViperSnake151   Talk  03:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord blocked until he agrees to stop edit warring over the images.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ArmanJ reported by User:Faizan (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "you cant warn me. your issues are covered in the preceding lines, but you seem to suggest state-sponsored persecution, which is contradicted by your own source"
 * 2)  "this is absurd, most biharis are bangladeshi citizens. those who are not, they want to go back to pakistan and currently live in the United Nations monitored refugee camps. this is not persecution by bangladesh, rather by pakistan"
 * 3)  "you better stop. your sources were not removed, the content was adjusted to be more specific and have npov."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 559614746 by 86.151.237.220 (talk) you're the vandal, get an account and stick to neutrality"
 * 1)  "you better stop. your sources were not removed, the content was adjusted to be more specific and have npov."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 559614746 by 86.151.237.220 (talk) you're the vandal, get an account and stick to neutrality"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)


 * Comments:

I am totally uninvolved, as the article has an AfD and RfC in progress. But, I do watch it, and found that he's violated the 3RR rule, so I found it better to report. He has been warned too, and has also commented on the AfD and RfC. Fai zan  08:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion at talk page of the article resulted in no consensus. Fai  zan  08:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I warned User:ArmanJ and an IP (from UK) and also requested protection of the article. <font style="color:#09009">Solomon <font style="color:09009">7968  08:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that both of them violated 3RR. A user here has commented that the IP was a sock. In this case, is there a 3RR exemption? Fai  zan  09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are at least 3 socks here. The IP sock master from UK and User:ArmanJ both violated 3RR. <font style="color:#09009">Solomon <font style="color:09009">7968  09:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My comments at the AfD were given much earlier, not during the edit war. And again, I apologize for my behaviour with that IP.--ArmanJ (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't term Armans edits as a violation of 3RR as he just reverted the vandalisms by a sock IP. That IP is continuously assisting User:Faizan in edit warring and trapping other editors to commit 4RR. He has done it in several articles. (Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh, Stranded Pakistanis, Anti-Bihari sentiment). Also, the IP is constantly making personal attacks on other editors.--<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Ransom">Zayeem <font color="#483C32">(talk) 13:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against User:Faizan.--<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Ransom">Zayeem <font color="#483C32">(talk) 14:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

✅ Full protected for one week by User: Ged UK. <font style="color:#09009">Solomon <font style="color:09009">7968  12:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Samaksasanian reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  12:35, 10 June 2013‎ Samaksasanian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,277 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Have Refrenc (Stop vandalism)) (undo | thank)
 * 2)  22:26, 7 June 2013‎ Samaksasanian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,283 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Undid revision 558823031 by Verdia25 (talk)) (undo | thank)
 * 3)  15:39, 7 June 2013‎ Samaksasanian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (78,283 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (Undid revision 558762485 by HistoryofIran (talk)Have and Say References!) (undo | thank)

The words are changed from Turkic-speaking people to Turkic people

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Because the user is not willing to resolve the edit war on the article's talk page, not going against my arguments, I decided to report the matter.

Verdia25 (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * this user Does not accept Azerbaijani people is a Turkic people, But i Edit this Reliable and complete source = Encyclopædia Britannica say: Azerbaijani, any member of a Turkic people living chiefly in the Republic of Azerbaijan and in the region of Azerbaijan in northwestern Iran.I explained Talk:Azerbaijani people Again did not accept I have a valid source  Meanwhile User Verdia25 Before A once He had complained User:Qara xan // User:Qara xan reported by User:Verdia25 (Result: ) But administrators, ‎did not accept complaints User:Verdia25--<font size="+2"  face="phalls Khodkar, B Fantezy, B Ferdosi" color="#9966FF">SaməkTalk 09:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * for 4 days. There is edit warring from all sides here; please use this time to discuss the issues on the talk page, and seek dispute resolution if necessary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 09:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rjensen reported by User:98.196.235.104 (Result: No action taken)
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: It was placed on his talk page. However, RJensen removed the friendly invitation to self-revert with a tag of "hate mail".

Comments: Have attempted to add valid sourcing to an article improving on the section created by another user. RJensen came to article and began edit-warring over it and leaving some very nasty and threatening notes on my talk page. Invitations to RJensen on multiple pages to become a collegial and non-tendentious editor have gone in vain. I dislike reporting someone for 3RR when it appears they think they are obeying some warped view of policy but I believe it to be necessary in this case. 98.196.235.104 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No action will be taken, unless you revert yourself again 98.196.234.104, and then we will consider a block for you. Without regard for whether or not the text belongs in the article.  It may belong (or it may not, I make no assertion one way or the other), but WP:BLP makes it clear that for contentious text about living persons, the text is to remain out of the article until consensus is established to include it.  If the text you wish to add does belong, then start a discussion on the article talk page, and develop consensus to include it.  The default state for any contested text, per WP:BURDEN and especially WP:BLP, is to not include material which is contested, and it is always the burden of the person wishing to include it to make the case, not only by providing sources, but also to establish that the inclusion and specific wording of the text does not violate other Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV.  The text you wish to add may quite likely be fine of all of those policies, or it may not, but until the discussion is held AND reaches a conclusion in favor of including the text, it should not be re-added.  -- Jayron  32  14:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

User:DachshundsRule reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: Indefinitely blocked)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Persistent tendentious editing throughout the last few months at this page, repeatedly either adding unneeded formatting or adding patently false info. Never uses edit summaries. Has refused to discuss on the talk page, despite numerous warning and prior blocks for these exact reasons on this exact article. Clearly this user does not abide by consensus and acts in an exceedingly I collaborative manner. oknazevad (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeffed by User:Toddst1.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry - hadn't seen this. Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Dave1185 reported by User:HonerableHerb (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Dave harassing new editor on Geeciii talk page, also can be seen egging on situation w/ others elsewhere.


 * Wow! A newly registered dishonourable account smelling greatly of WP:SPA came to report me here right after I was cautioned by a SysOp that I was 1 more revert from 3RR is righltly under the belt, no less. So which is more important now? Sock hunt? Or give me another advice after I've rightly stopped my revert after being cautioned by the SysOp? Common sense, people... common sense. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The redlink is either a "bad-hand" sock of the blocked user, or is a troll trying to cause trouble for that user. Either way, he's got to be shown the door, and I've reported him to AIV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * HonerableHerb has now been indef'd for block evasion, so this looks like something that should be closed as created in bad faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Socks should not file at admin boards. Use your primary account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:2.27.211.1 reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You have been endlessly nitpicking. Your objections have been shown to be erroneous or unjustified. Get a proper job."
 * 2)  "Refer talk page. Receiving a 'notable mention' by an authority in the field qualifies the notability criteria. The clue is in the word 'notable'."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 559878663 by Freshacconci (talk)"
 * 1)  "You have been endlessly nitpicking. Your objections have been shown to be erroneous or unjustified. Get a proper job."
 * 2)  "Refer talk page. Receiving a 'notable mention' by an authority in the field qualifies the notability criteria. The clue is in the word 'notable'."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 559878663 by Freshacconci (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Nick Drake. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nick Drake. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* The Melancholy Haunting of Nicholas Parkes */ reply"


 * Comments:

Similar edits were made by on 5 June. I didn't like to speculate at it being self-promotion, but since soeone else has raised the issue then I can say I'm in agreement. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both IP:s originate from the same ISP. → Aza Toth 14:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since there are several different IPs involved I have now semi-protected the page for a week. De728631 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Isaacsirup reported by User:Vivvt (Result: Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 559949161 by Vivvt (talk) DO NOT REMOVE SOURCED CONTENT"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 559917598 by Vivvt (talk) The source I provided is not IMDb and I am reverting per talk page discussion and consensus"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 559802081 by Vivvt (talk) I did"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dil Se..‎‎.. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Dil Se..‎‎. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* Talk page consensus */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Young Meghna */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 3)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 4)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 5)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 6)   "/* Young Meghna */ !"
 * 7)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 8)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 9)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 10)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 11)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 12)   "/* Young Meghna */"
 * 13)   "/* Young Meghna */ lol"
 * 14)   "/* Young Meghna */ challenge"
 * 15)   "/* Young Meghna */ gosh!"


 * Comments:

The user does not seem to be interested in having any consensus on the talk page and keeps reverting to other editors. There were several warnings given on the user talk page but all of them have been reverted by the user including recent message of having a consensus on the talk page. The page was requested for the semi protection but another user notified that the concerned user will be auto-confirmed in next two days. The whole edit warring is all about recently deceased actress who is claimed to have done a role in the movie but neither starting or ending credits displays her name. The whole discussion can be read at Talk:Dil Se.. - <span style="font:italic bold 11px Georgia, serif"><font color="#808080">Vivvt <small style="font-size:85%;">(<font color="#000000">Talk ) 00:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Vivvt has been removing sourced materials from Dil Se consistently despite being reverted many times by several editors. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dil_Se..&action=history and also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dil_Se..#Young_Meghna Thanks--Isaacsirup (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:MarcosPassos reported by User:Kevin McE (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: A glimse at the relatively new editor's history reveals an extraordinarily aggressive mode of addressing other editors. Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: MarcosPassos is aggressive and has been wrong on more than one occasion. I'm not sure if a block would be beneficial in reducing this behaviour or if it would turn the editor away from editing. Perhaps the editor could explain.
 * I don't know that the editor was warned before 3RR was crossed and has not been formally warned on their talk page, per standard practice. There was a discussion, which the editor has participated in, on the article's talk page. To the editor's credit, he (I'm assuming male from the name and attitude, but would be happy to change the gender if informed otherwise) has not continued to edit war since being informed of 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a kick in the teeth of my theory. If MarcosPassos is "not a new user" as he claims, then it's not clear if he knows about 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz, I do know about the 3RR, but I thought that that was a case of vandalism, since the other WC articles do present the Stadiums' names with their respective namings rights as in 2006 FIFA World Cup or 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup. I will be more careful about using the term vandalism again from now on and I apologise to you all. But I confess I can't really understand why we can use the stadiums' naming rights in some article and not in others. MarcosPassos (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I had already demonstrated to you that the edit I made was in accordance with authoritative sources, and I was restoring the article to the long standing text: you had no grounds to assume that it was vandalism. Kevin McE (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . The block is for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And the sockpuppetry block has now been lifted: where does that leave the 3RR breach exacerbated by extreme bad faith? Kevin McE (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . I see no point in reopening this just because the user's sock puppet block was lifted. Any block now, to the extent it was warranted, would be punitive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please clarify the result of the ANEW. Was MP considered in breach or not? If it is now assumed that the sockpuppetry block was not justified, is it to be considered that the c.20 hour ban was sufficient for the 3RR breach.  And please clarify why changing the header is inappropriate when the action that rendered judgement moot on the 3RR breach was reversed while the 3RR remained unconcluded. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We have a lawyer in our midst. When a report is "concluded" is determined by admins, not by you. Similarly, admins put in a result, not you. Just in case it's not clear that this is now over, I'm formally closing this report. Please move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Fluppy reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Changes as per Jimbo to eliminate British English from US http://en.wikipedia.org/"
 * 2)  "per Jimbo"
 * 1)  "Changes as per Jimbo to eliminate British English from US http://en.wikipedia.org/"
 * 2)  "per Jimbo"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adolf Hitler. (TW★TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Adolf Hitler. (TW★TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The article has a template that it must be in British English. This editor keeps reverting the word "centre" to American English edit-warring disruptively and without responding to messages on his talk. He is showing no signs of stopping his tendentious disruption. He is also expanding the same concept to other articles:. Perhaps there should be an ANI report after this one if this behaviour continues. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  00:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. Not an actual 3RR violation. If the user continues to revert between British and American spellings on any page without getting consensus first, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ed. I know it was not a 4RR but the speed of the reverts was alarming, hence the report. I'll keep an eye for future violations. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:2008jordancfc reported by User:Pseudonymous Rex (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 6 June diff 15 June diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none

Comments:

The user has reverted without any discussion about 10 times this month, including 5 times in the last 24 hours. I posted in my edit summary and on the user's talk page a link to where consensus against their addition is demonstrated, and invited the user to start a discussion to show if consensus has changed. I was reverted without discussion. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As one of the interested parties in this, I feel I ought to throw my hat into the ring. The user in question has consistently ignored advice from established editors and apparently believes that the Chester F.C. article is his own private domain. People abuse their editing privileges on Wikipedia all too often, and I believe we take too light-handed a stance on this. Give him a decent block. – PeeJay 18:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Fangorn-Y reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Fangorn-Y blocked; Ohconfucius warned, later blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (after warning)
 * 1)  (after warning)
 * 1)  (after warning)
 * 1)  (after warning)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, he replied.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Edward_Snowden.

Comments:

Notified. VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I also warned, but they have not edited the page again since the warning. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked Fangorn-Y.
 * . I've warned Ohconfucious that if they edit the article in any way that could be interpreted as a revert in the next five days, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Ohconfucious ignored my warning and has been blocked for 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User: 2.220.52.201 reported by User: SonOfThornhill (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Comments:

Unregisted editor has made repeated changes despite issue still being discussed on the articles Talk page. He has been warned not to make further changes or reverts until the issue is resolved and consensus reached but continues to do so. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of the SonOfThornhill's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560073797&oldid=560073404
 * 2) [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560082834&oldid=560076990
 * 3) [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560084177&oldid=560083119

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek&diff=560077295&oldid=560076556

Comments: User:SonOfThornhill has reverted my edits after I had attempted to tidy the definitions to a sense of uniformity, however it is clear that after having tried to reason with them that they do not understand the source material and the context of the definitions.2.220.52.201 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not the point. The issue was still being discussed on the article's talk page. You was warned not to make any changes until consensus had be reached by the editors, yet you continued to make changes and reverts. And you are still doing it, making yet another revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek&diff=560087938&oldid=560084177 That is 4 times now and not how things work here. Editors discuss and agree on such major changes before making them in the article. SonOfThornhill (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . Fully protected by User:Diannaa.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:109.78.213.182 reported by User:Mathnerd 101 (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 560133299 by Finnegas (talk) Arbitrary deletion of relevant biographical information"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 560136825 by Finnegas (talk) Demonstrate the SF policy on copyright that has been violated and the deletion stands"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 560138282 by RashersTierney (talk) Now referenced to National SF website"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 560167925 by RashersTierney (talk) Republication permitted. No copyright whatsoever"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 560175411 by Mathnerd 101 (talk) What source. Permission to republish is there on the Donegal SF website. See link"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 560176999 by Mathnerd 101 (talk) Go right ahead but be sure to explain why you are insisting on leaving a page vandalised in error"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 560175411 by Mathnerd 101 (talk) What source. Permission to republish is there on the Donegal SF website. See link"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 560176999 by Mathnerd 101 (talk) Go right ahead but be sure to explain why you are insisting on leaving a page vandalised in error"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pádraig Mac Lochlainn. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See talk page.


 * Comments:

Continues removing copyright violation tag. Characterizes reverting edits as "vandalism", as seen here. -<font face="Times New Roman"> Math nerd  <font color="#007FFF">101   17:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . Semi-protected for two weeks by User:Bishonen.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Reinthal reported by User:Narom (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Series 1 (2013) */ As I said, this was not revealed until ep3. Behave yourself."
 * 2)  "Not known until ep3"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 560187542 by Narom (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 560180811 by Narom (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 560171587 by Narom (talk) Sorry these are spoilers and should be avoided.."
 * 6)  "/* Series 1 (2013) */ rm spoilers"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "no"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dates (TV series). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Notice: Don't delete or flag potential 'spoilers' in Wikipedia articles on Dates (TV series). (TW)"


 * Comments:

Initially I reverted edits with good faith, proceeded to revert it 3 times and after warning edit page to make it look like not breaking 3RR.

Another user has also warned them off removing spoilers.

Also proceeded to WP:PA myself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reinthal&diff=560189183&oldid=560188176 Narom (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . I blocked for both the WP:3RR violation and the attitude. In addition to the personal attack ("pommy bastard"), the editor thumbed their nose at the warnings ("Ooh scary!"). That said, @Narom, I have some advice for the future. First, you should have stopped at 3 reverts or earlier; you actually violated WP:3RR before another editor "took over". Perhaps you miscounted, but be more careful. Second, edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion. I see absolutely nothing on the article talk page. That is the place to discuss content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah oops. As you can see i did mention it on his talk page, i'll try and remember to put it on the talk page next time. Thanks. Narom (talk) 20:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:71.105.111.52 reported by User:Leaky caldron (Result: article semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

plus 2 further identical reverts making 6-7 so far.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Views and marches */"
 * 2)  "/* Views and marches */"
 * 3)  "/* Views and marches */"
 * 4)  "/* Views and marches */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I amend his initial change to utilise his reference in the correct place (with ref to his will to promote Sharia). IP has subsequently re-inserted entire block without checking changes that were made, nor taking in the edit reasoning I left behind. Talk page has turned to personal attacks and accusations, turfing to reddit and user harassment (also promoting harassment via reddit). I have reverted 3 times and have stopped. Koncorde (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * User now edits under, same problem. jonkerz ♠talk 08:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I had already added semi-protection to the article before seeing this report. LAwestsideguy is  (by Rschen7754). BencherliteTalk 09:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:LoveWaffle (Result: indef for Rusted Auto Parts)
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 yet again find myself with no choice but to report User:Rusted AutoParts for his conduct on the page for the film Captain America: The Winter Soldier. While there is an attempt to talk this out on the talk page, the user's conduct has been marked by incivility. LoveWaffle (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I disagreed with Waffle's insistence. The issue is being discussed on the talk page, this is merely someone who wants to be correct. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I resent the bad faith characterization of my edit.
 * LoveWaffle (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

What else could it be? You insist the source outweighs the makers of the movie. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:32 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to continue discussing this, you need to do that on the article's talk page, and not here.
 * LoveWaffle (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I will, but since you felt the need to try and get me blocked, I felt the need to defend myself. <i style="font-family:Rockwell; font-size:medium; color:red;">Rusted AutoParts</i> 21:38 16 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't Rusted Auto Parts's first block for edit warring, nor has he been blocked for every occurrence of edit-warring in his history (he's one of those editors that edit-wars up to the first warning, and thn backs off). Combined with history of personal attacks, I don't see any particular reason to hope that RAP will suddenly become a productive editor. Indefed.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Randykitty reported by User:Hodgdon's secret garden (Result: nothing)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "et cetera". Randykitty is at 3R. A stalemate of sorts has been reached, and the zenmaster DGG has found the talk page. Given the BRD cycle and all that the article probably needs to stay the way it is, and one hopes that discussion on the talk page will have a positive effect. For now, I'm closing this. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action here)
Page:

User being reported:

See both talks for the bulk of this.

Utterly trivial crap, whose only purpose seems to be self-indulgence by Malleus and an opportunity to parade his own ego. If he's the super-experienced editor par excellence (please note the italics) and the arbiter of all things GA, then he ought to be above such pointless rubbish as this. As he clearly isn't, block away, same as we do for other cases of trivial edit-warring. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's worth a shot I guess Andy. Who knows, you may get lucky. Eric   Corbett  23:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is already being dealt with at ANI, and has been open a while. I've previously commented there on the situation, as have other admin.  This seems redundant, and two forums are not better than one.  Eric has already said he won't revert again, blocking would be punitive, whether it was Eric or any other editor. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  23:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action here. The same complaint is being considered at WP:ANI and there is no need to have the same thing in two venues. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cwcw182 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Scottish is not yet a nationality. Being born in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales currently makes you British, like it or not."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Andy Murray."
 * 2)   "read guidelines on UK nationals"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

There is no such nationality as "Scottish". Andy Murray is British nationality, and the Wikipedia page even contradicts itself by defining him as "Scottish" alongside the summary box which states "Country: Great Britain". By repeatedly reverting the Scottish contradiction, I am being "edit warred" as much as I am "edit warring", except I am trying to amend to an internationally recognised nationality, as opposed to the future fantasy of the SNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcw182 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, please find the Wikipedia entry on British nationality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nationality_law. "Under the law in effect from 1 January 1983, a child born in the UK to a parent who is a British citizen or 'settled' in the UK is automatically a British citizen by birth". There is no Scottish nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcw182 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Cwcw182 is warned to stop warring about the nationality of Andy Murray until he gets consensus on the talk page. A discussion in Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 12 suggests that there was consensus in 2010 to describe Andy Murray as Scottish. See WP:UKNATIONALS for more background. If you believe that consensus has changed, you should be able to get people on the Talk page to support you. So far there's no indication that they do. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Baigmirzawaqar (Result: nothing)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: [diff]

Comments: User:Kmzayeem has violated 4RR many times on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. He is adding Spa tags to other users. I am a new user. I am not an SPA. He keeps adding tags, and reverts newcomers. Block him please. 08:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: User:Baigmirzawaqar has just made 20 edits in total and his first edit after the creation of the account was on the AfD. I have tagged his vote with and explained it on his talk page as well but still the user is continuously removing the tag. Even after being warned by another user, he again removed the tag.--<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Ransom">Zayeem <font color="#483C32">(talk) 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment:User:Kmzayeem is a very disruptive pov pusher who has now started attacking me I have hardly any interest in the topic and made one keep vote which ticked of Kzayeem anyone who votes keep becomes his enemy my interest are elsewhere related to Bihari people and Urdu yet he now accesses me of socking he now goes around vandalising the AFD with his abuse please either block him or remove his access to the AFD. RameshJain9 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any diff that I accused you of being a sock? However I did comment on this SPI a few minutes earlier which was started by another user on 10 June.--<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Ransom">Zayeem <font color="#483C32">(talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Off course you clumped me other users you suspect of using a single purpose accounts on the AFD discussion so do you have amnesia? you do something them completely deny it. RameshJain9 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You all seem to have nothing better to do than to screw around, get on each others' nerves, and bloat an AfD with commentary. The SPA tag is warranted and I have restored it. The rest is a bunch of nonsense and namecalling; we can always start blocking one party for edit warring and the other for making false claims of vandalism. I'm going to close this before you all yell so loud that I have to block all of you. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only reverted their removals of the SPA tags, nothing else. I never made any personal attacks (have asked Ramesh to provide a diff but he hasn't provide one).--<font style="font-size:18px" color="#848482" face="Ransom">Zayeem <font color="#483C32">(talk) 08:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:82.137.15.41 reported by User:Mathnerd 101 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 560621592 by Bollfooot (talk) vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 560020413 by 213.103.190.191 (talk) vandalism"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 560628771 by Proud-of-the-new-Romanian-justice (talk) repetead vandalism"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 560629782 by Proud-of-the-new-Romanian-justice (talk) repeated vandalism"
 * 5)  "added  vandalised  references"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 560631896 by Valosu (talk) yes from his site. please stop vadalising"
 * 7)  "/* Notes */  added note about the HRWF report"
 * 8)  "added PDVN"
 * 9)  "user valosu is a vandal"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 560634023 by Valosu (talk) realy"
 * 1)  "user valosu is a vandal"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 560634023 by Valosu (talk) realy"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 560634023 by Valosu (talk) realy"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Gregorian Bivolaru. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

These two editors have been engaged in an edit war for a couple days. The other editor has also been warned, but has not reverted since their warning. -<font face="Times New Roman"> Math nerd  <font color="#007FFF">101   17:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article fully protected for 10 days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected)
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: and  pointing to User talk:DVdm.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not by me on article talk page. Discussion on talk page already stale: Talk:Matzoon (yogurt)

Comments:

The other party in the war, contacted me on my talk page. I explained, gave some advice and gave both editors a 3RR warning on their page. User Obitauri just continued now. I think Lori-m understood the message. - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified both users about this report: and  - DVdm (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the beginning of the article had information that the drink is of Armenian descent. Information was referring to authoritative sources in which it was written "Armenian origin." Then comes Obitauri, and says:"Matsoni is Georgian food not Armenian. Armenians just took it to their region and everyone knows its Georgian".  He began to change in the article the word "Armenian" in the word "Georgian". He removed the word "Armenian" is not only the article, but from the citation of the source.  In this article there are two sources that say the Armenian origin of the drink. They write, "Of Armenian origin" and "Matzoon or mazun, originating in Armenia". However Obitauri do not like and it changes the word "Armenian" to "Georgian" He then led the source and said that they speak of Georgian origin of the drink, but there is no mention of this. His sources do not speak of Georgian origin. Please look at all edits Obitauri since June 9. He broke a few rules Wikipedia. I told him this many times. However, he does not care. Please return the article to the version before the war edits.--Lori-m (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I talk about edits after you warned me. This edits are not breaking rules. I just wanted to fix conflict and see talk what I say: "Darra Goldstein. The Georgian Feast: The Vibrant Culture and Savory Food of the Republic of Georgia. University of California Press, 1999, p. 51

http://books.google.ru/books?id=3PM_FnWgPBAC&pg=PA51&dq=%22Matsoni%22&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=NbHBUYC0FYv0sgbQmYHoDg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Matsoni%22&f=false This source totally says Georgian origin, which you said it doesnt.

This totally shows its Georgian. "University of California Press", this is one of most reliable sources. We need to discuss both sources, which says Armenian and other which says Georgian as of this article became battlefield of editing... We need to check both sources... But before we must not say anything about origin in article cause we found 2 sources one says other, 2nd other thing we need to remove origin from article"

Then I edited article and removed origin of this product cause its discussing right now, I shown Lori-m source he removed it before this edit warring. He removed several resources from this article which said it was Georgian just see history. I just wanted to fix this and did some mistakes in editing (such as changing sources). I fixed them now and just put new source. Here is problem which needs to be discussed: 1 source says that its Georgian, other says its Armenian. We need to find out which is true and if we cant, jsut leave like not writing origin like article looks like now. Do you understand me now? What did you gave reason of reporting me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obitauri (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This was not about sources, but about edit warring. I warned you that I would report you if you would edit along the same line again, so I did. Note that your source http://books.google.ru/books?id=3PM_FnWgPBAC&pg=PA51 talks about Georgian yogurt, from which you cannot infer that the thing originated in Georgia. See article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of editing articles, and discussion page. You'll know who started the war edits. Obitauri poor knowledge of the rules. It violates WP:CON and WP:EW. What he says is the original study WP:NOR--Lori-m (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Article fully protected three days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Silent Key reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: 24 hours)
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: [diff]

Comments: Silent Key has been reverted by different contributors, and asked per WP:BRD to discuss the matter.

In my split of the "reactions" section I did not add or remove any content. And the categorization was not arbitrary - it had a clear, logical basis. The problem concerning Featherstone has been debated ad nauseum on the talk page by others. My intention was not to remove criticism from the lede - I believe in Widom-Larsen Theory but I'm still skeptical of the E-cat and Hotcat as I'm not yet satisfied that wireless power transmission into the device has been ruled out. Silent Key (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * None of which is of any relevance to the fact that you chose to edit-war rather than discuss the issue on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'll note that the first diff isn't technically a revert; it was, AFAICT, the first time that Silent Key (or anyone else) made or even suggested making that particular group of changes to the article. (Though there have been previous efforts by cold fusion proponents to remove criticism from the article's lede.) In other words, this isn't – quite – a bright-line four-revert violation of 3RR.

On the other hand, Silent Key made his change and then reverted it back in three consecutive times in a span of just eleven minutes, using only the default 'undo' edit summaries. (The editors who reverted Silent Key's moedifications all provided at least brief explanations of their rationale and/or invitations to discuss on the article talk page, with explicit reference to WP:BRD.) Even in the absence of a fourth revert, this is an unambiguous instance of edit warring.

It shouldn't be difficult, even for less-experienced or less-frequent editors, to realize that if they find themselves repeatedly mashing the 'undo' button without engaging in any discussion, they're approaching a situation in the wrong way. Silent Key is familiar with the article's talk page, having made a couple of edits to a discussion there less than two weeks ago. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Though not technically a 3RR violation, I have blocked Silent Key for edit warring and disruptive behaviour. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Yesitwasgenocide reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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: [diff]

Comments:

IP 142.59.249.84 (blocked for editwar on same article) maybe a sock of the reported user.--<font size="3" face="Corsiva Hebrew" color="green">Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 31 hours. The edit warring is clear. Also clear is the uncollegial tone and the attempts at bullying. Especially troubling is the talk page behavior, where conversation is taking place, their proposal is rejected (the last "oppose" is timed at 21:55), and yet they revert again (at 23:55) with some petulant commentary on the talk page and in edit summaries. The name indicates to which extent this account has a single purpose, but for now the edit warring is enough for a block. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Surtsicna reported by User:SergeWoodzing (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: article talk page (same link as below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It has been recommended here that I report this after several days of trying to figure out how and/or get help from someone witrh experience. I don't know if I'm doing this right. To me, forms like this are dizzying and it takes a long sitting to get things right, trial & error, trial & error, trial & error, many times over and over. In all these years, I've never experienced anything like this. And I hope never to see it again. That's why I asked and hoped for help. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) -->

PS Just found out that this is a second reported violation by this user.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree that all of those diffs are reverts. Even if they were, none would count as a revert for the purpose of the 3RR, per the last of the exemptions listed here (removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR). I've explained that at Talk:Swedish Royal Family. SergeWoodzing insists that his "common sense" trumps verifiability, something I strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. I also have point out at how sad it is to see a user call for block of another user seven days after the dispute ended. Blocks serve to prevent further disruption, not to provide vindictive users with an opportunity to spite others. Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My notification on this user's talk page was immediately removed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Which I was entirely allowed to do. Your obligation was to notify me and my right was to remove the notification. Anyway, as Huon neatly put it at Talk:Swedish Royal Family: "... there's no edit warring to be stopped any more, and secondly, Surtsicna clearly acted in good faith and may well have been within the bounds of the BLP exception. Reporting him may well result in a WP:BOOMERANG." There has been no "edit-warring" for the past seven days, so the only purpose of this report could be to spite me. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also untrue that you have "never experienced anything like this" "in all these years". In 2012, you also wrongly reported a user for breaking the rule. Why would you claim otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. The dispute is over a week old (June 10), and the apparent reverts may be justified by BLP. See this report from Svenska Dagbladet, which suggests that O'Neill's title remains to be decided. Who wants to translate "Nu blir han en del av kungafamiljen, men om han även blir en del av kungahuset är ju inte klart. Titeln återstår att se, den meddelas enligt riksmarskalken först i samband med bröllopet, konstaterar Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg." Giving O'Neill a specific royal title without a reliable source could violate WP:BLP. in a June 8 report on the wedding the New York Times did not say anything about O'Neill's royal status. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * ??? It seems, and has always seemed, clear to everyone else that no one ever has claimed that O'Neill has any "royal status" but on the contrary is a member of the King's extended family - kungafamiljen - which is not royal. Excluding him from that would be like excluding your sister's husband from your father's family, that's all. Can't be done, as I see it. I think you missed the point here, but, oh well, I'll certainly never bother going to all the trouble of reporting anybody, even a previous offender, for a 3RR violation again. Disappointed in the process and the outcome. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A "previous offender" is not automatically guilty of whatever you accuse him of. You have a history of wrongly reporting users for edit-warring, so it's quite comforting to know that you will not do so in the future. There is a very reliable source that lists the members of kungafamiljen, and if that source excludes someone (a living person!), we should absolutely not include that person - especially not if no source whatsoever is provided to back it up. You are obviously ignoring it, but I'll write it once again: blocks serve to prevent disruptive editing, not to give you (or anyone else) the satisfaction of seeing someone blocked. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)