Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive217

User:Monterrosa reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */"
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */"
 * 1)  "/* Filmography */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning on users's talk page


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: First attempt to talk to this person about the use of rowspans

Monterrosa's response on my talk page


 * Comments:

Continues to revert and redo edits that are not constructive to the page, refuses to listen to MoS. This user has also been blocked FOUR other times for their disruptive and nonconstructive edits. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to where rowspans are discussed in our MoS or accessibility guidelines? I'm not taking a position on the issue, but I'd like to see proof that Monterrosa is violating consensus and that this isn't just a disagreement between you two. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Monterrosa has just returned to Wikipedia after a one-month block. They have engaged in a multi-day edit war at Seth MacFarlane over rowspans and the itemization of voice parts. They have not discussed the issue at Talk:Seth MacFarlane and do not seem to listen to anyone. I've left a warning of a possible indefinite block. I hope that other admins will allow this report to stay open a little longer to see if Monterrosa will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

IP:166.147.69.10 reported by User:Maunus (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Obvious trolling to insert a photo that is both racist and probably a copyvio into multiple articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please fix your report. The link to the user is malformed, the link to the article is wrong, you posted links to revisions and not diffs, and you left some of the report fields blank. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. And yes I realize I was editwarring too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semi two weeks. Three different IPs, including two from the 166.147.* range are edit warring to put back an image that is probably a copyright violation. Once the copyright is settled a normal discussion can resume. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Li3939108 reported by User:Fearofreprisal (Result: )
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 appears to be one of the people involved in the cyber-bullying campaign against the subject of the article. This campaign has been ongoing for 5 months. User was recently warned for defamatory posting in this article

Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You should notice the 4 edits are not the same. I add one source in one edits to respond to your request.
 * User:Fearofreprisal appear to be one of the people involved in the promotion of the memoir.-- 凡其 Fanchy  19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, not. I mostly just try to keep the article from being turned into an attack page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No Vio)
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:

Quite simply I am pissed off that this guy will not abide by policy, a tag ought to remain till such a time as the dispute is resolved, he reverts to his favoured version constantly and removes any tag added due to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: most of them, if not all, are far from reversals, let alone edit-warring. 24hours? Darkness Shines is pushing an agenda here. As his recent unblock condition he has accepted a voluntary restriction on reverting tags, that's the reason I think he is here. Check the history of the page. I can guarantee that my edits are good-faith contributions and I explained them in talk in detail. BUT DS feels if he thinks the page is non-neutral he can gut it unilaterally without any regard for the opinions of other involved editors. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I could have added another few minor edits to this, the problem is you refusal to follow policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not remove my comment in the process of restoring your own which you know was removed mistakenly. Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801 DS was supposed to be in blocked-state right now. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 18:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:Alaexis (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: These constitute a violation of 3RR, there were two more reverts afterwards.
 * 1) Revision as of 18:47, 18 June 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 18:51, 18 June 2013
 * 3) Revision as of 19:09, 18 June 2013
 * 4) Revision as of 18:11, 19 June 2013

All the reverts consist in replacing a map with a new one, which has NPOV issues.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, see further comments by User:Chipmunkdavis

Comments: Since User:Giorgi Balakhadze entered into discussion at the very time I was writing this I do not want him to be blocked but simply reminded of the spirit and letter of Wikipedia principles.

Alæxis¿question? 22:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Chelsea-fan1 reported by User:The Madras (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560412638

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560782727
 * 2) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560782981
 * 3) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560783184
 * 4) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560783320

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chelsea-fan1&oldid=560787175

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chelsea-fan1&oldid=560782739

Comments: I've tried to explain to him that the current infobox picture shows his face a lot more clearly, which is the point of the infobox picture, but he has not listened, and bothered to reply to me. The Madras (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments: The current picture is up-to-date and not 5 years old and shows him in a football kit just like the profiles from Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Xavi and Cesc Fàbregas. chelsea-fan1 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Each of you is close to 10RR on this article. Can you explain why admins shouldn't block both of you for violating 3RR? Consider making a suggestion of how to resolve this. Or, promise to stop reverting until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Both editors warned. Whoever reverts the article next is likely to be blocked, unless you can get consensus on Talk for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "REVERTED"
 * 2)  "Currency"
 * 3)  "/* PlayStation Camera */ No need to mention price in Canadian Dollars."
 * 4)  "/* Controllers */ No need to mention price of controller in Canadian Dollars (same as US Dollars). If price was mentioned in Canadian/Australian Dollars, why not mention price in other currencies such as the UAE Dirham or Omani Rial?"


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


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


 * Comments:

Disputes the disambiguation of pricing per MOS:CURRENCY; as he does not consider Australian or Canadian pricing to be notable, he constantly removes it, and then removes the USD marks because the article no longer, as a result, talks about any dollars other than American. I, and several others, dispute this because the PS4 is a world-centric article, and not U.S. centric. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, you're acting like a little bitch again. Yes, that person did violate 3RR rules which is not cool and there was a lil' bit of edit warring BUT that user stopped doing this even BEFORE you made a warning on his/her "Talk Page" and before you immediatelly put a notice here or started a new discussion on article's talk page. In the end the current version of PlayStation 4 does NOT contain any 3rd-world country's (like CA or AU) prices anymore, just as this reported editor was trying to do (although a little bit too aggressively with removal of "US" bit... but he/she stopped). A simple "Talk Page" warning would've sufficed unless the editor would've continued his/her behavior. Not the first time you do this pre-emptive WP:ABF shit and unfortunately not the last...
 * Also, it appears that you have tried to use this edit warring to push your personal agenda against "price gouging in AU" or some other nonsense, as you have commented upon here and also in Edit Summary here. Quite an opportunistic piece of work you are... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. It seems that the war over the currencies may have stopped. Anyone who continues to revert about the price of the PS4 in different currencies is risking a block, unless they get consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:82.212.85.176 reported by User:Doniago (Result: )
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:

IP editor was advised that there was a pre-existing Talk page discussion; opted to continue reverting and accuse me of "abuse" despite reversions by at least one other editor. Possible WP:SPA. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Forewarning to all reviewers of this dispute: Doniago himself has actually violated the three-revert rule in the dispute he's reporting, as shown here:


 * 1.


 * 2.


 * 3.


 * 4.


 * 5.


 * Moreover, this is the second time in the last few days alone that user:Doniago has been involved in utterly inappropriate edit warring behaviors. It was just a few days ago that he was assailing me with these same types of behaviors as he's currently assailing the users at the Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows with. I was the last victim of this user's terribly problematic manner of edit dispute resolution before he took up his behaviors with these editors at this article. In our content dispute, I tried initiating a discussion on the article's talk page, but it was to no avail. Doniago spent the majority of our content dispute jumping around from editor to editor and admin to admin putting me down and stigmatizing me while they all repeatedly told him to cut out all the schemes and concentrate on the content dispute. The user disobeyed these commands repeatedly.


 * Now it's with somebody else just two days later. User talk:82.212.85.176 and the rest of the users at Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows are all having to deal with exactly what I was assailed with by user Doniago. They all have seemed to initiate a discussion and consensus on the article's talk page, as shown here. As shown in the diffs above, however, Doniago continues his reversions despite general consensus and discussion at the talkpage. Doniago has conveniently left out the diffs in which he has violated the 3RR. Shown in the diffs, he has repeatedly deleted salary-based info that different user's have added in. And User talk:82.212.85.176 seems to have made several attempts to warn Doniago to no avail. His warnings were rudely deleted both times, one time with the edit summary of "bored now" by Doniago (as shown here, here , here , and here ) As a further note, AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * While Doniago did revert four times in a 24 hour period, I believe WP:NOT3RR is applicable here. The reference for the salary claims is sourcing its info from IMDB which is not a reliable source as per WP:RS/IMDB, and therefore violates our BLP policies. Doniago probably should have reported this before the fourth revert, but when it comes to dubious BLP claims we generally cut editors a lot of slack. The additions look like they violate WP:DUE regardless (but that isn't a concern for this board), so at the very least the IP needs to find a more appropriate source before attempting to reintroduce this content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that User:AmericanDad86 has shown marked hostility towards me in the past and has never contributed to this article previously. I have opened an investigation into their conduct at WP:ANI. DonIago (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs (same user) reported by User:Nstrauss (Result: Semi)
Page:

Users being reported: (Same user seems to keep switching IP addresses, see here.)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:, , , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29

Comments:

The user appears to be a newcomer and a non-native English speaker, but he/she seems to willfully refuse to learn and understand the policies and has a very strange sense of what consensus is, as evidenced by the talk page discussion and his/her user talk (87.2.112.110) --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another note, I have no reason to believe this person is sockpuppeting, but if he/she is going to be so disruptive from multiple IP addresses then it seems appropriate he/she should be required to create a login (and use it). --Nstrauss (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one week. The same person seems to be using multiple IPs to edit war on this article. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29#Google_backdoor.3F_WT.2A_.3F The hopscotch on the talk page] suggests that the IPs are the same person throughout. The IP made a promise to edit war about the original research: "i'm not removing that info, until YOU give me a valid reason for that info-removal." EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To me the "sockpuppery accusation" seems a clumsy pretext to block a correct edit where there's  no valid reason  to consider it OR. (see the accusations for "offending language here to have another example of clumsy pretexts)
 * And how can i be a sockpuppet if i *never* denied that i'm the same user in all those IPs ?
 * Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29&diff=560979791&oldid=560978042 i clearly state that i'm the same user of the other IP. (i say confirm that when i say I'm still waiting (since 18:56). in the very first message posted from that IP)
 * I demand the removal of protection of the page.
 * @Nstrauss:
 * It's unfair (and against the rules) to tell me that "i'm required to register to the website"
 * all users are equal and i've the right to partecipate without registration.
 * 79.25.98.5 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * @EdJohnston:
 * about your misleaging quote about "i'm not removing that info, until YOU give me a valid reason for that info-removal.":
 * It was a reply to what Nstrauss said. here, he said (about the reason for information removal) he would "not even going to dignify" me "with a reason".
 * So please dont consider that my sentence as a provocation but ruther as a reply to Nstrauss provocative sentence.
 * (and btw: YES, if i have to remove an edit i need a valid reason to do that. By now no reasons at all arrived yet)
 * 79.25.98.5 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 79.25.98.5 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:IDHT seems appropriate. I've asked for WP:PC 1 protection for the talk page to allow other IP editors to request edits, and encourage an account. Widefox ; talk 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:198.204.141.208 or User:163.1.214.156 reported by User:Galvan666 (Result: Warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Anon user keeps demanding to use the weasel word "claims" concerning Ted Cruz comments on gun rights. I have pointed out that "claims" is a weasel word that his edit is a commentary not supported by a reliable source. He simply reverts me and says, "Not true." I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, on the article talk page, and in the edit summary.--Galvan666 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned User talk:163.1.214.156 and User:Galvan666 that they are both at 3RR and may be blocked if they continue. I don't see how you have any case for sanctions against User talk:198.204.141.208 who seems to be a different person and hasn't edited the article since 17 June. Both sides have a chance to work harder to perfect the wording for Cruz's position on the subject of 'gun rights.' EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Who cares if its linked or not?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 560861036 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) What difference does it make if its linked twice?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 560814550 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) it doesn't matter how many over linkings there are."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 560714624 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) nothing wrong with that."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 560814550 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) it doesn't matter how many over linkings there are."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 560714624 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) nothing wrong with that."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Fast & Furious 6. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Linking */"
 * 2)   "Undid revision 561057263 by Shookallen88 (talk) restored discussion, removing discussion is not an excuse to continue being disruptive"


 * Comments:

User is warring over content, overlinking two names and refusing to engage in discussion. Argument amounts to "who cares", deleted discussion which I have restored on the articles talk page. Gave a warning which i gave him fair warning he would receive if he continued to edit war, ignored the warning and continues to simply revert even when reverts undo other content. Clearly has no inclination of stopping until he gets his way and is not responding to warnings or discussion so I'm unable to progress situation any further. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the latest progression of the discussion "If you want me to stop then leave as is, linking a name twice isn't nothing to get angry about so leave it as is, Then ill stop undoing." So "if you want me to stop, let me get my way". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Indef)
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:

Not a 3RR violation (yet) but persistent edit-warring here and on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice Move.GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor has now violated 3RR at Steve Jobs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And more is coming if you don't block me, hurry quick .GhiathArodaki (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

* Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of Prisonermonkeys reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit

Comments:

Note that the information on promotional runs was initially added in March, but the rearranging of the article did not occur until later creating its own section. The blanking and reverting of the section is what I have listed here. Also, this is the second case of edit warring on the same article between the same two users, with a previous edit war ongoing from March to May over photos (example Prisonermonkey diff, example Djflem diff). Users were also warned about edit warring for the earlier fiasco. (diff) Typical editing style of both users is to revert the article while at the same time arguing their case on the talk page. The359 ( Talk ) 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for taking so long to getting around to responding to this, but here we go:


 * I feel there are three real issues here, and they're not really related to content, though content is at the centre of the dispute.


 * Firstly, I've always edited articles based on their subject. Articles naturally cover several subjects, and so I tend to rank those subjects in order of their importance to the article, and then edit the page to be most consistent with other articles that have the same primary subject. In this case, I feel that the most important subject related to this article is a Formula 1 racing circuit, and so I have tried to edit the article to be consistent with other articles on the same subject, like Circuit de Monaco and Silverstone Circuit. I believe that Djflem is approaching this article the same way, but has sought to make it consistent with articles on construction projects.


 * Secondly, I object to the paragrph in question because I feel it is compromised by the nature of the event. The paragraph describes drivers sampling the circuit, which is fine in and of itself, because pages like Circuit of the Americas do exactly the same thing. However, the demonstration runs were a part of a paid sponsor event designed to attract attention to the event. The drivers naturally spoke of the circuit in favourable terms so as to promote the race. And although the references supplied are reliable, I feel that the context of the event invalidates the value of the comments. Compare that to the reception section of the Circuit of the Americas page, which gives multiple opinions on specific sections of the circuit in a forum that is not paid for by a sponsor. However, Djflem disagrees with this, because the sources supplie are reliable, and so he feels that the context behind them does no matter at all.


 * Finally, and this is probably the most-pressing issue, is the matter of where the burden of responsibility to establish a consensus lies. I believe that, because no other page related to Formula 1 circuit contains a "Demo runs" section, Djflem's edits represent a major departure from the established editing practices on circuit pages, and that he therefore needs to demonstrate a consensus in favour of such a departure. On the other hand, Djflem feels that because the sources he has supplied are reliable, a consensus is needed to remove that content.


 * I don't deny that I have edit-warred, but there has been virtually no third-party support in resolving the issue. I have tried to get other editors into the debate, but have received no help. And despite his attempts to settle the edit-warring through the administrators, The359 has done very little to prevent the problem to begin with. Previous experience in dealing with Djflem has shown me that ignoring his disruptive edits only enables him, as he seems to be under the impression that bold edits are somehow immune from further editing until a consensus is proven. This would not normally be an issue, but it is a hallmark of a serial sockpuppeteer who has haunted the Formula 1 pages in the past (not that I believe Djflem is another sock as he has been around for some time; it's just a behaviour I have recognised as being consistent with anthoer disruptive editor). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Michael Zeev reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 05:12, 22 June 2013  (edit summary: "He was born in Cairo, Egypt, what it implies he was an Arab immigrant in Palestine.")
 * 2) 10:58, 22 June 2013  (edit summary: "Immigration is the movement of people into another country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there. He never "came back" because he was born in Cairo, not Palestine.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Both reverts of this. Article is under 1RR, and the user has violated the rule several times, including recently at Palestinian prisoners in Israel, I just never got around to reporting it.  nableezy  - 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I didn't know biographies are under 1RR restriction. You could have warned me after my second revert (so I can "undo" myself). And even your late warning was made just one minute before you filled this report. I don't understand why you keep insisting on removing a proper category. Article is about Yasser Arafat, not his parents. Arafat was born in Cairo and moved to Jerusalem when he was a child. He was born in Egypt, therefore he immigrated to Palestine. Do you get it? It's very simple. We don't need a reference saying "he was an immigrant", but a source saying he was born in Cairo, Egypt. For example, Shimon Peres is also an immigrant because he was born in Poland and moved to Israel when he was a kid.--Michael Zeev (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Michael Zeev didn't ignore is familiar with all the rules as proven by the summary diff of this 20th edit on wikipedia and despite he denied this : . Pluto2012 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a very large banner on Talk:Yasser Arafat. It makes explicitly clear the article is under 1RR. And I dont plan in getting into the content argument here except to say that you do in fact need a source, and calling a Palestinian an immigrant to Palestine is rather foolish. But thats a discussion for the talk page, what belongs here is that you've been warned about the 1RR previously, and that you continue to violate it. Pluto warned you about the 1RR four hours prior to my revert and subsequent report. You declined to self-revert the last time I warned you about the violation as well.  nableezy  - 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Arafat, Palestinian or not, was born in Cairo, not in Palestine. Check the article. On the other hand, how can I decline anything if you reverted my last edition before posting a warning message in my talk page? You didn't give me the chance.--Michael Zeev (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're POV pushing. Arafat was sent back to his deceased mother's relatives when a very young child. You listed him for this as a (Cairene) 'immigrant' to Mandatory Palestine, where both his mother and father were born. A moment's thought should have told you kiddies don't immigrate. In this case he was despatched back to his parent's homeland, and his mother's city, Jerusalem. If your parents are Israeli, and you happen to be born while they are working abroad, and you return for your bar-mitzvah, you don't return as an 'immigrant'. The word has completely different connotations, including the adoption of a new identity, nationality or homeland. Virtually every other edit you make is question-begging, like this. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You should read more carefully. I said the last time I warned you, that being User_talk:Michael_Zeev. You still haven't self-reverted at Palestinian prisoners in Israel.  nableezy  - 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After this report was made, the user also violated the 1RR at Israel. While I dont dispute the edits should be reverted, they were not vandalism and as such are not exempt from the 1RR. The reverts are and. So while an edit warring report for violating the 1RR is open, the user again violates the 1RR.  nableezy  - 20:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit (replacing Jerusalem with "Tel abib") was clear vandalism from a vandalism-only created account. However, I will be more careful next time. I will strictly obey 1RR from now on.--Michael Zeev (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:The Rahul Jain reported by User:Neo. (Result: No action here)
Page:

User being reported: As per this policy user should not blank or remove sockpuppetry related notices but user has engaged in edit war. Pls see this    neo (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: No action here. This is being negotiated by admin User:Qwyrxian at User talk:The Rahul Jain. He has now blocked all of Jain's alternative accounts. You've reported the same issue at WP:ANI. Multiple reports aren't needed. I suggest that you wait and see if Qwyrxian can find a solution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ChrisAnorthosis reported by User:Argento1985 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [], link []

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: being sent here by User:Darkwind from WP:AIAV. I've warned the user for vandalism, it makes no sense to me why shall i report him again in here, the whole mass edits he have done are [on the history of this page] I've noticed the warning you are giving here if the user hasnt been warned but notices and warnings given similar to this and relating it given to his User:ChrisAnorthosis talk page]] short example of last warning is -> "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Argento1985, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Action and Intention to attack after 4th warning: [2] (Argento1985) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)"

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

Comments:

Sorry for disturbing you dear admins, the User:Darkwind sent me here, from WP:AIAV and i'm suppose to generate the whole situation now to make a complain for editing war. To me doesnt look like an edit war at most, there are 2 reverts and meaning less edits and additions by the user im complaining to. Furthermore this user tried to offend me on my userpage using greeklish characters and leaving comments un-signed. I hope you can guide me who can i avoid such conflicts. I'm dedicating much of my freetime to contribute and i want to be useful and not useless to the community (such as defacing my contribution by this user). furthermore my talkpage being attack by this user [] (Argento1985)  12:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:163.1.214.156 or User:78.144.236.198 or User:198.204.141.208 reported by User:Galvan666 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) diff as of 00:58, 20 June 2013
 * 2) diff as of 20:35, 20 June 2013
 * 3) diff as of 23:10, 21 June 2013
 * 4) diff as of 08:15, 22 June 2013
 * 5) diff as of 10:06, 23 June 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] link to 1st warning which was ineffective apparently

link to 2nd warning which hopefully will be more effective

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

Comments: As I stated in the previous complaint about edit warring on this Administrators' Noticeboard, Anon user keeps demanding to use the weasel word "claims" concerning Ted Cruz comments on gun rights. I have pointed out that "claims" is a weasel word that his edit is a commentary not supported by a reliable source. He simply reverts me and says, "Not true." I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, on the article talk page, and in the edit summary.

Now, the last complaint on this board resulted in me getting a warning from the admin, who claimed that me listing various IP addresses as the source of this edit warring was not appropriate. All of these IP addresses are making the exact same edit and they are making comments to me as if they are same person. The most recent edit from IP 78.144.236.198 refers back to the incorrect comments of IP 163.1.214.156 to justify his revert. This case is not only an "edit war" but it is an example of someone using different IP addresses to jump in and out of the article in sockpuppet manner.--Galvan666 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. The common language used by the various IPs is just too much for a coincidence and we have to assume socking or offsite coordination. See the protection log for more background. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Aprock reported by User:BlackHades (Result: )
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:

User:Aprock previously edit warred and removed Dawkins' position from the Race and genetics article 6 times.

So I tried to work with Aprock on an edit he would deem satisfactory. When Aprock refused to assist toward an edit, yet continued to edit war and remove any version of Dawkins' position to the article that anyone tried to put, I filed for a dispute resolution here. Our mediator during Dispute Resolution was User:Guy Macon. He asked us to try to see the debate from the other person's point of view and write what is the best reason for believing the position that opposes yours. I participated in Guy Macon's request while Aprock refused to do so. As Guy Macon couldn't help us come to an agreement, he suggested that we should start a RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final and the losing party has to accept the results. I drafted an RfC on my sandbox and requested all editors to take a look at it and welcomed all comments and suggestions for improvement as I wanted to make the RfC as neutral as possible. I never heard from Aprock.

3 days later, I start the RfC here. After 4 different editors voted to keep Dawkins in the article and 0 editors voting to remove Dawkins from the article, Aprock then decides he's going to insert this POV line into the RfC to try to “turn the tide” and makes 4 reverts to try to keep it there. I tried to explain to Aprock that his edit on the RfC is incredibly POV. He never responded to my comments and instead just continued to revert. And despite Aprock's best efforts to taint the RfC, 2 more people voted to keep Dawkins in the article while Aprock's POV edit was up. There is now currently 6 votes to keep Dawkins in the article and 0 votes to remove Dawkins from the article.

These results appear difficult for Aprock to accept. He previously performed 6 reverts to try to remove Dawkins from the article and now performed 4 reverts to try to put a POV line into the RfC. Aprock's behavior has become incredibly disruptive.


 * note: The first diff listed is not a revert. aprock (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. As Aprock states, the first diff was not a reversion. It was the addition of new content to an article talk page.

The article Race and genetics is covered by WP:ARBR&I and BlackHades has already been blocked one week for disruption in that area. (He suggested that Dougweller was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of KillerChihuahua and made a frivolous SPI report which was immediately deleted.) Aprock added text to clarify a third alternative in an RfC formulated by BlackHades. During a previous session on DRN, mediated by Guy Macon, some parties had talked past each other about the issue under discussion (the degree of acceptance of the concept of race, and in particular whether a popular book by Richard Dawkins contained any relevant discussion of the matter). Aprock stated that BlackHades' phrasing of the RfC did not properly represent all available options. He then amplified a third option by adding a quote from the book.

BlackHades removed this content from the talk page, despite WP:TPG:


 * 1) First removal by BlackHades:  Removed misleading and irrelevant text
 * 2) Second removal by BlackHades:  At least respond to my comments
 * 3) Thirs removal by BlackHades:  You're seriously going to edit war over this? Without even ever addressing anything I wrote?

Aprock has restored his own additions to the talk page, which I assime were added to assist others. BlackHades should not be editing his comments. In addition he has attempted to move a relevant discussion with Maunus to user talk:Maunus. This seems to be disruptive editing. BlackHades has stated above that the RfC will be a simple vote count. He seems to be trying to affect its outcome by removing comments or discussions which do not favour his own point of view. He is the main person edit warring. When warned by Aprock on his talk page about 3RR, he made this response: Don't need a 3RR warning from someone that has already violated it.

The last statement is incorrect as BlackHades was the person removing Aprock's comments. Aprock has restored his own addition three times, so has not broken 3RR. It is BlackHades who has been edit warring and going to great lengths to remove comments or suppress discussions with which he disagrees. If anywhere, it might be appropriate to make a report at WP:AE since the problems go beyond edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, you're still following me and still throwing false accusations everywhere? Falsely accusing me on sockpuppetry? and tag teamingwere not enough? Honestly, why do you feel the need to follow and make false accusations toward countless editors from race related articles?


 * Removing comments or discussions? What comment or discussion was removed? I responded to Maunus on his talk page because the topic was no longer about the RfC and was cluttering up space around the RfC. Maunus and I were discussing the broader view of race as it relates to the scientific circles not whether or not Dawkins should be included in the article which is what the RfC is ACTUALLY about. Did you forget that Maunus already stated that he supported inclusion of Dawkins' position in regards to the RfC here? FUNNY that you forgot to mention that. You make it sound like Maunus was building a case in discussion to exclude Dawkins from the article and I'm trying to hide it. When in reality, Maunus has already expressed his position that Dawkins should be included and we were just having a broader discussion on race. Not to mention I received a barnstar for my discussion with Maunus during talk. Yeah it reeeeally looks like I'm trying to hide something huh? Nice try Mathsci but really..come on.


 * My revert on Aprock was not a talk page discussion. Aprock was trying to insert a POV line into an RfC 4 times. Note that I fully welcomed and encouraged Aprock and others in helping draft a RfC several days before I started the RfC. Did Aprock ever contact me? No. Did Aprock make any changes the day RfC was started? No. He only put in his POV line AFTER 4 editors already expressed their position that Dawkins should be included. Since then 2 more editors expressed their position to keep Dawkins in the article even while Aprock's POV edit on the RfC was up.


 * How about the fact that Aprock previously edit warred to remove Dawkins from the article 6 TIMES from 4 different editors? I can't help but notice you completely avoided that. You also completely avoided the fact that Aprock refused to participate and listen to Guy Macon's instructions during Dispute Resolution. Or the fact that I tried to engage Aprock about his POV edit on the RfC, which Aprock refused to give any response back to. Mathsci, I really mean this in the most sincere way possible, you need a new hobby that doesn't involve following The Devil's Advocate, Akuri, me around everywhere just waiting to make wild and ridiculous accusations against us. BlackHades (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * was indefinitely blocked by arbcom over 2 weeks ago with talk page access revoked. That account, or any of the other matters mentioned above, has no relevance here. BlackHades is continuing to misrepresent the first edit of Aprock as a revert, when it involved the addition of completely new material. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Background to RfC. Since EdJohnston has been trying to determine the background to the RfC, I have tried here to determine the sequence of events leading up to its posting; in particular whether due care had been taken that the formulation was agreed to by all parties involved in the preceding dispute resolution process. The DR process was abandoned at WP:DRN. While parties were still divided on how or whether passages from Dawkins' book should be referred to in the article, BlackHades created his RfC in user space. After he had completed what was the final draft on 11 June, he indicated on 12 June at DRN that he intended to start an RfC. On 13 June he mentioned that the draft was already prepared in his user space and that anybody could comment on it. It is not clear whether anybody noticed that edit, since no parties involved in the DRN commented. The mediator Guy Macon did comment just before closing the DR process, "I would point out to the other participants that giving BlackHades advice on the wording of the RfC is encouraged; it can be difficult to describe a position you disagree with without bias creeping in, and input from those who hold that position can be helpful. An unbiased description of both positions benefits everyone. The final decision on wording lies with the person who writes up the RfC, but with the best RfCs you cannot tell which side wrote it until they post their arguments among the rest of the comments." BlackHades did not subsequently check that the other parties, in particular those who had been in disagreement with him, were comfortable with his formulation/wording of the RfC. He posted the RfC on 16 June. The parties involved on the DRN were BlackHades, The Devil's Advocate, ArtifexMayhem, Aprock and 84.61.181.253. BlackHades posted notifications to 15 user talk pages about the RfC as well as a general notice on WP:NPOVN. Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle reported by User:Harold O'Brian (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This page was redirected to another page before, due to a lack of reliable sources. I have added sources for the information now, but Delicious carbuncle thinks it is not enough, claiming the other page is a "main article" (which it of course is not) to the article in question. Please stop Delicious carbuncle from these actions. Harold O&#39;Brian (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Harold O'Brian, who has aremarkable knowledge of wiki markup and rules for a "new" user, has removed the redirect for times now (,, , & ). His attempts to "improve" the article have amounted to adding unsourced material and pop culture trivia about The Avengers (TV series). If someone wants to find authoritative sources that make the case for boot fetishism to be be a separate thing from shoe fetishism, I have no objection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see how references to a printed book makes the added material "unsourced". I have been to other wikis before, if you must know. Harold O&#39;Brian (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What are the sources for this? If you don't mind me asking, which wikis use the same guidelines, terms, and reporting mechanisms as WP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I added a source in this edit, which is still in the page if you read it right now. The images already existed in other pages in Wikipedia. I have heard about this 3 times rule before (Wikipedia and its rules are not unheard of outside Wikipedia) and when I found this page it was really easy to follow the guideline to make a report. Harold O&#39;Brian (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems a little implausible, but I'm not known for my displays of good faith where the actions suggest otherwise. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to block me, since I've restored the redirect after seeing the sources you added. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Both parties have broken the WP:3RR rule. Article fully protected five days. Is it too much to expect the editors to discuss the matter at Talk:Shoe fetishism in the mean time? Or, you could consider asking for opinions at WP:SEX which I'm sure will be a source of good ideas. This topic lends itself to many puns which I am trying to avoid here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no point in discussing this at Talk:Shoe fetishism, since that page has nothing to do with the subject at hand. A discussion at Talk:Boot fetishism could be useful. Harold O&#39;Brian (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Happy Evil Dude reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (this version restores previously deleted content, but in different form)

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: (Note that first three listed reverts introduced unsourced content regarding "relationships," plain BLP violations that call for no extended discussion beyond clear edit summaries. Edit summary accompanying third revert shows Happy Evil Dude was aware of BLP sourcing requirements and chose to disregard them.)

Comments: Happy Evil Dude is repeatedly adding unsourced or inadequately sourced content to various BLPs of female celebrities, adding typical gossip about "relationships" and laundry lists of "dating" partners to articles which have been cleared of such unencyclopedic content by other editors. They were warned about BLP sourcing requirements by another editor about ten days ago.(, particularly Bishonen's comment citing WP:BLP) Nevertheless, they resumed adding such content, without sourcing, last night, with one revert accompanied by this abusive comment in an edit summary: Instead of removing updates like an idiot, why don't you find the sources yourself and add them, genius? They then added the content back this morning, with some acceptable and some inappropriate sourcing. They have made no effort to discuss or to cite consensus (which I believe is sufficiently shown by the uncontroversial removal of such gossip in the past. I don't see this behavior stopping without formal intervention.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I reverted the page to the last stable version removing the disputed material until a consensus is formed regarding the material.  D u s t i *poke* 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Alcastilloru reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Popular Will

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (by IP  whose editing pattern is very similar to the one of Alcastilloru and who edits exactly the same pages)
 * 2)  (by IP 190.75.114.11)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Previous version reverted to:
 * Movement for Socialism

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  (by IP 190.75.114.11)
 * 8)  (by IP 190.75.114.11)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Alcastilloru has actually used the talk page (here) earlier this month. But when he/she did not meet with consensus, he/she resumed edit warring.

Comments:

Alcastilloru has not breached the 3 reverts rule in 24 hours, but engages in extreme long-term edit-warring. --RJFF (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. User has made no edits since 23 June so this report could be archived by the bot before he returns. If the user or his IP does come back and continue to revert let me know because a block for long-term warring on the Movement article would be justified (Nine reverts of the same thing since June 2). Assuming that he doesn't pick up on the very polite warning on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:50.134.168.16 reported by User:Apokryltaros (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: [link]

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

Comments:

Anonymous editor has been insistent on using Talk:Evolution as a forum to disseminate and advertise its misunderstanding and deliberate refusal to understand "evolution theory versus fact," and has ignored all warnings given to it.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the appropriate venue, but I've issued a block to get the message across. The anon is not "edit warring", they are just being disruptive. I'll keep an eye on them, but for things like this just flag down an admin or post to AN/I. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:22 Male Cali reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Pending)
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: What is this? User:Darkness Shines violated 3 reverts. He/she has dozens of blocks for similar behaviour
 * Administrator's note: I think this one belongs at ANI. Please see the thread there.--v/r - TP 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * See ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Best in the world 56 reported by User:Visuunome (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 561319713 by Visuunome (talk)unsourced"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 561508660 by Visuunome (talk)Dead link poorly sourced content"
 * 3)  "reverting BLP policy violation rm blatant promotional commentary and copyyright violation (a BLP nightmare). and made it into neutral version"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 561628313 by Visuunome (talk)reverting BLP policy violation rm blatant promotional commentary and copyyright violation (a BLP nightmare). and made it into neutral version"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removal of content, blanking on ajith kumar. (TW)"
 * 2)   "explaining the facts behind it"


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


 * Comments:

kindly go through this page that his recent edits affect the page.And his edits like "he acted in that film this film" making the career section as a another filmography by deleting the info of how the actor came up with those things. Visuunome 06:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Surajkrishna1 reported by User:Mathonius (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 561383646 by Mathonius (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 561383646 by Mathonius (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Your edits on User talk:Astronaut */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Undid revision 561384004 by Surajkrishna1 (talk): please see your talk page"


 * Comments:

After I posted a message on his talk page telling him to stop editwarring, he replied on my talk page, saying he would stop and ask Astronaut to remove the section himself, but instead he decided to continue the edit war by reverting once again. Mathonius (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mathonius. Indeed, an apology from Surajkrishna1 for his incivility, would go a long way.  Astronaut (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This report might also have discouraged Surajkrishna1 from continuing the edit war, so maybe/hopefully further action isn't necessary. Mathonius (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since the war is not continuing. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Gavanzo reported by User:M.O.X (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  - Falsely labelled the edit as vandalism
 * 8)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Basically consensus has established that Spanish Catalan is what the lead should display, but this user persists in reverting any attempts at restoring the text as agreed upon in past discussions. I have made 2 reversions to undo vandalism and 3 to restore the compromise text. I should note that this is the second time this user has been warned for 3RR violations, the prior incident being last month on two articles.  James ( T •  C ) • 10:04pm • 11:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As i already mentioned on Requests_for_page_protection i suggest to revert this issue to the stable version of yesterday which was already discussed in Talk:Antoni_Gaudí/Archive_1, we will continue the discussion on the talk but out of the edit war. Gavanzo (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see this consensus you speak of. I see two years of various users bickering about "Spanish Catalan". Good thing there's nothing more important to do on Wikipedia, eh? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well this is pretty stale, as the reported editor hasn't been around and the no one has answered my comment that I can't find consensus anywhere. I'm going to warn Gavanzo about being an SPA. Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Vuzor (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dimensionaut&oldid=561470602

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dimensionaut&oldid=561632069

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An editor, Winkelvi, has been undoing the edits of multiple users on the page, Dimensionaut. Over the past twenty-four hours, said user has made five revisions, and has clashed with users Spanglej and myself, Vuzor. This same user, Winkelvi, has been known to revert our work on this article as well as other related articles, often approaching with an authoritarian and uncompromising demeanor. When multiple editors disagree with Winkelvi's edits, said user resorts to foul language, unfounded accusations and personal attacks, and much hostility, as is well-documented on the Dimensionaut talk page. Negotiating and collaborating with Winkelvi has been difficult, though said user has been corrected multiple times on various topics, and has been proven to still be learning how sources are properly used.

The material in contention is in regards to a concert tour in relation to the Dimensionaut album page. The tour is part of the promotion for the album and is quite closely related; Winkelvi, however, refutes this, and has reverted multiple edits, in the process being quite hostile on the article's talk page. In the past, I have asked that a fourth user intervene and decide on the appropriate action -- Winkelvi did not even want the article page to be posted. I have attempted to work with Winkelvi and have offered to collaborate, but said user has remained hostile and quite impossible to work with, reverting many edits and contributions by other editors, and imposing his/her authority despite disagreeing with the consensus. He/she even told me to work on another article rather than this one, demonstrating a sort of daftness that simply is not appreciated. After reverting Winkelvi's last edit, said user posted a warning on my talk page. Unbeknownst to me, he/she had already reverted the article four times in the past twenty-four hours, reverting the edits of both Spanglej and I in regards to the same material. I reverted the material again, and a three-edit warning was posted on my talk page. I quickly became aware that he/she had reverted the page five times in the past twenty-four hours, extending beyond his/her limits and reverting despite knowing the consequences of his/her actions. This screams of hypocrisy, which only adds to said user's sense of entitlement in trying to revert every contribution others have made without any sort of repercussions. Action must be taken to prevent this authoritarian imposition on this article and its related pages. Vuzor (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor Vuzor has had WP:Synth and WP:NOR pointed out to him at the article talk page, both violations that he chooses to ignore and continues to insist his reasoning is enough to include the unreferenced content in the article, Dimensionaut. The article is about a music album, however, Vuzor insists on inserting content that is about the band and already included in the band article.  The content he keeps re-adding was compiled via both synth and OR.  he has been unable to provide a reliable or complete reference.  I pointed out all of this out several times to him and the other reverting editor on the article talk page. (take a look at the section "Not a promotion tool" you will see the how this whole thing played out) The other editor didn't engage in discussion but stopped reverting.  Vuzor, however, took a stance of WP:IDHT and proceeded to use WP:LAWYER, all the while ignoring the advice he was given.  He then completely ignored the policy pointed out to him re: synth and OR and began reinserting the inappropriate content multiple times.  For whatever reason, he doesn't seem to want to understand the content he has compiled via synth and OR just doesn't belong in the article. I have no desire to edit war over this issue.  I think it's time for someone else to explain to him about synth and OR and how they have no place in an encyclopedia article.  Further, there will be no more removal of the contested content on my part until consensus is sought and reached.  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  16:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, since Winkelvi has agreed to stop removing the disputed tour information. See his comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Faizan (Result:Withdrawn by Faizan as per discussion at the article's talk )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 561642883 by Faizan (talk) The genocide is the primary cause, don't edit war now"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 561642328 by Faizan (talk) the genocide was the main cause don't remove that"
 * 3)  "/* Causes */  the genocide against the Bengalis was a major cause, it should be there"
 * 4)  "This is not an Anti-Muslim violence"
 * 1)  "This is not an Anti-Muslim violence"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Ownership of articles on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Ambiguous article in Causes section */ new section"


 * Comments:

This user has been edit warning on this article before two. Recently he again violated the 3RR rule. Despite attempts of reaching a consensus on his talk and the article's talk, he is not cooperating. He compels me to get him to the ANI. He opts to revert instead of consensus in the talk. Despite several messages in the talk, he does not adhere to discussion there. He has also opted for an AfD in the article, is not ready to yield consensus at its DYK nomination too. Fai zan  09:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Again, User:Faizan has been harassing me by continuously reporting me here without proper reason. I have made only 2 reverts, User:Faizan has made 3 reverts in the article,, , . The user keeps bringing on meaningless disputes and starts edit warring. He has been doing this in 1971 Indo-Pak war as well and was warned by an admin before. -- Zayeem (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The diffs u provided prove nothing. Just concentrate on the article concerned here. Let the admins decide the number of your reverts, and act accordingly. Fai  zan  09:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The admins don't need your suggestions and guidance. Today, on 26th of June, you made four reverts, they are provided above. Fai  zan  09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I made two reverts: They Are: Undid revision 561641586 by Kmzayeem (talk), that article is about the whole of genocide, not about causes of persecution, get a better link and get consensus in talk. Fai  zan  09:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please familiarise yourself with WP:REVERT Fai  zan  09:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, my comments are for the admins, leave it to them. And I guess it's you who first need to know the meaning of "Reversion", misleading others won't help. I have made only two reverts, , that too when you started reverting. You have actually made 3 reverts in that article, , , . You have been indulged in edit wars in a number of pages even after being warned by admins. -- Zayeem (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn the request, I hope that the conflict is solved as per discussion at the article's talk. Fai  zan  12:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

The user is continuously edit warring in many articles. He was also previously warned by an admin, but still continues to do so.-- Zayeem (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No justification. I did report this user earlier above, but I withdrew it in hope of agreement. I even gave him A bowl of strawberries to get out of the episode but in vain. As I have reverted myself even before this report, there is no justification for this report. He is wasting his time here, instead of getting consensus at the article's talk. Fai  zan  14:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You have reverted me 4 times (or even more), so it's definitely a violation. Moreover you just self-reverted when I reported you here. No wonder if it gets closed you'll start removing the hatnotes again.-- Zayeem (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol. The edit history justifies it. I revert myself at 14:29 whereas you reported me here at 14:46. Funny. Fai  zan  15:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, you have violated the 4RR, I can see there is another user started to help you in edit warring in that article. You'll start again pretty soon.-- Zayeem (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * He self reverted so not really any violation. If an admin wanted to be real fussy here you have also violated 3RR. I suggest a close on this and slug it out on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Bardrick reported by User:SchutteGod (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The lede on the article Anglosphere has been subject to repeated reverts and edit-warring. In particular, Bardrick, who rewrote the lede (and in so doing, tried to change the definition of the term as discussed in the article text) and has proceeded to undo every single attempt to revert it. Just your typical edit-warring/3RR user. Please address this problem. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who this is meant for, as I'm not a Wiki editing "expert", but I see this weirdo character "ShutteGod" appears to want to start a fight with me. The situation is thus - I created a (I believe) high quality preamble to the article on the Anglosphere some time back. Recently some1 came, left a vaguely patronising note as to how in their view it was poor & scrapped it, replacing it with something that was far inferior in my view. I then reverted it (without leaving an edit note giving the reasoning as I didn't know how to do that at that point), & then got into an immediate editing spat with 2 other wiki users over it who suddenly appeared from nowhere & both began automatically deleting my text, for what appeared to be v. weak reasoning & excuses. I then left a message on the article's discussion page giving my reasons & trying to engage these other 2 users in a debate about the content, & then this "ShutteGod" character began saying to another guy "let's all club together & get me blocked, get control of the article so we can decide what it should say" - apparently to little effect.

Some1 has created a compromise text which - whilst not as good as the 1 I created in my view - is at least better than the poor 1 that I opposed, so reluctantly I left it at that ... & now this from "ShutteGod" following up on his 1st creepy attempt to get a gang behind him to control Wikipedia

"ShutteGod" appears to have some control-freak bullying tendencies, & I'm a target for it today.

Bardrick (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC) -->Bardrick


 * No matter how much you dislike me or think that I've hatched some secret plot against you, it does not give you the right to break site rules. You cannot engage in edit-warring or disrupt the normal editing process -- not matter how much better you think your own version of the article is. --SchutteGod (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:130.204.188.120 / User:130.204.186.230 reported by S-B (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments:

Requests and warnings in descriptions of changes and user discussion do not help, user 130.204.188.120/130.204.186.230 created edit-wars (also in article of Cuman people ), remove large amounts of data without discussion and consensus and introduces controversial changes. S-B (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Stmannew reported by User:Collect (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  16:10 26 Jun
 * 2)   3:10 27 Jun
 * 3)  12:02 27 Jun
 * 4)  13:00 27 Jun

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  Notified at

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion at his UT Talk page, and he understands there is an issue per his edit summary of Instead of just complaining and making accusations, why don’t you show how and why it isn’t true, after all, wouldn’t Russell’s teapot fall in under philosophy

Comments:

This editor has an Id%C3%A9e_fixe to present on this article (putting it in 5 times now), and does not seem to understand why EW is a problem, and why unsourced claims in articles are likely to be reverted - in this case by three separate people. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

User: Nickst reported by Brudder Andrusha (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Original edit was made for 5 days before user NickSt started edit war. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

—Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No 3RR violation on my part (3 reverts in 24h). But Brudder had 4 reverts. BTW I only reverted unconsensus edits. Another user also revert it. NickSt (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That other user is from Ukraine where NickSt is located using an IP rather than a WP username. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was another user, you can use sockpuppet check. You done 4 reverts in 24h, not me.NickSt (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:75.172.12.104 reported by User:Hasteur (Result:Declined. Not a 3RR violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User came on to the talk page to make a "The current article sucks" complaint. I had contributed over a month ago, and based on the recent additions, I felt that the conversation had seriously devolved from the purpose of the talk page "To Improve the article" to a soapbox where editors who were in the vocal minority of a policy based consensus continue to call the exact same points that have been dismissed for rule/policy/guideline before. I dropped a WP:GS/MMA warning on the user which only enraged the user further. User quotes only the template's rules, whereas I quote WP:TPNO WP:TPG which clearly say that soapboxing should be shut down. IP Address has only recently edited and jumped immediately into the troublesome area of MMA with a very oblique interpertation of the standard operating procedure to the point that I suspect that this is a user who is either editing logged out to avoid scrutiny or a user who has been blocked/banned and is editing anonymously to avoid scrutiny. Hasteur (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

--- Hasteur is pretty clearly violating the rules of that template by trying to shut down all discussion here by a dozen or so users: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_in_UFC#Straw_poll:_the_current_format_is_less_useful_as_an_encyclopedia_than_the_previous_individualized_format. Hasteur's opinion on the matter is opposed to nearly everyone there, so it's not hard to guess what's going on. Of course, when I pointed out it was illegal both on the page, and also on Hasteur's page, he quotes unrelated nonsense and other accusations instead of addressing it to try to end that discussion, too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hasteur#Don.27t_abuse_wikipedia_templates. He also tries to remove my comments many times:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&diff=561977290&oldid=561977204
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&diff=561963044&oldid=561922044

It's pretty clear what's going on and hopeful the admins stop this attempt at abusing power. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Illegal"? "rules of the template"? "abusing power"? He has no more "power" than you do.  Mr. IP, your comments are a textbook example of hyperbole.  He probably shouldn't be archiving discussions he participates in when he is in the minority opinion, but edit warring over it isn't the answer and from what I've seen, you've been combative and have tried (and failed) to wikilawyer at every opportunity.  As I said at the ANI you filed in retaliation, you are as guilty of incivility as he has been, at a minimum. I don't see a need for action at this given moment in time, but you both need to stay away from 3RR and ANI and just try to discuss on the talk page.  And the IP needs to brush up on policy before trying to quote too much of it, as you have a very distorted view of the place. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  16:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hasteur needs to stop closing, the IP needs to stop warring and lawyering pointlessly. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124; WER  16:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not bringing 3RR, bringing Edit Warring. Please re-evaluate. Hasteur (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I determined that sanction wasn't needed. Any admin is free to reconsider and revert any action I have taken.  I have also closed that discussion for a proper reasons, that it didn't belong on the talk page of a single article, but instead at WT:MMANOT since it concerned more than one article.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  16:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't even see this before writing my complaint. I just checked and the complaints are only 7 minutes apart, and I assure you that took longer to figure out how to write. I also literally quoted the one basic rule on the template page, hardly a stretch. I only hope that your warning is heeded by both parties since Hasteur has a habit of removing my comments while keeping his.

Also, btw Hasteur, my reply for your other accusation on the other complaint since that was closed: You linked me directly to that board from my own page, so I took you at your own word, and all I got were crazy conspiracy theories in return. Terrible trade. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:LordZebedee reported by PantherLeapord (talk) (Result: Already blocked.)
Pages:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 10:16, 24 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 561307627 by Drmies (talk)")
 * 2) 12:04, 25 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 561345031 by PantherLeapord (talk)")
 * 3) 10:31, 20 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 560457933 by Woodroar (talk)")
 * 4) 10:56, 21 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 560825641 by Woodroar (talk)")
 * 5) 09:28, 23 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 560912067 by Trekphiler (talk)")
 * 6) 10:16, 24 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 561180913 by Trekphiler (talk)")
 * 7) 12:04, 25 June 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 561340170 by J (talk)")
 * 8) 16:02, 28 June 2013 After this warining that any future revert will lead to an indefinate block
 * 9) 16:03, 28 June 2013 After this warining that any future revert will lead to an indefinate block
 * Diff of warning: here

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

Comments:


 * by Bwilkins. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; © &#124;  WER  23:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Rape and pregnancy controversies
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff

War on Women
 * 1) diff
 * 2) diff
 * 3) diff
 * 4) diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Rape controversies War on Women

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

Comments:

The two articles are closely linked and Arzel has been edit warring in both. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The bit about Nikki Haley on "War on Women" is a serious BLP issue as PolicyMic is basically Examiner.com and the article's author is a "freelance writer" whose real job is being a barrista. Seems that article is getting hit with BLP coatrack material. Rape and pregnancy controversies is getting edit-warring from all sides so going after one editor there would be inappropriate.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Any WP:BLP issue must be taken seriously as a specific exemption from 3RR, and, when in doubt, it is up to the person adding the contentious claims to get a consensus first - I have not looked at who wrote what here, as I wish the principle to stand here, regardless of who the personalities are entirely.Collect (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a little ridiculous. The 4th revert to which CD is complaining is duplicate information to which CD has put into the article several times.  When I informed him that it was already in the article his response was that "controversial both for rape and abortion". edit.  It is really irritating to have editors insert BLP crap into articles on flimsy sources and include the same information multiple times.  Arzel (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * CD alleges that they have "attempted to resolve"; this is impossible to take seriously. The empty motion that CD links to happened yesterday, the diffs alleging EW were days before- this motion could not possibly have affected the changes being complained about.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So in one article, the complaint cites 3 reverts. How does that exceed 3RR?  In the other article, it cites four reverts, with the first occurring on June 20, and the last on June 25.  I'm sure there is a good faith reasoning under which that exceeds three reverts in 24 hours -- perhaps the person who filed the complaint misread the dates.William Jockusch (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an edit warring noticeboard, not specifically a 3RR one, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but Cartoon Diablo DOES, with links, claim 3rr - and multiple editors are merely responding to the baseless claim.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:DrEdna reported by User:Yzx (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This was my first edit about this matter:, full discussion is at Talk:Goblin shark

Comments:

The disputed edit is the placement of File:Goblin shark size.svg in the infobox. I and User:EVula have reverted DrEdna's changes with edit summaries telling them to stop, and EVula has warned them on their user talk page about 3RR. DrEdna has refused to wait for consensus and repeatedly misrepresented the talk page discussion as support for their edit while continuing to revert. -- Yzx (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting to notate that despite consensus for use of the image Yzx disregarded the will of the general public and continued to revert this edit. Continued dialog in both the edit and talk page clearly demonstrates the support for the picture. This notice is more of a personal attack than one based on sound reasoning due to her personal involvement in the edit war versus an onlooker. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 13:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:EnglishEfternamn reported by User:RolandR (Result:Not blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reversions are generally not warranted in this type  of case. Discuss editing differences on Talk page."
 * 2)  "Please don't revert without discussion. Doing so risks violating 3RR rule"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562019432 by Somedifferentstuff (talk) What is the rationale for such a major change?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 562020072 by Somedifferentstuff (talk) Not an edit war. Please take your proposed changes to talk, k thanks"
 * 5)  "*Sigh* This is a common knowledge rebuttal. No socialist group claims that socialist economics somehow don't have budgets."


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


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


 * Comments:

Following the editor's insistence in an edit summary that those reverting his unsourced additions should "take your proposed changes to talk", I advised him "You are attempting to add unsourced contentious material to the article. Therefore, the onus is on you to explain why this should be included, not on other editors to explain why it should be removed." His response was to delete my warning, and to write on my talk page "Accusations of such violations as well as edit warring are very damaging and should not be made lightly. I have invited the editors in this "dispute" to take their concerns to the talk page of the article, but none have taken up the offer to do so." At no stage has this editor attempted to discuss his proposed changes on the talk page, or to offer any rationale other than "This is common knowledge"
 * It is common knowledge that socialist economics acknowledges budget constraints. To say it doesn't is ridiculous, and that's what the article as is implies! I will however, stop editing that article for now. Will return when I find those sources. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  00:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed more unsourced material from User:EnglishEfternamn at the Socialism article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * O_O...this is not edit warring. But even so, I have agreed to stop editing the article for now. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  01:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I should also mention that removing comments from one's talk page is an acceptable practice and that Roland is very quick to do the same thing as soon as I try to have any type of a dialogue with him. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  23:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * EE has agreed not to edit the article in question. He is reminded that "common knowledge" does not exist - only reliably-sourced information does on this project.  He's also reminded to re-read WP:EW a lot more carefully.  As we do not do punishment blocks, there's clearly nothing to prevent at this moment (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Lesson learned. Thank you ,Bwilkins. EnglishEfternamn  *t/c*  01:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Gerrybyrne12 reported by User:Snappy (Result:Both blocked 48hrs )
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:

Comments:

This editor keeps removing factual referenced material from the article of an Irish senator. They replied once on my talk page but since have continued to revert. They have not engaged on their talk page. They are a single purpose editor and seem to be concerned that investigations into the senators expense claims cast him in a bad light. The investigation in suspended but ongoing and fully referenced. They keep removing the referenced material, I keep adding it back, they won't engage. Please advise on the next course of action.


 * . Blocks match - 48 hours due to escalating nature (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Eisfbnore reported by User:Tammarlakkarus (Result:No action: malformed )
Page: Norway's defence minister and Harald Sunde (general)

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne-Grete_Str%C3%B8m-Erichsen&oldid=560427386

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments: The user's previous edit remark "18:52, 12 June 2013‎ Eisfbnore (talk | contribs)‎ . . (2,074 bytes) (-6,787)‎ . . (restore to clean version before activism)". --Tammarlakkarus (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * To any interested admin: please review Sockpuppet investigations/Sju hav and check for similar edit pattern and articles of interest. The above user is a single-purpose account created by a prolific sockmaster with a certain grievance against the Norwegian govt. The modus operandi is pretty much the same: adding a huge amount of undue criticism to an arbitrarily selected Norwegian BLP article. -- Eisfbnore (会話) 11:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:81.108.161.238 reported by User:Masem (Result:Blocked 48 hrs )
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: (note that user removed this comment, so clearly saw it:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The editor is trying to remove the fact the game is a roguelike. While under a strict definition of the term, they are right, both reliable sources and a broader definition of what a roguelike it, it qualifies. The point has been discussed before on the talk page and resolved ambiably before, but the user refuses to acknowledge or discuss the point. Note that this isn't necessarily 3RR in 24hr but it is the intent. --M ASEM (t) 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:NixManes reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result:Blocked 48 hrs )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 560449255 by Mindmatrix (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562082531 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562082531 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
 * 4)  "Add link to URL in text"
 * 5)  "Add link for URL in text"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 


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


 * No talk page discussion was initiated
 * Comments:
 * (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 00:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Jim1138 reported by User:212.183.140.55 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I would have accepted all that as good-faith over enthusiasm, but he continued even after I accepted his point and I also removed unsourced content. He then restored that unsourced content and went on to accuse me of vandalism - that was the last straw as far as I was concerned. 212.183.140.55 (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * IP is POV pushing. His last edit removed "occationally" suggesting "always" Celcius and Fahrenheit broadcast together. Significantly changed the meaning without adding a source. Jim1138 (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP has reverted four times as well. Initial edit, and reverts    (receiving a citation note from Jim each time). They were not officially notified for edit warring, but it seems to me that bringing this case here is sufficient to indicate familiarity with the edit warring rules. Also, this IP has been used for sockpuppetry according to the tag on its userpage. Arc de Ciel (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:Happy Evil Dude (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

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

Comments:

It should be noted that Hullaballo Wolfowitz seems to be going around my edit history, reverting edits as he sees fit on a number of pages. I have attempted to reason with him on various talk pages to no effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Evil Dude (talk • contribs)
 * Maybe try to use the article talk page and you also forgot to sign your comment above. --Malerooster (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Will someone please give Mr Evil Dude a rather strongly worded warning, if not an outright block? He repeatedly added the incorrect claim that Avril Lavigne got married yesterday, despite there being no reliable source for it (just an ambiguously worded Twitter post from an associate of hers). He kept adding it even after tabloid and gossip column reports were discredited (see, e.g., and is still posting claims sourced to discredited tabloid stories. Situations like this show exactly why BLPs shouldn't be sourced to third-party twittering and to tabloids, and editor's like Mr Evil Dude's blithe disregard of that policy and pestering editors whoi insist on implementing it (see another example at User talk:Ponyo).

Please also note that User:Happy Evil Dude has racked up four reverts on April Lavigne in the last 20 hours or so, the last with a deliberately deceptive edit summary, and has therefore clearly earned a nontrivial block. (For the record, I haven't broken 3RR and am claiming the BLP exemption for removing an unreliably sourced (and clearly discredited) claim that the article subject had married.) I'll also note that just a few days ago the same editor violated 3RR on the same article Mandy Moore, and was let off without even a warning, despite their repeated associate incivility. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Happy Evil Dude has repeatedly added poorly sourced, gossip-laden material to the BLPs of young female celebrities. It has been pointed out to them repeatedly and across multiple venues that when their edits are reverted citing sourcing and BLP concerns, per WP:BURDEN they need to get consensus via talk page discussion as to whether the material is appropriate, not WP:UNDUE, and the sources satisfactory. They edit tendentiously to restore the gossip to BLPs and at this point if they continue to hop from article to article adding (and edit-warring to restore) dating histories sourced to such high-brow websites as The Daily Mail then WP:BLPBAN may be in order.--Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to reply to this? I really have no idea how this works, but I guess I will in any case. I have not added an "incorrect claim that Avril Lavigne got married yesterday". I added a claim that all news sources were reporting, which was that Avril (and not April) got married yesterday. When this was revealed to be false and it was only the wedding celebrations that had begun, with the actual wedding to take place tomorrow, I updated the information and sources. I have not pestered anyboy, rather, "Mr Wolfowitz" has been pestering me for days, reverting strongly sourced edits I've made to a number of pages. I have also not racked up "four reverts" to the Avril Lavigne page and I certainly didn't put any "deliberately deceptive summary". My last edits on the page concern Lavigne's French citizenship which was a surprising glaring omission that I felt needed to be corrected. It is also untrue that I "violated 3RR on the same article" "just a few days ago". From memory I have never before done an edit on Avril Lavigne's page, and if I have it must have been years ago, as I generally restrict myself mostly to film/tv related pages. Finally since Hullaballoo here seems intent on making this personal, it should be noted that his talk page is littered with complaints from other users. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr Evil Dude is correct that I mentioned the wrong article is discussing his 3RR violation earlier this week; the violation occurred at Mandy Moore, not Avril Lavigne. My bad. Very little else they say is correct. It is certainly false to say that "all news sources were reporting" the supposed wedding; that was the domain of a few tabloids and gossip sites. Mr Evil Dude never cited the claim to a reliable news outlet, only to a personal Twitter feed and (well after the claim was discredited) to a tabloid. The "number of pages" on which I am supposedly pestering Mr Evil Dude is a whopping three, all previously on my watchlist, always involving BLP issues I work on regularly. There are recent talk page discussions at Emily VanCamp and Mandy Moore, and Mr Evil Dude's claims have not been supported by any other editors. This is, fundamentally, a complaint by an editor who added false information to a BLP that another editor has removed it. The nature of that wholly spurious complaint is enough of a demonstration of disruptive editing to justify suspension of Evil Dude's editing privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * news sources who reported the supposed wedding: CTV News, RTÉ, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Pacific Coast News (a Reuters-style news agency), Yahoo!, Gossip Cop, Daily Mirror, MSN, The Daily Beast, The Belfast Telegraph, Toronto Sun, Us Weekly, People, E!, Cinema Blend, Sault Star,.......... need I go on? Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of which you cited, then or now, except the notoriously inaccurate Mail, which you didn't cite until after the report was discredited. You edit warred over an incorrect claim without any reliable sourcing, violated BLP, and now complain that The Big Bad Wolfowitz corrected your rather conspicuous mistake. With that approach, it's hard to see why you should be allowed to edit an encyclopedia that values accuracy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

User:76.189.109.155 reported by User:155blue (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 562275234 by I B Wright (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562274904 by I B Wright (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562274378 by I B Wright (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 562274284 by I B Wright (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 562272316 by 155blue (talk) i told you several times to stay the fuck off my talk page"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 562272028 by 155blue (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 562271532 by 155blue (talk) I told you to stay off my talk page.. educate yourself on WP:BLANKING (and, again, you added a SECOND template)"
 * 8)  "re-added template rm due to incompetent editing by 155"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 562271340 by 155blue (talk) 155blue stay off my talk page, you added a SECOND template to my page, learn how to use that tool"
 * 10)  "I B Wright, stay  off my talk page and quit posing as an admin"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 562269745 by I B Wright (talk)troll"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 562254851 by Bbb23 (talk) there is no requirement that it be at the top of the page"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 562215043 by Toddst1 (talk) see your talk page to discuss, WP:BLANKING did not exclude it the day it was removed, until you added it 16 days later."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 562269745 by I B Wright (talk)troll"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562254851 by Bbb23 (talk) there is no requirement that it be at the top of the page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562215043 by Toddst1 (talk) see your talk page to discuss, WP:BLANKING did not exclude it the day it was removed, until you added it 16 days later."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 562215043 by Toddst1 (talk) see your talk page to discuss, WP:BLANKING did not exclude it the day it was removed, until you added it 16 days later."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on User talk:76.189.109.155. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on User talk:76.189.109.155. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* For making me laugh at User talk:Yunshui#Move-protected article */  deleting extra template"
 * 3)   "placing warning at top of page"
 * 4)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"


 * Comments:
 * This user has gone against the direct order of admins in order to start the edit war. 155blue (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Haha, this is regarding my own talk page. 155blue is clearly uneducated about 3RR, NOT3RR, WP:BLANKING, WP:OWNTALK and WP:DRRC. I've tried to explain it to them, but they will not listen or simply don't understand. You guys can try explaining it to them. Good luck. And of course take a quick glance at my talk page history to see the flood of edits from 155blue and another editor named I B Wright. I didn't waste my time filing here about them. I'm dealing with that with some admins. Btw, 155blue failed to mention that there is a current ANI discussion going on, which includes this issue. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * This complaint is astounding. While blanking one's own talk page may be antisocial, it cannot possibly be considered an edit war. User:155blue has a recent history of starting inappropriate administrative actions against other users. I've attempted to engage him or her in a discussion regarding this, but found my comments blanked from 155blue's own talk page. This investigation should be closed immediately, and 155blue should stop creating a hostile environment and wasting other editors' time. Pburka (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * . This is being handled at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The decline reason is quite interesting and misleading, considering the fact that I did not edit war and the AN, which Bbb23 himself started (he failed to mention that above), was not the reason the AN was opened. And, more to the point, that AN doesn't even attempt to decide if I was edit warring. It was my own talk page for heaven's sake, and of course none of the WP:NOT3RR exemptions apply to what the reporter was doing. And I'd suggest you take a look at the reporter's history of improperly reporting other editors for different false allegations at various noticeboards, and being warned about it. In fact, they even reported this alleged edit warring by me at the vandalism noticeboard ! And of course they also posted about it in the AN disucssion. So, the next time someone reports edit warring that isn't edit warring, say that. And don't ignore the reporter's own actions, as was done here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Causes */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562364109 by Faizan (talk) a non-involved editor should remove them after the disputes are resolved"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Faizan (talk): The unresolved issue is related to POV so the tags must be there unless the dispute is resolved, let's take it to the talk page. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted good faith edits by Darkness Shines (talk): There is another discussion below which is not mentioned in the RfC, needs to be resolved. (TW)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* RfC: Should now the redundant tags be removed? */ re"


 * Comments:

An obvious rule violation. He has engaged in several edit conflicts on the same article. He restored the tags, which were removed by Darkness Shines after a clear-cut consensus at the RfC at the talk. Despite being opposed by several editors, he started reverting multiple editors, and violated 3RR rule. The number of reverts shall be decided by the admins, so there shall be no forum-discussion here about them. Please, User:Kmzayeem, let the admins handle the report, and don't cause inconvenience like you did at the previous reports. Fai zan  09:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've made only 3 reverts here and Faizan also made equal number of reverts. In the RfC, three out of the five participants were supporting Fiazan in the dispute. Moreover, Faizan himself started a new thread below in the talk page on a new dispute regarding POV which is still unresolved. Faizan, even after being involved in the dispute, continuously removing the tags and I've reverted them.-- Zayeem (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your restoration of this puts you on 4 reverts. Perhaps a promise from you to stop warring in these tags and stick to the talk page would help you out here? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One further comment, Faizan refers to a previous report. If that is in the time period 11-13 June it was an IP sock of Nangparbat and has to be discounted. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can promise but what about Faizan and his gang? They keep reverting me, they have removed the tags as well as my addition to the cause section, now what about that? I've always participated in the talk page, in fact when I reverted you in the first place, I replied in the article talk page as well as on your talk page, this could have been sorted between you and me, but Fiazan interfered and reverted me, starting the edit war.-- Zayeem (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * --regentspark (comment) 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: )
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 similar revert (linking Kurds with Syrian rebels despite consensus against it on the talk page):
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: He's been reverted by 3 editors and misrepresents sources too. He has been warned by two admins over Syria-related edits ( and ) Pass a Method   talk  14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you retracting this report and sticking to the talkpage. You made 4 reverts yourself - 5 when you include the fact that you self-admittedly made 2 reverts in one edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondly I believe a few of mine are not true reverts, as I simply used it to add reliable sources to reinforce the edit with context. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also very smooth of you for warning me at 14:35 when my last edit on the page itself was at 14:15. Sopher99 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just took a look at the difs you put - number 1 is from June 24. Number 2 is from June 25. Number 3 is from 12:30 June 30. Sopher99 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sopher99 has twice reverted an edit that would add the USA flag to the "supported by" list corresponding to the opposition belligerent in the Syrian Civil War infobox using the same justification. Sopher99's justification for first revert is "12:36, 30 June 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,505 bytes) (-264)‎ . . (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323419604578569830070537040.html " plans to" - first paragraph) (undo | thank)". Sopher99's justification for second revert is "08:18, 1 July 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,336 bytes) (-242)‎ . . (Guys please read more carefully, WSJ source says USA plans to -haven't yet http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323419604578569830070537040.html Also restoring collapsible list) (undo | thank)" Does Sopher99 think this argument is valid, clear, and does not need to be explained further? All three of these points are wrong.
 * First, the argument is invalid. Sopher99's argument is based on a fallacy. The process of arming the rebels proceeds in several steps, but for the purpose of this article, there are two steps: (a) move weapons to Jordan and (b) arm small groups. The source article indicates that (a) has started and (b) has been planned. Sopher99 argues that in order for the USA to be counted as supporting the rebels, (b) must have commenced, in other words, Sopher99 is arguing that the CIA initiating a two-part process, the purpose of which is to arm rebels, does not count as "supporting the rebels" because the arms are not in the hands of the rebels. This point of view is simply incorrect. The intent of the CIA is to arm the rebels, and the process encompassing (a) and (b) has started.
 * Second, the argument is not clear. Sopher99 has picked out two words from the source article and derives a conclusion which appears to be "US has not started supporting a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War". What is the intermediate reasoning? We don't know because Sopher99 has not explained. Sopher99 has this to say in support of his revert: "Anyway back to the point, belligerents are consistent combatants, not suppliers." This point is not relevant, for an explanation as to why it is not relevant, please see Talk:Syrian_civil_war.
 * Third, the argument needs to be explained further. Sopher99 needs to discuss the matter with the other editors. Without discussion, how can we reach consensus? How can the other editors gain greater insight into Sopher99's point of view?
 * In summary, by not discussing these reverts, Sopher99 is not following Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy that states that discussion is the process that is used to resolve conflicts per BRD. I don't see how this can go anywhere good without discussion. I hope that Sopher99 can reach a consensus with the other editors, but in order to do this, all parties must act in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. These edits do not, by themselves, constitute edit warring (2 reverts an edit war do not make), but they are consistent with a pattern edit warring and with the charge of edit warring leveled by User:Pass_a_Method.DavidBrooksPokorny (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Anonymous209.6 reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Cartoon Diabolo has made NO attempts to resolve or even speak to anyone. Cartoon Diabolo has merely seen ANs on editors they do not like and decided (after this one got hatted by an admin) to re-post them. Both this and the above are duplicates of posts by Casprings on AN, reformatted and re-posted ALSO on ANI.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Per request at ANI Anon's issues have been moved here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

On the administrator board, I was simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing. But I don't think the problem is over four reverts in 24 hours. It is just constant POV pushing and edit warring. Its a long term problem with POV pushing I was trying to report. Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013
 * Cartoon Diabolo has posted an allegation of 3rr that has no conceivable foundation, and no diffs or links--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out I have tried to address the issues with him. In fact, I have a whole section of his talk page dedicated to me.Casprings (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no ALSO about this (aka CD attempt). There also is no TRY(aka Caspring attempt). Casprings has made minimal, pro-forma contributions to Talk, and INSTEAD of making arguments, repeatedly files empty motions, that have the effect of confusing discussion, never adding to. Already warned about tendentious filing of RfCs INSTEAD of engaging editors on Talk.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * As I explained above, I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. Casprings is unique in doing repetetive BLIND reverts (aka unjustified). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Also note that Cartoon Diablo seems to be filing these poorly fleshed-out and baseless reports because they saw some edit conflict (note BLP issues in removal of material) in which they mostly were not involved; they DID have a conflict with Arzel only, on a different page, the page I was editing, CD's contributions were small. BRD really does not apply here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

\ The word "stale" applies here with 8RR in 10 days (counting every example given as a revert, to be fair to the OP), and nothing to indicate that any block would be other than simply punitive (as well as late). Going to the drama boards about every "opposing editor" has been one of the single greatest weaknesses of Wikipedia, and we likely ought to discourage this "post complaints about everyone" syndrome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is seeing revert-warring between multiple editors on both sides as noted above in the request regarding Arzel. CD is one of the edit-warriors, with Casprings and Roscelese being the most determined reverters opposing Arzel and Anonymous.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * TDA; Arzel makes arguments, and justifies most reverts. I have justifications and Talk page arguments for just about every action, and both Arzel and I have several WP:BLP deletions that are exempt. In fairness, I would not include Roscelese, as they often edit, not revert, and often justify. Casprings, on the other hand has no or few (if you can make sense of any) arguments on Talk, just motions, and has justifications like POV that are not adequate for the edits; in fact, without explanation (and none have such followup), blindly tagging other editors' with POV is considered WP:PA
 * Also forgot to add - CartoonDiablo, while I agree is making only unconstructive edits, really hasn't made that many on the Article in question, so blocking for Edit Warring in this case would be premature. Looking for other people fighting with an editor (presumably Arzel) with whom you have a beef, and doing nothing but trying to aggravate those, and inflame conflicts, as the edit history and these two spurious and unsupported reports show, however IS a really, really good reason to block the filer.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Diff number 4 above # diff appears to me to be more a clarification than a revert. That said, I haven't been following the article lately; is there a reason I'm missing why this is incorrect?William Jockusch (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of my edits are clear edits, and counter-edited in several cases to get a compromise wording. Multiple BLP removals, clearly marked, do not comprise edit-warring. Casprings repeatedly just hits revert, even after long stability, and without addressing any issues. CD is similar, but really doesn't edit on this page - they are just picking a fight on another page to continue an edit war with a different editor on a different page.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would note that user:anonymous209.6 recently made an edit, despite the fact there there was no consensus for that edit on the talk page. The edit is here,, and the discussion is here.. I would call on him and all editors of this page to gain consensus and if needed, uninvolved editors, to resolve these differences. Casprings (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:69.235.4.44 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 562123832 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562123832 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 562087118 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 561633689 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Scarface (1983 film). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Vandalism on Scarface (1983 film). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User making unexplained edits, refusing to discuss, ignoring provided guidelines and edit warring with two editors over content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP user has made almost ten reverts and has never left an edit summary or a talk page comment. Perhaps the semiprotection will bring him to the talk page to explain his rationale. His opponents have argued against keeping the names of these additional cast members and they say that WP:FILMCAST calls for their exclusion. It is up to consensus whether the additional names belong in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:IIIraute reported by User:Completeaerogeek (Result: Articles protected)
Page: Page: User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Whittle&action=history# [diff]
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IIIraute

G'day Wikipedia mediators! I have attempted to correct 2 articles - Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain, which are interrelated. Given that the events described are seminal ones in aviation and world history, the entries should be corrected. The corrections concern Hans von Ohain's previous knowledge of Whittle's work and the incorrect use of the terminology 'operational' to describe a prototype of von Ohain's engine. Despite the user's source being generally reliable, the definition is not correct and I have cited both military and civilian sources to confirm this. It is a lay person's description that gives the impression that the engine was operationally ready which it never was. Further the updated information I have provided consists of several first-hand quotes from Ohain which clearly refute the generalised and frequently stated opinion that he was unaware of Whittle's work. Despite this being more recent information (from a published biography)than any of IIIraute's sources which use nonspecific opinions, he continues to remove the updates. The user IIIraute has reverted them repeatedly despite the fact that the information I have is more recent, a first person confirmation and properly cited. I believe there is a national bias here. I have included the links as best I know how and the conversation below. I have tried to discuss this with him but he simply reverts the work. He is reverting to older inaccurate sources. The adherence to outdated information to suit personal ends does not help Wiki's reputation.

I have invited the user to discuss this offline but he has not responded. In my job as a university lecturer (with a Master's Degree in this area) I have just this month had BSc students who have submitted papers containing this erroneous information by using outdated sources listed in Wiki. My attempt here is to correct the record so that accurate information is listed. It appears that the user in question would prefer to use sources from 1968 that say no-one has ever landed on the moon because it serves personal beliefs rather than documented evidence from 1969 of Apollo 11. Knowledge must be frequently updated as new facts come to light otherwise we have mythology rather than history.

I would be grateful for your help.

Cheers Completeaerogeek (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC) ____

__________________________________________________________________________ Comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IIIraute Ohain and Whittle[edit]

Would you please explain why you reverted the changes to the article I edited?

I have provided citation.

The term 'operational' is not correct for Ohain's engine before Sept 1937. Operational in a gas turbine has a specific engineering meaning and means able to complete a Brayton cycle. Ohain's bench test was driven by an electric motor. It was not run under its own power i.e. was not 'operational' until September.

Even 'operational' is not entirely correct. An engine or aircraft is not technically operational until it has been cleared for service. (IOC) Ohain's engines were never cleared for service and in fact were technical dead ends that were never developed into an operational engine.

Completeaerogeek. MSC Tech (Aviation)

Further Ohain was aware of Whittle's work. He is specifically quoted as saying so. If you have evidence that this quotation is fabricated please offer it.Completeaerogeek (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Please "read" the reference before removing content, thank you. ⇒ [3] The book you are citing is not news - other sources say different, for example → " He and Frank Whittle worked independently of one another, their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention."[4] --IIIraute (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Please read Ohain's own words at[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You cannot refuse a first person quote as reported by a reliable source on the basis of a generalised opinion. Mistakes can be repeated year after year and cross cited. Your point has no academic value. A generalized statement has no original source. I have quoted an original source. Unless you can prove it is a fabrication, a first person quote from Ohain trumps a thousand generalized opinions.

By deleting a verified piece of evidence both technically and on authorship you are accepting a far lower level of evidence. It's like quoting Wiki as a source. Not acceptable in any academic field.Completeaerogeek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss offline but if you keep removing my corrections I will lodge a dispute resolution. This is silly. The rules of academic evidence are clear on this. If you can refute Ohain's own words or if you can prove that his first prototype engine achieved 'operational status' under either of the technical definitions (or any other suitable engineering equivalent) I will withdraw my changes. The rest of your article is interesting and informative. It is a shame to see it spoiled by inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my corrections. I have provided you with evidence. I have verifiable sources that meet a higher standard of evidence. I have provided cite3d definitions to support my corrections. Unless you can disprove or invalidate the evidence you are knowingly reinstating false assertions. I will provide this to the dispute resolution people. You do not own the information. When new evidence comes to light any good researcher will verify and then embrace it.Completeaerogeek (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I am filing a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

First of all, I have not violated 3RR, i.e not done more than three reverts within 24 hours. Secondly, I was the editor giving you notice (three times!) about your edit warring →, , , however you did choose to continue your reverts. You repeatedly removed long standing referenced content, in favour for your unreferenced changes, for example →, ,.

Also, I did answer your talk-page message, telling you to read the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", as well as the "The Draper Prize" reference, before you remove sourced content.

I was the editor asking the admin "SlimVirgin" to protect the Frank Whittle article → - what the admin did.

I also have contributed to the Hans von Ohain talk-page → - what you did not.

What you seem to think is "news" is a book that was published more than twelve years ago - it isn't news at all. Furthermore, your claim is not supported by the source: "Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)" → WP:CHERRYPICKING - only when filing his patent, he came across something that "looked like a patent of an idea" (his patent attorney found it during a patent search, but that doesn't mean he started from that idea) → "Von Ohain began development of the turbojet engine in the 1930s while pursuing his doctoral studies at Goettinger University in Germany. He and Frank Whittle worked independently of one another, their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." This matter has been thoroughly discussed before → ,

A couple of sources, all published within the last three years (I can give you another twenty!):

"Heinkel's backing allowed von Ohain to progress rapidly, and by 1937 (though entirely unaware of Whittle's work, as was Whittle of his) he successfully tested an engine in his workshop." Kenneth W. Ragland, Kenneth M. Bryden, Combustion Engineering, Second Edition, 2011 - page 506

"Von Ohain and his patent attorney were unaware of Whittle's work and of Guillaume's 1921 patent, whose existence, as von Ohain later noted, “should have been the cause for the rejection of practically all further turbojet patents”..." Vaclav Smil, Two Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines, 2010, page 92

"In 1930, Frank Whittle (UK) submitted patents for a gas turbine engine, which potentially offered much higher thrust than a piston engine. In 1935, Hans von Ohain (Germany) started work on a similar design while completely unaware of Whittle's work..." Thomas A. Ward, Aerospace Propulsion Systems, 2010 page xiv

"Meanwhile in Germany, unaware of Whittle's work, Hans von Ohain had developed his own theory of jet propulsion in 1933, while studying for a doctorate in physics and aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen." Adam Hart-Davis, Engineers, 2012, page 335

⇒ Sources on von Ohain being the designer of the first "operational " jet engine:

"Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain, (born Dec. 14, 1911, Dessau, Ger.—died March 13, 1998, Melbourne, Fla., U.S.), German designer of the first operational jet engine." Encyclopaedia Britannica

"While Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine, Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent..." J. S. Rao, ,History of Rotating Machinery Dynamics, 2011, page 37

"...Ohain, the 25-year-old Doktor Ingenieur was able to produce the world's first operational turbojet engine..." Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War, 2007, page 17

"...the first operational jet engine was designed in Germany by Hans Pabst von Ohain and powered the first jet-aircraft flight on Aug. 27, 1939." Robert Curley, One Hundred Most Influential Inventors of All Time, 2010, page 237

I would also like to ask you to refrain from personal attacks, such as mentioned above: "I believe there is a national bias here." and your other patronizing sarcasm. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Both articles have been protected until 3 July by User:SlimVirgin. If the war continues after protection expires, blocks are likely. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. Because of the complexity of this topic it probably needs a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/221.92.163.122 reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (as ) "Reworded to better reflect film. Does not describe as facts, merely explores a different theory. Big difference"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 562362068 by Bobrayner (talk) Agreed. But best to keep personal opinions off completely and keep everything relevant."
 * 3)  "Then go discuss it. What a ridiculously irrelevant comment it is. Why that comment above all others, or that comment at all? Stick to facts and let people make up their own minds. Don't mislead."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 562364272 by Peacemaker67 (talk) I wasn;t under the impression that Wiki was to be used as propaganda..."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 562436236 by Bobrayner (talk) Discussed and community agrees how ridiculous it is."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring */ new section"

The IP has refused to follow WP:BRD, despite being asked to here and here.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

This IP is almost certainly being used by the same editor (122.20.16.89) that started the edit-warring on this article, both are editing from dynamic IPs in Japan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate we have fewer admins to do more work these days. Could I please get someone to have a look at this, it continues, per, and . Thanks, Peacemaker67  (send... over) 02:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * and again . A little help would be appreciated, I have asked for pending changes (which was rejected), and have now asked for semi, but the behaviour needs to be addressed regardless. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Since it's a war by an IP-hopper, any specific block would be quickly circumvented. The IP editor wants to remove 'personal opinions' from the article, and for that reason he is warring to remove a statement by the film-maker about his own film? EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently. Thanks, Ed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright reported by 76.189.109.155 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Here are all the relevant edits:


 * 16:18, 30 June 2013‎ - How my talk page looked right before I B Wright's first edit

Revert 1 17:00, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright relocates a template on my talk page that I had placed lower on the page


 * Since this is my first edit, then by definition it cannot be a revert.  is therefore guilty of exageration if nothing else (but he did that at the ANI on him as well where he grossly exagerated the number of edits that I had made). I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 17:02, 30 June 2013 – I move the template back to its original location

Revert 2 17:11, 30 June 2013 – IB Wright moves the template for the second time and says "I feel a block coming on"
 * 17:09, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright posts a comment
 * 17:11, 30 June 2013 – I remove I B Wright's comment
 * 17:13, 30 June 2013 – I move the template (again) back to its original location and because of their edit warring, I say, "I B Wright, stay off my talk page" in the edit summary

Revert 3 17:43, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright moves the template for the third time and says "There is only one way to stop these posts and reversion a to your talk page and that is to ABIDE BY THE RULES"
 * 17:43, 30 June 2013 – I move the template again

Revert 4 17:44, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright adds the template again, which is a duplicate of the one already lower on the page


 * No, that's only three reverts. Once again you prove that you cannot count. I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * 17:44, 30 June 2013 – I removed the duplicate template


 * 17:48, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright posts a comment that says "And you have now exceeded WP:3RR so a block in now guaranteed."
 * 17:49, 30 June 2013 – I removed I B Wright's comment

Revert 5 17:51, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright restores the comment I removed
 * That's not a fifth revert but a first revert of the edit in question. You cannot aggregate up different edits to try and construct a large edit war. I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Clearly, I B Wright was fully aware of WP:3RR because they alluded to edit warring and my potential block mulitiple times. And they also refuse to accept WP:NO3RR. I asked them to stay off my talk page, but they ignored that request by continuing the same behavior. Then at a subsequent discussion at AN, I B Wright posted the following comments regarding my alleged edit warring:
 * 17:47, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright proclaims that I've violated 3RR: "In view of the continued edit warring. WP:3RR has certainly been exceeded"
 * 19:09, 30 June 2013 - At AN, I reiterate 3RR and NOT3RR, explaining again that has the user who is actually edit warring is them, not me.
 * 07:36, 1 July 2013 – I B Wright says I'm wrong and calls me "a liar": "An editor who cannot count. I only made seven (7) edits, and one of those was to remove a comment that somehow posted twice. At no time did I revert anything more than three times, so that makes you a liar. I may have reverted two different edits three times but that is not 3RR."

Intesestlingly, another editor, 155blue, who, as you can see, also edit warred on my talk page during the same time period at I B Wright, filed this AN/EW report earlier. I think this reply by Pburka effectively addresses the report. It was also explained there that there was a current AN discussion taking place, which partially included this issue. Remarkably, 155blue also reported my alleged edit warring at the vandalism noticeboard at the same time! That of course was quickly ignored and dumped by an admin.

For this report, what makes I B Wright's edit warring particularly disturbing is the fact that it was not done in an article, but rather in someone else's talk page. I don't know how many reports you get here about this type of situation, but it seems remarkable that a user would so aggressively edit war in someone else's talk page of all places. And of course nothing in WP:NOT3RR exempted any of the editor's reverts. The editor made it clear through their various comments that they were well aware of the edit warring guidelines, yet continued the flood of edits and reverts on my talk page, even after they were asked not to return. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * . The tussle between these two editors is known at WP:AN and does not need to be brought here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Bbb23, you are the last person who should be handling this report. You of course are extremely involved and in fact are the editor who filed the AN. The AN is not about edit warring and doesn't even address if I've edit warred. So please remove the decline and allow an uninvoled admin to handle this. This isn't about a "tussle" with anyone. It's about I B Wright's edit warring on my talk page. So please revert your involvement here and allow this report to be handled on its own merits. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I B Wright's edit warring on my talk page may be "known" at that AN, but that is solely because I mentioned it there. But it most certainly isn't being investigated there, nor even discussed. I have filed a legitimate report here and I would ask that it please be evaluated and decided by an admin with no involvement in the situation at AN. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is made out of nothing more than spitefulness. It is interesting to note that 155blue has made more edits and more reversions than I did and yet no complaint has been made. At the top of this very page it says, "Reverting vandalism ... is not edit warring." Removing the established vandal static IP address maintenance template is vandalism as it is prohibited by WP:REMOVE and therefore falls outside of edit warring as defined above. I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's made out of proof, as shown above. You violated WP:3RR by a mile. And although 155blue was very annoying, she did not violate 3RR, although she certainly violated the spirit of it. Now all you need to do is understand what WP:3RR, WP:NOT3RR, and WP:VANDALISM are. You have just proven that you have no idea what any of them mean. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, although long on accusation, you are very short in the proof department. At the top of this AN you claim 5 reverts.  But you have not posted any diffs covering 5 reverts.  You have one first edit followed by 3 reverts.  You then have a second different edit followed by a single revert.  No violation of the WP:3RR rule there then.  As for what consitutes non edit warring, I merely cut and pasted the text from the head of this AN page.  The only person misinterpreting anything around here is you.


 * But this is all accademic because this AN has already been declined (and declined almost immediately). It is very unlikely to be opened again because any admin can see that you are just trying to raise enough disinformation to try and help your lost cause.  The fact that there is still no outcome at the AN against you shows that the admins are still considering what action to take against you - and it is fairly clear that some action is going to be taken.  I B Wright (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Apparently, it will take someone else to educate you on these matters. And for the record, the current status of this report is "Declined", not "No Violation", which is the one used when the editor being reported did not edit war. See thread below. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, someone has just advised me that any edit that "correctly placed the template back at the top of the page" does not constitute a revert because your movement of it elsewhere was disruptive editing.  The status of 'Declined' means that your rant is not even being given any consideration so there is no liklihood of any 'violation' coming out of this so it's as good as a no violation (but then you still have not posted any evidence to the contrary).  I B Wright (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Randykitty reported by User:5thfloorlattimore (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

The text that is changed in these edits is: "According to Google Scholar, the journal is ranked 15th among the top 20 journals in philosophy, and"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The discussion at Randykitty talk sums up the disagreement over whether to include reference to Google Scholar or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5thfloorlattimore (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Bringing User:Randykitty here is without merit. User:Randykitty has, in fact, intiated a discussion on the article's talk page, in which User:5thfloorlattimore has not participated, , , . Also, as can be seen by the diffs, consensus is against including material that User:5thfloorlattimore wishes to add to the article.


 * Additionally, despite the consensus, an anonymous IP added the material again, which was reverted by another user attempting to help resolve the issue , but who did not participate in the talk page consensus. I believe this is 5 to 1 against User:5thfloorlattimore, and 5 to 2 against if the anonymous IP is included. In any case, Randykitty has not engaged in edit warring by any means.  Steve Quinn (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Randykitty sought consensus on the article talk page; the IP address, who I strongly suspect is 5thfloorlattimore editing while logged out, is ignoring that consensus. 5thfloorlattimore, if you don't want to be struck by the WP:BOOMERANG, then I suggest you start to respect the outcome of the discussion. WilliamH (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkingYouth reported by User:Sitush (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: User talk:ThinkingYouth

Comments:

The primary issue here is an image that has been re-uploaded to Commons after a prior deletion. As previously, there are copyright concerns - see - and ThinkingYouth has been exhibiting COI/POV tendencies when it comes to matters relating to this new political party and its potential election candidates. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved comment: I've seen ThinkingYouth try to edit-war an edit warring notice onto Sitush's talk page - they've posted it twice now, and had it reverted both times. Not a sign of a user that is here to improve the Wiki. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * TY has definitely made four full reversions today, so he has crossed the brightline rule. He keeps putting unsupported facts into a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And they are now warring at Aam Aadmi Party also. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. The user broke 3RR and apparently violated copyright. He has been adding material to a BLP article which appears to have no reliable source. The warnings that were given to him seem to have had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:ThinkingYouth (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sitush

Comments:

The primary issue here is undue content removal by Sitush .Sitush contested the origin/authenticity of an image and later thy deleted date of birth of BLP article and other important info and wiki-links. Sitush has been exhibiting COI/POV tendencies when it comes to matters relating to this new political party and its members. - TY  of  Walk 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why did you copy part of Sitush's statement about you? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Comment I just looked at the article history and only see two reverts by Sitush. Might I ask why you are added unsourced content to a BLP ThinkingYouth. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment, ThinkingYouth is now on 4 reverts on this article. I have asked him ot eslf revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * TY, how can I be displaying POV when I've supported you on quite a few issues at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party? I'm playing by the policies and guidelines, that's all. 3RR and copyright violation are pretty much bright lines, as is much of WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. Only three reverts on July 2, and removing copyvios is exempt from 3RR. See WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:189.176.191.214 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Note: After 3 editors warned him about edit-warring and 3RR, he appears to be attempting to game the system by continuing to revert some hours after 3X in 24 hours, and using an apparent sock-puppet to make the exact same 4th edit within the 24-hour frame.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  05:58, 1 July 2013
 * 2)  14:06, 1 July 2013‎
 * 3)  00:09, 2 July 2013‎
 * 4)  An apparent sock edit removing the exact same information occurred  04:05, 2 July 2013‎ Gweis
 * 5)  21:55, 2 July 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by User:Widr,  by User:Pratyya Ghosh

Comments:

Consistent removal of properly sourced RS information, as noted by three editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. IP inserting nonsense. He has removed well-sourced information from the article for no apparent reason. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sticks830 formerly User:Carly3737 reported by User:superfly94 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:  formerly

Previous version reverted to: #

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This section (History - 1985) seems to be a point of contention as dispute resolution was used in the past with a different editor User:Nancyinthehouse. This current dispute seems to rely on inside knowledge of User:Carly3737, as evidenced by their latest comment in the talk section. I have asked for a reference but suspect it will not be forthcoming as I have already researched the WMSCOG website. Also, if such evidence was there, User:Nancyinthehouse would have found it and used it already for that same portion.

The initial edits done by User:Carly3737 in the History section were reverted and I explained in the talk section that this portion had already been agreed upon using DR. I also deleted a reference to a prophesy in the Bible as there was no actual passage ref'd. User:Carly3737 deleted the portion again at which point I reverted it back to its original and explained that, if User:Carly3737 had an issue, that perhaps 3O or DR would be the way to go and they should initiate such a procedure. This hasn't been done. Instead User:Carly3737 deleted the portion once again and, in the Talk section, explained why the portion shouldn't be included. Unfortunately the information included does not cite any reference and thus is unreliable.

If it weren't for the time lapse between edits, this could be considered classic 3RR.

My argument for keeping this section is simply that the founder of the WMSCOG and NCPCOG is the same person and both churches were one until shortly after his death in 1985, at which point they split. The references for both churches support this as there is a huge overlap on both their histories on their websites. User:Carly3737's argument is that they are two completely separate entities and that the NCPCOG is lying in their history. Superfly94 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Carly3737 has edited the portion in dispute after notification of this process. Superfly94 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

From Carly 3737: I did list a reference website as requested but then was blocked from editing anymore. So, the evidence is there. Just because one user didn't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Here are two website references that explain the history as I had mentioned. http://www.thetruewmscog.com/ncpcog-vs-christ-ahnsahnghong/ http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-sectarianized-after-christ-ahnsahnghong-ascended/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Therefore, please refrain from using the claim from the NCPCOG website on the history section of the WMSCOG wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The first website provided by User:Carly3737 is a blog and thus unreliable. The second belongs to the US branch of the WMSCOG.  This editor has outed herself as having a bias with this organization, as described here Note and I believe should not be providing input to controversial edits.  There is most certainly a conflict of interest as per COI with User:Carly3737 editing anything to do with WMCOG, its founder ASH, and any persons who are associated either positively or negatively with the organization such as Steve Hassan.  My argument remains that the NCPCOG and WMSCOG were one in the same until 1985 and as such this information and the link for the NCPCOG as a ref, should be included in this article.  The history pages of both organizations have just way too much overlap for it to be a coincidence.  See NCPCOG here and WMSCOG here. And, contrary to User:Carly3737's view, I do not believe the NCPCOG is lying. Superfly94 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94 stated that the second website belongs to a US branch of the WMSCOG... Does this mean it shouldn't be used as a reference then? If so, why is the official WMSCOG able to be used as a reference? On the otherhand, if it should not be used as a reference because it is a church website, then why is it plausible to use another church's website, the NCPCOG website, as a resource, which clearly contradicts the WMSCOG's take on this history? The argument at hand is based on opinion, not on fact. Superfly is still holding onto an opinion - "the history pages of both organizations have just way too much overlap for it to be a coincidence." This is an opinion, not fact, therefore it is not reliable as a reference. If the NCPCOG website is considered a strong reference stating that the two branched out, then also second WMSCOG website is also a strong reference stating that it did not occur this way. Clearly, there is a dispute and difference of opinions, so it should not be included as "fact" on the wikipedia page. It's fine if Superfly94 believes the NCPCOG is telling the truth - welcome to have that opinion of course. But since it is an opinion it should not be stated as a reference on the WMSCOG wikipage. Superfly94 is also welcome to have an opinion on who should be or should not be allowed to have input on controversial edits. I do not think Superfly94 should have input on this edit either, as he/she does not appear to have a pure motive, but is trying to stir up trouble. Regardless of what we think on this matter, anyone is able to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said the WMSCOG.org site could not be used as a reference. However, upon closer look, this site also seems to be a blog that is determined to contradict anything and everything that the NCPCOG says, which really doesn't help to provide a NPOV. Superfly94 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Both of them are not blogs but are websites. It is an opinion to say "it seems to be a blog that is determined to contradict anything and everything that the NCPCOG says,". Well, I believe that the NCPCOG's website is seeking to contract anything and everything that the WMSCOG says. Again, these are opinions. We are both more than welcome to have them and agree to disagree. But the wikipedia page is not for opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If this argument were valid, then someone would have also used Examining the WMSCOG site, however that is a blog, like the pages you have listed, and it is also heavily slanted, and contrary to NPOV. Superfly94 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is why the NCPCOG site shouldn't be used either, as it is also heavily slanted, contrary to [[Wikipedia:NPOV]. This is proving my original point that I was trying to make from the beginning. None of the sites should be used as references - the ones I listed, as well as the examinecog site, as well as the NCPCOG site, because they are ALL slanted and SUBJECTIVE. The wikipage should stick with facts. Women in the WMSCOG wear veils - this is a fact. WMSCOG believes in God the Mother. This is a fact. No one would dispute this matter, whether it is along the same line as their own personal beliefs or not. However, regarding the history of NCPCOG vs WMSCOG that has been claimed on the NCP website - this matter is not a fact. It is not a fact that one church was split in 1985 into NCPCOG and WMSCOG. This is an opinion of one church and some editors. According to WMSCOG and their websites and some other editors, this is NOT what happened. Therefore, because it is an opinion, shouldn't it not be included as part of the history? BTW, your previous posts were definitely a personal attack: "This editor has outed herself as having a bias with this organization, as described here Note and I believe should not be providing input to controversial edits. There is most certainly a conflict of interest as per [[Wikipedia:COI]] with User:Carly3737 editing anything to do with WMCOG, its founder ASH, and any persons who are associated either positively or negatively with the organization such as Steve Hassan." Would you please delete this information written and save us the hassel of opening another dispute?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * They are not blogging websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional point - the NCPCOG site is slanted negatively towards the WMSCOG and its teachings, so listing it as a reference violates the wiki policy so should not be used, just as examinethewmscog site should not be used for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please show an example of where the NCPCOG site is in any way biased against the WMSCOG. I have looked all over the English site and found nothing.  As for showing that you have a conflict of interest, how is linking to your edits a personal attack?  There is no link to your personal information, who you are, where you live, etc. whatsoever, just what you have written that shows you have a direct association with the WMSCOG. Superfly94 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To the Admins invigilating over this, I need to step back for a bit from the merry-go-round above. If you require any further info I will be monitoring this page, but have had enough with the circular logic being provided by User:Carly3737. Superfly94 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. It was stated that I shouldn't be editing for the reason that I have a direct association with the church.. which doesn't make any sense because someone who would have the most knowledge about the WMSCOG and its history would be someone directly associated with the church. It was also stated that I have outed myself as being biased, which is completely twisting my words. I said that the NCPCOG website is biased towards their church, as is the WMSCOG website biased towards there church. Therefore, information linking the two should not be on the page.

You requested a reference stating the history of the relationship between the NCPCOG and WMSCOG, and I listed 2 of them. So good, I'm glad the issue is solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the point that I have made for the History section for WMSCOG is that the NCPCOG's site that Superfly94 used is a blog and not an official website. Moreover, the NCPCOG clearly violates all the copyrights of the books of the founder Ahnsahnghong, which is currently owned by the WMSCOG. Why would you cite a source that violates a copyright???--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As User:ReformedArsenal stated, "(cur | prev) 06:13, 26 April 2013‎ ReformedArsenal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,668 bytes) (+385)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Nancyinthehouse (talk): I'm not sure what copyright violation you are refering to, this is a valid citation. (TW)) (undo | thank)" This is one of the decisions that was received during DR.  There is no reference to any publications for the specific link in question.  And, based on basic copyright law for the publications User:Nancyinthehouse is referring to, there is no violation.  The pubs on the site in question were written for distribution prior to 1985. The publishing house that currently holds the CW was created in 1990 I believe (anyway, AFTER 1985) and has the CW for any versions published after that time.  The publishing house has not contested the right of the NCPCOG to distribute the material in question.  Also, the NCPCOG site is not a blog anymore than the WMSCOG site is.
 * The edit war is still going on in the talk page for the subject, with User:Carly3737 not seeming to accept any explanations given and not taking the advice to seek a third opinion or ask questions in the Teahouse or by other means. I have asked them repeatedly to hit up the Teahouse for advice.  Any time I have an explanation for why something is valid or not this editor find some other obtuse reason that the NCPCOG site cannot be used and has gone so far as to accuse senior editors such as User:ReformedArsenal of not knowing what they are doing here.  I am hesitating in throwing the contested bullet back into the WMSCOG page as User:Carly3737 will probably just delete it.  This editor is also carrying out edits without logging in so that just an IP address is visible.  I'm not sure if this is to seem anonymous, sock puppetry or simply because they forgot to log in, but the remedy would be to log in and take responsibility for those edits. Superfly94 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And now things have deteriorated into a flame war here. Superfly94 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop referencing ReformedArsenal as a neutral third party. He has many degrees in Biblical studies and Christianity and claims a different denomination. The doctrines and teachings of the denomination(s) he associates himself with are completely contrary to WMSCOG teachings and doctrines. Regardless of how much editing he has done, it is not a neutral third opinion

My apologies if any of my edits are unsigned; I have been putting the four Sticks830 23:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC) each time I edit or if I have forgotten to do so, I have gone back and wrote it, so I'm not sure as to why my signature is not showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs)

Hi Superfly94. I don't think you understood my point. NCPCOG.net is a blogsite. Go to a search engine and search that site. and see the blog section. You can see that it is a blogsite. World Mission Society Church of God site is an official site, and currently the Melchizedek Publishing company owns all Ahnsahnghong's books and his writings. The NCPCOG does not own any rights of his writings, and are distributing his writings online which is surely violating the copyrights. I don't know why you want to include a unreliable source which has nothing to do with the World Mission Society Church of God page.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We can sit here and debate this all day, but neither of us will change our minds, which is why I keep asking people to go to the Tea_House or ask for a 3O. I don't see a blog on the NCPCOG site any more than I do on the WMSCOG.  Also, they have everything to do with each other as they have a shared history.  This pic here is a prime example as it shows ASH preaching with the NCPCOG emblem in the background (Why do I have to keep repeating this?).  And again, wrt the copyrights, please re-read what I said above, which was, "There is no reference to any publications for the specific link in question.  And, based on basic copyright law for the publications User:Nancyinthehouse is referring to, there is no violation.  The pubs on the site in question were written for distribution prior to 1985. The publishing house that currently holds the CW was created in 1990 I believe (anyway, AFTER 1985) and has the CW for any versions published after that time.  The publishing house has not contested the right of the NCPCOG to distribute the material in question." Given how serious the Korean government and people take copyright issues this is saying something. For more info regarding Korean copyright law please see here. Superfly94 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94 - Regarding about Ahnsahnghong's pic - the emblem translates to New Covenant Association which is different from the name; New Covenant Passover Church of God. Why is the NCPCOG using a different name? Where is the proof that the publishing house holds any versions published after that time and that it was created in 1990? And where is the reference that the publishing house has no contested the right of NCPCOG to distribute the material in question?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Moreover, I wonder if you are related with NCPCOG?! Because you seem to know so much about them with references!?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked, "Regarding about Ahnsahnghong's pic - the emblem translates to New Covenant Association which is different from the name; New Covenant Passover Church of God. Why is the NCPCOG using a different name?" Because they changed the name after 1985, as their history states. The point is, ASH is preaching in front of an emblem that the NCPCOG is using to this day, therefore only solidifying their shared history.  Now, do we have to start debating TM laws as well?
 * You ask, "Where is the proof that the publishing house holds any versions published after that time and that it was created in 1990? And where is the reference that the publishing house has no contested the right of NCPCOG to distribute the material in question?" The proof is in Korean CW law.  Specifically wrt the creator of a work passing away and the CW being good for 50 years after.  This means any publications made after the death of ASH would have to have some type of difference from what he wrote in order for them to hold a separate and protected CW.  Once again, if you look here all of that information is there, and very easy to find.
 * You ask here, "Moreover, I wonder if you are related with NCPCOG?! Because you seem to know so much about them with references!?" What does that have to do with anything?  I could ask the same of you and User talk:Carly3737 but I don't, because it is irrelevant until such time as a bias starts interfering with getting the info out there for a Wikipedia user.  Resorting to questioning one's beliefs and associations, such as User talk:Carly3737 did here and you did above really does nothing to improve your position in this argument. Superfly94 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering if you have had any luck at the Tea House regarding determining if the NCPCOG site is a blog or is you've asked for 3O on this? Superfly94 (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not solidify their shared history at all. Please stop trying to make accusations based on your understanding of the picture which you know nothing about, and furthermore backing up your evidence by another church's claim, while disregarding the evidence coming from the other view. You're looking for something and trying to make an accusation that's not there; but the the truth is, it's just not true, and therefore there isn't supportive evidence of this matter. And NCPCOG didn't "just change the name" in 1985;I just viewed the history thoroughly on the website, which doesn't state that either. You are now making up things that are not there based on your own understanding and opinion. For a long time in history, the Catholic Church reigned as the only Christian church. During the reformation period, people left the Catholic Church and started their own churches. Then, would this history be regarded as "the church splitting" ? Obviously not. We would say that those members left the church and started their own church, even though both churches claim to have the same founder, Jesus. In the same way, members leaving the church and later forming their own church, claiming the same founder, does not constitute the church splitting. Therefore, this history is irrelevant to the WMSCOG. If NCPCOG claims it as part of their own history, fine--then feel free to make a wikipage for them, claiming that history. You could have made one by now with all the time you're spending on this page, since this is a very concerning matter to you. Sticks830 19:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830
 * I've said it before and I'll say it again (I feel like a parrot). We are not going to agree.  With that, please start the Dr or 3O process.  I went through this with User:Nancyinthehouse already and, frankly, there has been no new evidence provided by you as far as I can tell.  If you feel there is new information that wasn't presented in the previous process that you feel a third opinion would see better than I then please start this process.  I've asked you to do this several times already but you seem unwilling to make the effort.  You're obviously becoming very emotional about the whole thing by using negative words like "accusation" (Which I don't understand since it's a 'claim' certainly not an 'accusation.') and other derivatives and just essentially being childish at points as well, such as in the subject talk page here and above by suggestion I am spending way too much time arguing the point.  Now, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... At least starting a new DR or 3O will give us both the chance to put all of our arguments down in a more organized fashion, unlike the dog's breakfast we've created above. Superfly94 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

'''To the Admins, I am willing to go through DR, 3O or any other type of mediation in order to sort out this issue however, as I initiated the last round on this same subject and I have not seen what I believe to be any new evidence than what was presented prior here, I feel the onus is on User:Sticks830, formerly User:Carly3737, to agree to this and initiate the process. I've pretty much stated this above and am just reiterating it as there have been no comments in this thread for almost 48 hrs and I don't want it to disappear into the archives before things are sorted. Superfly94 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)'''