Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive220

User:LesLein reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

At New Deal, this user has been engaged for months in a concerted effort to deflect article consensus. Although he has not run afoul of 3RR in the last few edits, his behavior appears to me to be characteristic of IDHT, slow edit warring, and POVPUSH.

I was involved as a WP:FRINGE/N volunteer in a dispute he brought there, in which he was asking if characterizing the New Deal as proto-fascist was a fringe view. There is extensive discussion there.

Other editors at New Deal have sought other intervention, including by ANI. Warnings have been placed on his Talk page previously by myself ( please see his response as well ), and it appears that he has engaged in similarly disruptive editing on other pages (see also deleted talk page content).

After the FRINGE/N discussion I became involved in the dispute on the page.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * recent:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * non-3RR but, to my mind, clearly edit warring. These are the only edits he made during this time period, before discussing it (further) on the talk page
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been involved in the discussion for some time, though there is extensive discussion on the talk page between and other page watchers like  and

Comments:

Although this might be characterized, as did, as a content dispute, I think this is a fairly clear example of a civil POVPUSHer. slow edit warring, lots of TL;DR posts, and lots of IDHT. Notably, was the one who solicited help on WP:FRINGE/N and then ignored it entirely, suggesting WP:FORUMSHOP.

I don't know whether the other editors have sought additional outside input (there is some indication they may have gone to WP:3O or perhaps others), and if not, why not. I think this editor clearly could use some help in figuring out what the community standards are and how to work within them. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  11:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This complaint should be dismissed with a warning against UseTheCommandLine because that editor makes many errors of omission and commission. They start with the second sentence. It reads: "Although he has not run afoul of 3RR in the last few edits, his behavior appears to me to be characteristic of IDHT, slow edit warring, and POVPUSH." "Last few edits" implies I violated 3RR recently. I violated it once late last year or early this year, the first time I heard of the rule. I must have made over 100 edits since then, not a "few."

UseTheCommandLine's next sentence reads: "I was involved as a WP:FRINGE/N volunteer in a dispute he brought there, in which he was asking if characterizing the New Deal as proto-fascist was a fringe view. There is extensive discussion there." Pass3456 brought the dispute to the noticeboard, not me. It is absurd to say that I would go to a noticeboard to accuse myself of pushing a fringe theory. Incidentally, I never said the New Deal was proto-fascist.

UseTheCommandLine resolved the noticeboard, finding that I was pushing a fringe theory. Shortly after that, Pass3456 went to the Admin noticeboard. Editor Drmies wrote about UseTheCommandLine's decision: " I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion." Indeed UseTheCommandLine edited a paragraph others criticized for being fringe.

The Admin 789 noticeboard was never formally resolved, but the consensus was overwhelming that my edits were not fringe. UseTheCommand line was wrong, explaining why I take his/her advice with a grain of salt.

Next: "After the FRINGE/N discussion I became involved in the dispute on the page."

I'm not clear which page this refers to, the fringe discussion article or the New Deal article. If it is the latter, UseTheCommandLine is wrong. This editor made New Deal article edits on March 6 and 7, which was during the fringe discussion (February 20 through March 12).

"Notably, LesLein was the one who solicited help on WP:FRINGE/N and then ignored it entirely, suggesting WP:FORUMSHOP." Again, it was Pass3456 who went to two noticeboards; I never did. UseTheCommandLine should know better. This editor is being sloppy and negligent in presenting facts. The reason my edits are often long is because I have to document these types of errors. I move slowly because I don't have a lot of time to dedicate to Wiki. Also, I am the accused to I think that I am entitled to make long responses.

My edits since the March noticeboard discussions were intended to help reach a compromise. My edits on the New Deal and communism lead to a substantial improvement. The fascism subarticle is almost completely onesided. I am trying to establish a NPOV, which "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Take the difference UseTheCommandLine links to regarding the Supreme Court striking down key New Deal legislation. There is a block quote from FDR where he denies violating rights. I added material indicating that the Supreme Court ruled that the NRA violated the last amendment in the Bill of Rights. To me, NPOV means that editors must permit Roosevelt's claim to be challenged. It is a fact that FDR prosecuted and jailed a few people under a law later found to be unconstitutional.

Wiki's policy is "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." I think the real problem is a case of information suppression. I have been considering going to the NPOV noticeboard about this. Editors in the subarticle go to great lengths to exclude information they don't like. They make up rules (go to the New Deal talk page and search for quotations), engage in wikihounding, behave inconsistently, make personal attacks, and provide inaccurate information. I was planning on inserting a "Failed Verification" tag because some current information contradicts the citation.

As far back as last January I went to Rjensen’s talk page to ask a question. Rjensen replied in part, “No scholar says Italy had any impact whatever on any New Deal programs.” Rjensen went on to say that “FDR never praised Mussolini and often used him as an evil example 'we do not like Mussolini the dictator’ he said in 1926, although he said that should not be a reason to oppose a debt deal with Italy."

According to John Diggins and James Q. Whitman (both prominent scholars), FDR told a White House correspondent in 1933 “that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman.” FDR later wrote to Ambassador Breckinridge in Italy “There seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by and his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy.”  According to Diggins, “even as late as 1939 … Roosevelt could still look back on Il Duce’s regime with some sympathy.”  One of the New Deal’s first initiatives was to set up a commission to study fascist de-urbanization programs.

I can cite plenty of similar examples. I think fair-minded people can understand why I often ignore this type of information from other editors.

I'm sorry for the length, but UseTheCommandLine makes too many errors to ignore. I believe that this editor's behavior here is very inappropriate. Thank you. LesLein (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Update -- Regarding the FDR block quote in the New Deal article, FDR stated privately that some of his economic policies were based on policies of Germany, Italy, and Russia. Editors won't permit me to include FDR's own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LesLein (talk • contribs) 14:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Postscript: While I recalled our interaction on WP:FRINGE/N as being initiated by, I was wrong. The discussion there was long, and much of it was just between me and him, after others had stopped chiming in, and I suppose this is why I recalled it the way I did. I withdraw, and apologize for, my assertion of FORUMSHOP, though my other comments stand. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  20:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:Jgeddis (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

There is an active discussion on the Article's talk page which joe ignored and has reverted twice source citations that have been in the article for over a month without addressing the root issue. After noticing a long history of edit waring and civility admin blocks against Joefromrandb it seems pretty clear where this will end up. I request the page be restored and protected so the sources can be corrected and the page improved and that Joe be blocked again for is bad faith edits and reverts. It may very well be possible he's associated with or is the anonymous editor that was previously engaged in the same edit war as a sockpuppet. Instead of engaging myself in an edit war I'm kicking this over to you guys.Jgeddis (talk) 10:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD is clear on how this situation works - you're bold, if someone else reverts, you may not simply re-add, ever ... you begin to discuss immediately to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. Jgeddis, you appear to have made some changes that are not accepted by the community yet.  Indeed, you appear to be removing or tagging certain types of information.  Making "sock" allegations without filing an WP:SPI is uncivil, and there's certainly insufficient requirement to protect the page if ALL parties follow WP:BRD appropriately.  I'll also warn you about forum-shopping between here and ANI  E,S,  &#38;L  11:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While this user clearly needs to get a clue, his original ANi complaint was against a different user (unless anyone actually thinks I am the IP in question, which should be fairly easy to debunk). Joefromrandb (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . User:Jgeddis, your comments are a personal attack against Joefromandb, for which you have no evidence. Don't do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * bbb23 with regards to your comments:


 * 1) The forum shopping allegation is baseless. If you look at the two complaints they are two separate complaints as even Joefromandb pointed out.
 * 2) With regards to the sockpuppetry allegation being a "personal attack" Wikipedians are expected to assume good faith. I am a casual editor who doesn't share the extensive history of blocks and edit wars Joefromandb comes with. To assume I should know every nuanced procedure and was intentionally trying to subvert them does not assume good faith editing on my part.
 * 3) With regards to the actual point of the complaint, it wasn't addressed. My tags on the sources have been there for a long time. Indeed the entire page has been tagged as requiring enormous amounts of work. I simply went through source by source and pointed out the individual issues in good faith. Further, since i was concerned it could warrant discussion i posted a new thread on the page's talk page after making the minor edit. Joefromandb came by apparently "coincidentally" immediately after the previous person exhibiting the exact same behaviour of reverting without discussion even though a forum for that discussion was provided.
 * 4) instead of engaging in an edit war myself I immediately brought it to the administrators board to deal with as we are expected to do.Jgeddis (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Jgeddis, your comments are way off the mark. The article was closed as keep about a year ago. There were only a few edits after that in 2012. Then there was a large break between September 2012 and March 2013 with no edits. That was followed by just a few edits until you came along in July and added all the tags. They were removed by an IP. You reinstated them, and Joe removed them. In other words, there was one revert by Joe, one revert by the IP, and one by you. Nonetheless, you accuse Joe of edit warring, as well as bringing a somewhat incoherent report to ANI. I should also add that before the AfD discussion you made a major change to the article that was also reverted, by a different editor entirely. I don't see that you've established any good faith. If you don't feel you know Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well enough, then don't create reports at administrator noticeboards until you're more sure of your ground. Instead, you might pay more attention to experienced users and discuss things with them. You can even seek administrative help if you have a question rather than toss around accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * bbb23 I'm not sure what relevance most of this response has to the core issue. What is the actual issue with tagging a self published source as self published? If it is in fact a self published source should it not be tagged as such? Indeed, I brought it here instead of engaging in an edit war. I'm not sure what the issue is with that either. I did seek administrator help. Thanks again.Jgeddis (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Aikatastrophe and User:180.191.45.91 reported by User:149.241.16.149 (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Pre edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katia_Elizarova&oldid=565332763

Current Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Katia_Elizarova&oldid=566972201

Comments : The User Aikatastrophe seems to be set on removing substantiated historical data on the subject of the article. I have porposed an acceptable revision that takes the mean ground - as visible in the current version link above. But the user seems set on basing all content on a single speculative piece. In accordance with Wiki regs it is appropriate to summarise and not speculate. The latest version as above does so, yet the user is overtly concerned with parties that have a vested interest in removing information based on their past activities on Wiki. Please block their editing. User then attempted to disguise identity by signing out and using 180.191.45.91 to mask edits. Please block that also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.16.149 (talk • contribs)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Breenhill reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: see below

Diffs of the user's reverts: see below

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been warned about disruptive edit multiple times, see User talk:Breenhill

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I'm uninvolved. I noticed the editor because I have the Wendy Wright (activist) article watchlisted.

Comments:

The editor has been edit warring at a number of articles since they registered on 2013-07-13. Diffs probably aren't necessary since the behavior is clear from Special:Contributions/Breenhill. They have received multiple warnings (see User talk:Breenhill), none of which have had an effect on their behavior. They have not responded to any of the warnings or made any attempt to open a discussion on a talk page. Their edits have focused on repeatedly removing reliably sourced content from SIL International (11 times) and Wendy Wright (activist) (9 times) (and at Focus on the Family among others). The apparently agenda driven nature of their edits suggest that there is a conflict between their personal beliefs and Wikipedia's rules. There's no evidence that they are willing or able to stop edit warring. WP:NOTHERE probably applies but something needs to be done to stop them edit warring.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Doglicker9912 reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:32,  3 August 2013  (edit summary: "Valve refers to their game as an ARTS not moba.")
 * 2) 17:35,  3 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567010433 by Ferret (talk)")
 * 3) 18:22,  3 August 2013  (edit summary: "The same way that Neil Degrasse Tyson has a say in his religeous views, Valve has a say in the genre of  their ARTS game.")
 * 4) 18:46,  3 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567017292 by Masem (talk)")
 * 5) 18:47,  3 August 2013  (edit summary: "The same way that Neil deGrasse Tyson has a say in his religious views as displayed on wikipedia, Valve has a say in the genre name of their ARTS game, which not only pioneered the genre, but is still the bases of many games within the genre.")


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Behavior is similar to an account User:ARTSisGenreDuh that was blocked about a month ago for the same changes but I can't otherwise point out the possibility of a sock. --M ASEM (t) 19:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . Can't say whether it's a sock. Favonian (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Poopajohn reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 36h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on  Traverse City, Michigan. using TW"

No talk page discussion took place. Six editors reversed this user's edits, including myself (DS2K)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . Materialscientist (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Nitrobutane reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Both blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Five times over the last few days Nitrobutane has removed the qualifier "incompressible" from "hydraulic fluid" in the lead of hydraulic accumulator.

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

The gas-pressurised hydraulic accumulator is a well-known engineering device that uses energy stored in a compressible gas to pressurise an incompressible liquid. It is crucial to the need for them, and their operation, that liquids are effectively incompressible (the need) and that gases are compressible (the means of conveniently storing energy). Nitrobutane appears to not comprehend this, although it's unclear whether they are confused about compressibility only applying to the gas ("the next paragraph mentions copmpressed gas accumulators - how is that 'incompressible'?") or use of fluid (" it's wrong to say 'incompressible fluid' because that generalization simply does not apply") A hydraulic accumulator is used with liquids, a pneumatic accumulator would be used with gases.

I've reverted. I've commented in the edit comments. I've expanded the article with a footnote. They've posted to my talk (User_talk:Andy_Dingley), of no relevance to the issue, and accused me of "pretending" to be an admin. If they don't understand the technical aspects this far, and they still persist in removing a crucial term from the article despite, we're getting into WP:COMPETENCE. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

he is creating a false separation of 'need' and 'means'. slight compression of hydraulic fluid in the accumulator could store part of the energy, both satisfying part of 'the need' and providing part of 'the means of conveniently storing energy'

there's no need for the phrase 'non-compressible hydraulic fluid', because incompressibility is not vital for this device's operation. if a fluid is suitable to be used in the system that the accumulator stores power for, that's that. nothing about the accumulator requires the fluid be incompressible

and now he has the temerity to bait me with allusions to WP:COMPETENCE

he is the one who started reverting my edits, then without offering to discuss on the article's talk page HE posted on my talk page using the 'edit war warning' Template:Uw-ewsoft (as Wikipedia specifically warns against ) - as if he's qualified to talk about the issue like a third party/admin.

then when I raise it on his talk he avoids the issue and starts trying to provoke me (all he said is 'please learn the difference between hydraulic and pneumatic'). and now has the cheek to say it's 'of no relevance to the issue'.

he removed it from my talk page when I complained and now it's gone - Nitrobutane (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . The history of the article shows both editors willing to engage in edit warring to enforce their own side of the dispute. -- Jayron  32  03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis reported by User:204.11.133.214 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) deletes properly cited description of picture.
 * 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:


 * . Neither editor shows evidence of edit warring.  No attempt has been made by the filer to discuss the matter.  Please take up the matter at the article talk page, and invite the other party to a civil discussion.  --  Jayron  32  04:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:ChipmunkDavis reported by User:204.11.133.214 (Result: Malformed and already acted on above)
Page:

Chipmunkdavis:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) repeatedly removes accurate information on picture site for personal reasons and says a well used wiki source is invalid.
 * 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:

. It was already decided in the report above this that there was no violation by either party. Plus, the report is malformed. If you have something new to say, add it to the above report, don't create a new one.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a Wiki expert. However, the issue is real. The reverts continued since the first report, hence another report (not sure how this all works). In essence, one group tries to continually block accurate, cited information and I am looking for help to get that to cease. The revisionist history being continually reverted to, blocking of information of others who have been succesful, should not stand if we are going for accuracy. Citing such thing as the owner of a bird pictured should not result in edit wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.133.214 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Based on the time stamp of Jayron's determination, you're right. So, would you like me to block you for edit warring? You've reverted twice more since and Chipmunkdavis has reverted once. Additionally, although I don't usually get into the content issues, the source you are using is not a reliable source (I don't care if it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), and that one image is the only one with a caption - it stands out like a sore thumb. I do agree with you that it's very odd to object to the website as a reliable source and use it twice in the same article. Nontheless, stop warring and go back to the talk page and work it out. I've also notified CMD (you were supposed to do that) of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification Bbb23. I didn't use the source elsewhere in the article, and haven't examined it there. Irrelevant to its use elsewhere, it is being used here to promote a point of view. This is sadly an oddly ongoing problem, the IP here is a new incarnation of an indefinitely blocked user/IP(s). CMD (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Walkerarea reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 567148780 by Smalljim (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 567149150 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 567149693 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 567150047 by Smalljim (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring. using TW"

No talk page discussion took place.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:
 * . Probably should have been longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Aspects (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 16:33, 2 August 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11:21, 3 August 2013
 * 2) 21:09, 3 August 2013
 * 3) 21:50, 3 August 2013
 * 4) 22:33, 4 August 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st warning: 22:05, 3 August 2013 Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st removal: 22:08, 3 August 2013 Diff of edit warring / 3RR 2nd warning (me not noticing the first warning and its removal): 03:23, 4 August 2013 Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st removal: 03:34, 4 August 2013

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

Comments: Werieth has been edit warring to remove single covers of notable cover versions on song article claiming that they violate WP:NFC across numerous articles. Werieth has reverted four different editors that came across the image deletions independently. After being warned in the discussion by three editors that this edit warring would not exempt him from 3RR, including KWW who stated "The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you." The fact that there is a discussion on his talk page about the image deletions and his reverting four different editors show that his edits are not exempt per WP:3RRNO because the images are not unquestionably violating WP:NFCC. After being warned, Werieth did not make another reversion that would total three reversion in a 24 hour time span, but he seems to be gaming the system by making another reversion just outside of the 24 hour time span by 43 minutes. Aspects (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, Please review NFC. The files in question do not meet policy, the user who added them back in this case is un-aware of the issues. I have asked you for policy discussions that support your point and you have provided nothing to support your claims. I however have linked multiple discussions that support my position. Werieth (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also suggested you take your point to WT:NFC if you think single covers should be treated special in regards to album covers. Werieth (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked the article for three days while you folk work out the copyright issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:EyeTruth reported by User:Gunbirddriver (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Here is a version of the article prior to the multiple reverts: 

This is a repeat of a previous complaint. The editor in question continues to attempt to insert the term "blitzkrieg" into the article.

"Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel) was to be a classic blitzkrieg... "

Here are the links to the talk page discussions:
 * here and
 * here.

The editor continues to revert edits in an effort to insert text into the article which the other editors involved do not believe is helpful and do not agree with. The initial reverts can be seen
 * here,
 * here,
 * here and then
 * here on 25 June
 * and again here
 * and here.

He ignores contrary opinion and seemingly fails to understand what the others are saying. After being referred to the adminstrators for tendinitous editing he then opened a DRN on the matter, presumptively to resolve the conflict, but throughout he did not appear to be open to any opinion other than his own. The DRN concluded and no consensus was reached. Immediately following the close of the DRN and without a consensus opinion on the articles talk page or in the DRN supporting his text, he has inserted the term again and He stated “The DRN closed without a resolution. Perhaps we can reach a decision through editing??” and added the term back in. His “attempt to reach a decision” resulted in a number of reverts, and now the page has his wording in place again. He claims that the DRN discussion ended with most editors agreeing with him, but this was not the case. Editor Hasteur stated "it would be best to leave the term Blitzkrieg out of the Battle of Kursk article." Editor Magus732 believed blitzkrieg was the mindset going in, but that a blitzkrieg-style battle proved to be impossible once the Soviet tank commanders started their effective counterattacks. That is not accurate, but that is what he said. A third editor, Someone not using his real name, demonstrated that sources are available that would support either position. Binkersnet, Sturmvogel 66 and myself still feel the term does not improve the understanding of the battle and so we oppose use of the term, and two other editors, Diannaa and Herostratus, have commented on the talk page that they oppose. None of these editors have stated that they have changed their opinion. To this point it is still only EyeTruth who has expressed an opinion on the articles talk page that the term should be included.
 * here
 * here
 * here.

Again, his tone on the talk page is condescending and dismissive. In the past we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. His previous referral resulted in a warning issued by administrator User:EdJohnston here and here, though the warning has subsequently been removed from User:EyeTruth’s talk page. He was told: “To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.” He did not achieve a consensus, but has added the term again, and reported me for administrative action here when I attempted to remove it. Of course, it was EyeTruth that was changing the articles wording, and I was following Bold Edit/Revert/Discuss. I am not sure if he understands that. At this point I believe he should be blocked from the page Battle of Kursk. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:109.156.190.242 reported by User:Rushton2010 (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: The user has been vandalising the page for the Smiler Rollercoaster, changing the rollercoaster's name to "The Failer". When the vandalism is undone, despite warnings, he repeatedly reverts to the vandalised version. --Rushton2010 (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for vandalism by User:Mfield.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Tim Zukas reported by Dfw79 (talk) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 23:51, 25 July 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 20:45, 30 July 2013  (edit summary: "delete some of the useless verbiage")
 * 3) 01:31,  2 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 566779338 -- what's to discuss? The verbiage is all useless-- if you think some isn't, show an example.")
 * 4) 16:06,  2 August 2013  (edit summary: "usual pruning")
 * 5) 17:37,  2 August 2013  (edit summary: "One of these years you ought to try to give an example where your verbiage is needed)")

User has been warned.

Talk:Toledo Express Airport - Have attempted to engage them in discussion before making changes, but user refuses to discuss and immediately reverts items back - even after additional updates have been done.

Comments: User appears to simply go around from page to page deleting content that they consider to be too detailed or wordy. Have attempted to engage in discussion but they refuse to stop editing. Today made some changes to clean up the wording on the article, but the user again returned and deleted even more content from the page that is detailed and specific to the article. Dfw79 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated as user has made another reversion today eliminating key/specific information that has been sourced and added to the page. Dfw79 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) . Both of you are edit warring, although neither has breached WP:3RR. One key difference, though, is Dfw79 has made an effort to discuss the content dispute, whereas Tim Zukas has not. For that reason, I have warned Tim that if he continues to revert without discussion or consensus, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Bbb23 - Understand your findings completely. Is alright to go ahead and revert the unacceptable changes (leaving those that we agree on the talk page are acceptable), or should I wait until tomorrow to avoid crossing over into 3RR territory? Just need to know how to proceed right now. Thanks. Dfw79 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page until you reach a consensus. It's not just 3RR you have to be concerned about--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

Update - Just reverted another edit by Tim Zukas with the summary of "One of these years you ought to try to give an example where your verbiage is needed:. I think we need to block to get them to discuss their changes. PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 11:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion on the talk page has begun with Tim Zukas, however so far there has been no movement to compromise from their point of view. Suggestions of compromised language have been presented but met unfavorable and aggressive behavior. Attempting to work towards a compromise so we can get back to improving the article, but so far haven't received much of any movement towards a solution. Dfw79 (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who's interested can look at the talk page and judge for himself. Tim Zukas (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Do do doggy reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Fleet */"
 * 2)  "/* Fleet */"
 * 3)  "/* Fleet */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 567246223 by JetBlast (talk)"
 * 1)  "/* Fleet */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 567246223 by JetBlast (talk)"

   user has made zero real comments on his talk page or others.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

has had prior issues on similar pages. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * he has removed the block notice from his talkpage, WP:blanking proscribes removal of active declined unblocks, does this fall under that? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 00:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The purpose to disallowing the removal of an unblock request that has been declined is to avoid the appearance of attempting to deceive. The block is still recorded in the talkpage history and the block log, so just removing the blocking notice is covered by the usual talkpage rules allowing a user to remove pretty much whatever they want. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Guardian of the Rings reported by User:Nero the second (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: (he already had one so he knows the rules); notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I also unilaterally refrained from reverting while a AN/I discussion was pending, but this proved fruitless. The same user is at exactly 3 reverts on many other pages too.
 * It doesn't get any uglier than this. One thru three were provoked by either your or Underlying lk's blanket revert of coding changes which have no relation to the infobox whatsoever (scroll down), and users have blasted such carelessness at AN/I. Either that or his wilful overlooking of the fact that he and Underlying lk had failed to explain the removal of "|region:CN-XX" parameters, to no effect: coord displays these coordinates at the title just as Infobox settlement does. So I think it is clear this blanket undoing instigated this chain of events. The same applies to ALL the other provinces.
 * And you broke your promise; don't pretend this was not a partial revert. The presiding administrator should not overlook the fact that Nero II is at three reverts as well, the last two as a cover for "error-fixing" edits such as this. I, on the other hand, have not broken any, and will resign to Nero's version of Infobox Province of China (PRC) until more discussion comes out at WP:TFD; no point in bandying with a user who thinks 2 editors with no prior WP:CHINA experience vs. 1 is a meaningful majority, when no one else from that project has commented. As a side, it's precisely akin to irrationally claiming the probability of rolling doubles on a die is 2/3 after only having three trials. GotR Talk 00:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not new to edit warring so you know the rules, and still chose to break them.--Nero the second (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That alters neither the fact that you are at three RVT's on as many articles as well, nor that, out of 10+ RVs at the provincial articles, you have offered a remotely tangible explanation only once. It certainly does not cover up your collateral-damage-RV behaviour which has been lampooned by others. GotR Talk 01:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . The discussion at ANI is still ongoing, and, in my view, Nero should not have filed a report here at this point.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Useddenim (Result: No violation)
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:

ignored my explanation of usage (explicit permission is noted on the image page) and instead just kept repeating WP:NFCC and WP:NFC back at me without bothering to explain (or even check carefully, in the 4th revert).
 * Useddenim (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Explicit permission means nothing, the file is non-free and must be treated as so. Wikipedia does not accept for wikipedia only licensing. Werieth (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This case is linked to the one reported a few hours ago here. In his talk page three different administrators (Masem, Diannaa and Kww) asked Werieth to not edit war in similar cases but to discuss the images at WP:FFD or at WP:NFCR, or even asking deletion (if suitable) as speedy deletions. Especially admin Masem informed him of the risks of being blocked/restricted/banned if he keeps with this attitude. He still don't hear that and keeps on edit warring with everyone who disagree with his interpretation of the rules. Here we are. Cavarrone 05:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cavarrone Can you please keep your mouth shut when you do not understand policy? Werieth (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What I understand very well is what the other administrators and editors said. You have other suitable, proper ways to delete images that do not involve edit warring. Cavarrone 10:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth: You claim “policy”, but then don’t give the specific clause or phrase, nor explain (your interpretation of) it. Useddenim (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC wasn't specific enough? Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace Werieth (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No violation. NFCC criteria like #3a and #8 are clearly open to discussion, but WP:NFCC isn't - this is (or was, before the image was altered) clearly a non-free usage outside articlespace, therefore was clearly a violation, and therefore 3RR did not apply to its removal whilst non-free. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The image should have been been tagged with because it consists of simple shapes and text and is not eligible for copyright. I explained this on Werieth's talk page about how this whole edit war could have been avoided but he removed it from his talk page, . Aspects (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree TOO is met in this case. Werieth (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the image should have stayed out until that issue was settled. My personal opinion is that the image is right on the edge of textlogo territory. Let the Commons deletion discussion end, and if the image is kept, it can go back into the template. Black Kite (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The whole argument is now moot, as I have replaced the controversial image with a simplified version (which Werieth overlooked with revision 567326594 when he reflexively clicked undo within 90 seconds of the change without actually looking at what the change was). As an aside, the same simplification was done with the original logos: compare File:Logo AMT simplified.svg with File:Logo AMT.svg. However, no-one has bothered to explain why the explicit permission on the image's page, “the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia”—which is what prompted me to use the image in the first place—can be brushed aside. Useddenim (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ill copy/paste something from my talk page archive, Unless a file is released under a free license, it must be treated as WP:NONFREE files that have been given "for wikipedia only" should actually be deleted on sight per User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, see related email from 2005 . Our requirements for the usage of non-free media are high On wikipedia a file is either free or non-free, wikipedia only licenses are rejected as it goes against our mission, we could use a lot more non-free content than we do. However it would degrade our Mission Werieth (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Harkthuk reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result:Blocked and protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Tuxtla Gutiérrez. using TW"

The article is about a city in Mexico and the user's writing style and username indicate that English is probably not his primary language, and just started editing recently, so probably doesn't understand all of this. I explained via template and quick written message, with links, why this was happening, but the same content was again re-added. Dawnseeker2000  04:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  04:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Blocked indefinitely and article protected 3 months. This was a sock of Waldemar15 and not a standard 3RR event. He has been socking heavy at that article for months which is why the 3 month protection. I will also notify the checkuser that has been dealing with him of this report.

User:Wkerney reported by User:2over0 (Result: Warning)
Page:

User being reported:

This report covers edit warring in the sense of repeatedly restoring a preferred version despite several other involved editors disagreeing with the changes. Nobody has crossed the 3RR bright line here. Diffs of the user's reverts (dates are my time):
 * 1)  on 07-29. The copyvio issue mentioned in the discussion linked below arises because the sentence is copied directly without attribution from the given source. Later edits include PD-notice, which I believe fixes the problem despite Wkerney never acknowledging the issue.
 * 2)  on 07-30.
 * 3)  on 08-03; note that Wkerney made only one edit between this one and the previous - here, to the talkpage discussion linked below, which at that time showed three editors opposing the proposed change in addition to the two who had reverted it previously.
 * 4)  on 08-05. This edit returns the section to a very old version, including the text from the previous edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on 07-30. Wkerney has not responded to this communication directly, but has participated in the discussion linked below.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talkpage discussion. The "consensus" Wkerney alludes to is not current and is described at this diff (scroll for the new content).

Comments:


 * Please note that this page is covered by standard discretionary sanctions per the pseudoscience arbitration case. The notification and logging instructions are described at those links if you think such actions are warranted. - 2/0 (cont.) 11:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I have given Wkerney a formal warning about discretionary sanctions. I have also warned them separately that they risk being blocked if they continue to insist on their version. One small quibble. When Wkerney added the material from the FDA, they did give attribution to the FDA website. Also, it's not clear to me that, which gives no guidance its usage, is applicable. A work normally is in the public domain because its copyright expires or because it is dedicated to the public domain. The US government does not own a copyright in its own works, so there's no copyright to begin with.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We went through a long and very painful process of finding a consensus definition that worked for everyone several months ago. May 2013 is hardly "very old". Then someone broke consensus by reverting it back to the old version, which I am trying to fix. Having three editors on talk is a far cry from the number of people that established consensus earlier. Also, it is clear that my definition is correct, is well sources, and NPOV, unlike the version currently live that broke consensus. It is this edit here (please look at his comments in the changelog) that should have been sanctioned, but nobody was paying attention to changes at the same since consensus had been reached. Wkerney (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. On the small quibble, the issue is that text was lifted without stating its status as a quote; merely providing a citation erroneously denotes original text covered by our license rather than the more liberal permissions that would actually govern its reuse. The piece is a work for hire for the US government and thus not eligible for copyright protection, but use of the text is still covered by the copyvio policy. I could probably have been clearer, but as you say this aspect is pretty minor here; we can continue on my talkpage if you like. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to matter to the edit warriors whether it uses a quote directly from the FDA or the previous consensus definition. Wkerney (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 567316913 by Favre1fan93 (talk) - once again unexplained removal of cite & use of TW"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 567315518 by Favre1fan93 (talk) unexplain removal of cites"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 567314555 by Favre1fan93 (talk) miss use of TW"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 567285636 by Favre1fan93 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning notice on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Also attempted to direct the user to use the talk page for their reason for reverting. I have given my explanations in my edit summaries, as well as in my reverts. They don't seem to be getting through to the user. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For reference, here is my initial edit summary, explaining my position and my attempt in another edit summary asking the user to take it to the talk page (which I only got back the response ("unexplained removal of cites")  - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There isn't a reason to remove a cite that is proper. You gave no reason, just how you wanted it with no cites in the infobox and that you didn't like the way I cite. You never when to the talk page. Then you cause an edit conflict when I attempted to respond to your "warning" on my talk page from your notification of taking me to 3RR. Spshu (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There, I reversed it. You happy that you own it now? Spshu (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I don't own that page. I'll try to explain my edits. Initial edit: I removed the reference tags labeled "vty" next to the cast, producers and network in the infobox, as they were unnecessary. Why are they unecessary? Per this guideline (which I did not have the time to find include in my edit summary initially). The source next to the new production team is fine, because out of all the other info in the infobox, that was a new addition, previously unknown, and needed a source. If you just added that name without the sourced, it would have been challenged, but you didn't, which is fine. Then, I took the source that you added, and reformatted it to fit the inline convention that is used on the page, and gave it a better name to help identify it better. Finally I used that source to add info in the Reception section, as that pertained.

Okay, now your first revert: Readded back ref naming of "vty", which you can't make heads or tails about the source compared to "VarietyReview" (hence my change) and readded the ref tags next to the cast, producers and network in the infobox. All of this without any explanation. I then reverted you, explaining again that the extra citing was not needed, and not really understanding why you changed the reference style. Your second revert said it was a "miss use of TW", which it was not. I again revert, asking you why you are changing, especially the source formatting, as you still have not given me a reason for including the extra tags (granted, I did not have the guideline at my disposal to link to either). I also encourage you to take it up on the talk page, which you do not. You revert a third and fourth time, claiming "unexplained removal of cites" (which was false [granted without the policy]) and "use of TW" (not an improper use). And then finally you claim that I own the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See now you actually give a reason. You waited until coming to ANI to give a reason (Per MOS guideline) instead of what you wanted ("removing unnecessary extra citations") as a single citation generally are not "unneccesary" nor "extra". What the hell!?! Then why is their one for the Composer?
 * On top of that you can not figure out "vty" for "Variety"? "vty" is the name for the ref. name "vty", how hard is that. Since, unnecessary is a guideline for you, do you understand that you have unnecessary named 31 references? And unncessarily "junked up" the article with Twitter and Facebook sources (which he is now fighting about)?  So how per Favre1fan93 fiat this is the only way to cite: "...proper citing". And unnecessary changed the reference method at Marvel Television to continue this war else where.  Isn't TW only to be used against vandalism or give a proper reason? No reason was given, only what he wanted stated as a reason "Extra citations are not needed in the infobox for certain fields." "..and the extra ref tags aren't needed."  Favre1fan93: "Again. why are you changing this?"  spshu: "unexplain removal of cites".  Then absolutely no reason given for reverting by Favre1fan93: "Reverted 1 edit by Spshu (talk) to last revision by Favre1fan93. (TW)", no reason given for a good reason, to keep cites.  Then with little time to respond to his "warning" he reports me here with no discussion.  Given all of 2 minutes to respond between warning and reporting. Spshu (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:50.131.100.128 reported by User:Smuckola (Result: Warned)
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:

For a very long time, this IP address is conducting an edit war on one main article and then also each of the articles which refer to it. So it's apparently the same person. I'm not totally sure, but from reading their talk page, they might be doing edit warring about dates on other articles as well. This is pretty bizarre. Just go and look at all the warnings on their talk page, and all the reverts and the attempts to engage them in discussion, as depicted in the version histories of each referred article as listed above, and you can immediately see it. Thanks.

This is my first edit war report, so I hope I did it correctly. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I find the whole thing odd. Many of the dates the IP changed appear to be correct per this source. Part of the problem is that the dates in the articles are not supported by sources, so when someone comes along and changes the date without adding a source, how is anyone supposed to know which date is correct? That said, the change to the Mickey Hart article is not supported by the Mickey Hart website source. I have formally warned the IP. Their refusal to respond to any of the warnings from other editors or discuss any of their changes is not acceptable. They may not have breached WP:3RR on any given article, but the pattern of disruption can't continue. I am not going to watch all of the articles, though, so if there's a problem, assuming this report has been archived, please report it to me on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Monosh Hojai Dimasa reported by User:Shovon76 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Proposed boundaries of the state */"
 * 2)  "/* Boundaries of Dimaraji State */"
 * 3)  "/* Areas to be carved out from Cachar District, Assam */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on Dimaraji. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Boundaries of the proposed state */ new section"


 * Comments:

The editor has been inserting uncited claims regarding the proposed boundaries of the state. The only reference, which gave a more or less detailed description of the boundaries, is from The Telegraph, Calcutta, but the version proposed by the editor does not match with the cited content. Shovon (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No apparent violation. I don't see multiple actual reverts from the editor being reported.  I do see a content dispute, and possible insertion of uncited information, but that is a matter for dispute resolution, not here. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Shovon76 (Result: No action at present)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Kmzayeem (talk): Rv stalker. let merger discussion finish. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits by Kmzayeem (talk): Nope. get consensus viw the merger discussion. (TW)"
 * 3)  "I do not fucking think so"
 * 4)  "Reverted to revision 567516153 by Darkness Shines. (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 567516153 by Darkness Shines. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The editors behavior has been highly combative over different articles and can also be seen here. A warning was also given on the same page. His choice of words for edit summaries are also personal attacks on the opposing contributors. Shovon (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not broken 3RR, and also for some weird reason I figure a merger discussion ought to be actually concluded before a unilateral redirect. Also is weird is I am the only one to gave mentioned it on the talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I just hit four BTW, I will not be fucking teamed by hounders and people who will not follow the fucking rules, Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I self reverted and am doing an edit request to actually restore the fucking mereger discussion, what a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No action Since two of the cited reverts are continuous edits, and DS self reverted the last one, that isn't persuading me to take action here, especially given that the other party is at 3RR here as well. The issue should be discussed on the talkpage regarding merging or redirecting and in which direction, and that is what I will be looking for. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that I have just had to ask for yw oedit protects because of this shit right? Wasting admin and editors time because these guys will not follow policy? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Pinkbeast reported by User:Taninao0126 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_O%27Neill&oldid=566487956

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jennifer_O%27Neill&oldid=566303463 Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

yes, I tried to talk to Pinkbeast, who got personally insulting to me and uncivil. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [August 7, 2013]
 * . The report is malformed. You don't include a single diff as you're supposed to do. I fixed the other errors. You also didn't notify Pinkbeast as you are required to in the instructions on this page. Pinkbeast has not edit warred. Nor have they been uncivil. You, on other hand, have been uncivil, and your edits have been non-netural and disruptive. I suggest you stop editing the article and discuss any changes you wish made on the article talk page in a respectful manner. Otherwise, you may be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 reported by Gamaliel  ( talk ) (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 20:54,  6 August 2013  (edit summary: "Rmv good faith edits. The whole incident shouldn't be recounted in the lead and the opening sentence for the section is out of sequence")
 * 2) 20:57,  6 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Iraq interrogation incident */ clearly identified that West made the claim, so a non-primary source is acceptable.")
 * 3) 12:02,  7 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567474665 by Gamaliel (talk)changed to claim. It doesn't need proven to be true, only that the subject made the claim")
 * 4) 17:34,  7 August 2013  (edit summary: "then why mention "unvetted"? I think it's notable. I'd be happy to hear why you don't think his own justification is relevant on the talk page.")
 * 5) 20:21,  7 August 2013  (edit summary: "yes, I'll see the talk page....and we can leave this right there while we discuss it since there isn't a BLP issue")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Gamaliel ( talk ) 03:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no revert after your warning. You were correct that I had overlooked my removal of a separate issue in that article, however, there has been no revert since the warning. I did refuse to self-revert. I 'd also point out that you continued to revert after being asked to discuss it and failed to notify me of this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not informing you yet, having been distracted by other browser tabs, but since you managed to find this 13 minutes after I posted it, you hardly needed the notification. Regardless, informing you was proper protocol, and the mistake was mine.
 * I opened a discussion on the talk page and have continued to discuss this with you, despite your open hostility and despite the fact that the onus should be you to make your case and not me, since you are the one who wants to include this particular material in a BLP, as per standard Wikipedia practice.
 * As an editor since 2007, you are expected to be aware of the 3RR, so the fact that you did not continue to revert after my courtesy notification is irrelevant. Besides, there was nothing to revert at that point, so you can hardly expect to get credit for not doing something you couldn't do anyway. What is entirely relevant is that you refused to correct your error in violating the 3RR even after the notification.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, you count edits one and two as separate "reverts". They really weren't. Edit 2 is removing an inline note. It was easier to edit the sections separately. I've already stated that I did lose count because I was not looking at the previous day's edit. Yes, I found it, on my own, because it notified me you used my name. That doesn't relieve you of the requirement to notify me. What I have pointed out here is that there was no revert after warning and the norm here is to look at that fact. Citing a warning (as you did) and then not being able to show a revert after that seems fairly pointless, doesn't it? And you have no room to talk about hostility. Trotting out BLP in this case is BS because this isn't really a BLP issue. Regardless, this is about the reverts (and I have no doubt you were counting edits when you continued to revert, hoping I'd pass the 3RR), not your version of the issue under debate. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If I wanted you to pass the 3RR, why did I warn you and wait several hours for you to self-revert before posting here? Don't waste everyone's time with this nonsense.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 03:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I already passed it sport. You are supposed to warn someone BEFORE they pass it. Warning that I'd already passed it isn't a warning, it's a notification at that point. So why would I revert myself at that point? And why am I even talking about this with you? You aren't the neutral party that will decide this. You're the admin that can't follow requirements (it's not a protocol, it's required). Niteshift36 (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to keep track of your edits, chief. I warned you as a courtesy and gave you ample time to self-revert and avoid this report. In return I've only gotten hostility.  Indeed, no good deed goes unpunished.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did I say it was your job to keep track of my edits sunshine? No. Never. Did I say I believe you were keeping track of them buttercup? Absolutely. You've been plenty hostile, smug and condescending my friend. Play the victim all you want. There was no "good deed". There was you trying to use the 3rr simply to get your way (because if you reverted me, you'd violate the 3RR yourself). So you decided to 'do me a favor' and 'give me a chance' to make things the way you wanted them to be. I refused and you got all butt-hurt over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've only reverted twice, sorry. There goes your conspiracy theory.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 removal and 2 reverts of it. If you can list my removing of an inline note from another section as a "revert", then your removal counts as one, especially when the part you removed just happened to be where I just remove the inline note. And there's no conspiracy theory, but keep pretending like you're witty. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Let's try some facts. Niteshift breached WP:3RR. A warning before his 4th revert would have been helpful, but it wasn't required. Also, as he acknowledges, he could've self-reverted but did not do so. Also, Gamaliel's failure to notify him of this discussion does not forgive the breach; nor is the failure to notify sanctionable. Gamaliel has reverted three times, not twice. The first removal is a revert. Both of you are doing a piss-poor job of talking to each other, but Niteshift's attitude is significantly worse - and I don't want to hear argument about that from either of you. I'm uninvolved here, and that's my view. If Niteshift wants to avoid a block, he can agree to a 5-day restriction of not editing the article at all. User:Niteshift36, you must signify your acceptance of that condition here. User:Gamaliel, regardless of what Niteshift does, you cannot revert Niteshift's version, even after the 24-hour window ends. If that part of the article is going to be altered, it's going to have to be done by another editor. The best thing both of you can do is to discuss the material on the talk page in a civil and respectful manner and solicit comments from other editors. Please put the past behind you and focus only on the content.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * A permanent topic ban? You need consensus for that, you can't unilaterally do that.
 * My first "revert" is only a revert only if you consider the deletion of any article content a revert. I am not claiming that I'm entitled to X number of reverts a day, I'm just challenging the accuracy of your statement.  Obviously, talk page discussion is preferable.
 * I have no intention of discussing anything further with an abusive editor as long as he continues to engage in abusive behavior. "Piss-poor" communication on my part?  Perhaps, but I'm not sure what I should have done differently here.  I discussed the matter on talk, I gave him a courtesy notice regarding his rule breaking, and I haven't engaged in anything remotely like the personal attacks and accusations regarding my motives that Niteshift has engaged in.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not imposing a permanent topic ban on anyone. Your removal is a revert per policy. I'm disappointed at your reaction to my comments. I could have blocked both of you, Niteshift for breaching 3RR, and you for edit warring. Instead, I tried to find a reasonable compromise given all the circumstances, at the same time noting some of the problems with each of your conduct. Your comments about "abusive editor" are not helpful. What could you have done differently? How about not edit warring?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And I am disappointed that you are so dismissive of his abusive behavior. Okay, let's find a compromise, a real one, not one that is just a matter of saying "play nice, kids" and pretending nothing happened.  Are you willing to monitor the talk page discussion and step in if either party engages in abusive behavior?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that this noticeboard is not for content disputes or behavior complaints. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stop being ridiculous. Behavior was specifically mentioned by User:Bbb23 above, so it's certainly germane to this discussion.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't want to hear argument about that from either of you". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If he didn't want to hear it, he shouldn't have addressed the matter in multiple comments. He is more than capable of responding to me himself without your concern trolling.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not touching that article for 5 days. I freely admitted my error and have admitted it more than once. I lost count. It's that simple. I'll honor your request to not keep arguing about the other persons conduct, even if Gamaliel won't. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:141.217.233.69 reported by User:PantherLeapord (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 567635010 by PantherLeapord (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 567630841 by NeilN (talk) Stop vandalizing the article"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 567630315 by NeilN (talk) All of this factual information has been cited and sourced."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 567629040 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 567628813 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 567628570 by NeilN (talk) Reverted Vandalism"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 567487427 by Manish 8726 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 567487427 by Manish 8726 (talk)"

-- Neil N   talk to me  05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

More info here: User_talk:141.217.233.69 -- Neil N   talk to me  05:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:


 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=567634168&oldid=567630615
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=567630260
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=567347790


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

Kapil.xerox (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on User's talk page:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A141.217.233.69&diff=559672675&oldid=559328447
 * 2) User_talk:141.217.233.69


 * User has been blocked for 72 hours by Dpmuk per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:96.248.15.44 reported by User:Daffydavid (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shake_Weight&diff=prev&oldid=565839522

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 05:05,  7 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567484420 by Daffydavid (talk) they were wrong - nobody would challenge this interpretation of the innuendo. if you do, explain. otherwise, it needs no source")
 * 2) 17:12,  7 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567532893 by Daffydavid (talk) the action being a handjob action is referenced")
 * 3) 08:14,  8 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567639805 by AsceticRose (talk) there was no consensus, and the "community" is a small group of sensitive users")
 * 4) 08:55,  8 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567651599 by Daffydavid (talk) it's not vandalism")

—Daffydavid (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A96.248.15.44&diff=567653055&oldid=567484752

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
 * The accepted version by the community is Shake Weight has gained popular attention and parody due to the fact that its use involves pumping a phallic object (without even wikilink). I see no reason to change that. - Ascetic Rosé   05:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * it's innuendo. information on wikipedia should be presented as clearly as possible. we're not nbcnews.com, having to hide behind coy implication when identifying sexual acts. the sourced article describes a "suggestive exercise" performed by women "pumping away" at a "phallic-shaped device". if you wish to challenge my conclusion that this article is referring to a handjob, please do so here. 96.248.15.44 (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you happen to notice that you are commenting under a discussion about this very issue and consensus was indeed arrived at? Your arguments in the edit summaries state everything from - no ref required - to - already in ref (NO, it's not). Discuss it here as per BRD. --Daffydavid (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * please respond directly to my points above if you want to discuss this issue. 96.248.15.44 (talk) 08:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The source you quoted above does not say "handjob". You have also violated the 3RR rule and continue to re-insert your edit here despite being blocked previously for doing so. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This has been going on since July 30th when the user added the change and has persisted in adding back the exact same change despite being blocked after a previous report here. It is the same 43 character addition every time. --Daffydavid (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted the edit twice and issued the IP warnings about a week ago. I see he has now been issued a "final" warning. One more incident of vandalism and they are blocked. Jus  da  fax   11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The IP is now reported to WP:AIV twice. Jus  da  fax   11:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And is now blocked for a week. They got off easy in my view. Jus  da  fax   11:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - IP blocked one week by another admin for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Hoardkey reported by User:Komitsuki (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

He reverted back my edits in Kevin S. MacLeod without any explanation. He technically vandalized the Korean Wikipedia. This might be offensive for some people, but please bear with it. There have been too many Korean or Korean-American vandals for the past few years in the English Wikipedia, often with very strong Korean nationalistic tendencies to edit articles. It doesn't help Wikipedia at all. I had negative experiences with them in the past. It makes me sad. Very sad to see Korean nationalism in Wikipedia. FYI, the Korean Wikipedia is full of rude in-fighting among the users and not to mention abuses from moderators are very common. It's very sad. Komitsuki (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody's interested in this? This is a serious issue. Komitsuki (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * [Comment by uninvolved editor] Your two diffs are from separate articles.  No edit-warring is occurring at either article.  You might want to start by (politely) asking User:Hoardkey for an explanation on their talk page first, or on the talk page of the article in question.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Black_Kite reported by User:Twobells (Result: No violation; Twobells warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=prev&oldid=567528007
 * 2) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=567719649&oldid=567716360
 * 3) [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=567719649&oldid=567719159
 * 4) [diff]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=567717204&oldid=567716475

Comments: A user waded in and immediately tried to revert edits on political grounds suggesting that a highly respected British newspaper was 'right wing' suggesting that seemingly only left wing cites had 'value' on Wikipedia, I created a talk section on the issue, explained that politics had no place on wikipedia, that we must observe a neutral pov; however, my edit was once again reverted. The user went on to suggest that consensus was against me, this was a 'consensus of one, him. When I further attempted to lay out my position the user started to suggest that the poll was 'loaded' against all evidence to the contrary, that in itself was personal research yet once again he reverted my edits. Its almost as though this editor believes himself to be the arbiter of what resources editors may employ and that preference seems to be of a left-wing political nature. Twobells (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Why has echo told me I was mentioned here twice? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, an interesting filing, given that the first off the diffs above was actually by User:Nick Cooper, so that means I've made two reverts ... when the filing editor has made three (or more - I haven't looked at their previous edits on the article today). The filing editor clearly hasn't read either WP:3RR, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or, indeed WP:BOOMERANG.
 * They are trying to include this sentence based on an online poll (unreliable to begin with) on a newspaper website - a newspaper which makes no pretence of its own opposition to gun control laws, and which is mainly read by the demographic which would be sympathetic to this position. Not only that, but the questioning wasn't even relevant to the gun control laws - it merely gave a list of five possible law changes (including such stupidities as "ban spitting in public") and asked respondents to choose one. Yet the editor appears to believe that they can synthesise that (even more unreliable) information to the entire British population.
 * It would, as I said on the talkpage, be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous. To give an equivalent example, imagine if Fox News ran an online poll asking if Obama was doing a good job, and came up with 80% "No" votes; an editor then tried to insert a sentence in the Barack Obama article trying to assert that 80% of the US population held that view -it would be reverted immediately.  And that's the situation here. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On what grounds is the poll unreliable? That this highly respected newspaper doesn't pander to the left-wing in its entirety? The Daily Telegraph has never published an opinion on gun politics of the UK, it seems that so much of what this editor is saying is based upon assumptions, assumptions that because the newspaper isn't glaringly left-wing is MUST be pro gun, that against all evidence is somehow 'rigged' the poll, if the fact that this editor is seeming to suggest that only left- wing articles are citable it would be funny. Twobells (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have never said that only left-wing opinions are citable - please feel free to provide a diff as to where I said that, Indeed, as I said, an equivalent online poll in The Guardian would be equally invalid. Now, let another admin come and look at the issue. Oh, by the way -    etc. etc. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Here are the results of the poll taking in both hard copy and online votes. From your 'right wing' language on the talk page and associated same on your reverts we can only assume that your position is political. Twobells (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Daily Telegraph has never taken a position on repealing handgun legislation which is what my edit involved. The above links are just personal comments, they are not the position of the newspaper, surely that is obvious? Twobells (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And of course newspapers regularly post op-ed pieces which clash with their own positions. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian does it all the time. Twobells (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is pretty unusual in that respect. Anyway, here's an actual Telegraph editorial - . Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No its not, that is an eight year-old comment (not editorial) about a seventeen year-old piece on firearm legislation not about repealing the handgun ban which is what my entry was about, a very recent article an dpoll that balanced an old poll suggesting that British people wanted strong gun control. Twobells (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It was purely an online poll. What on earth is a "hard copy vote"? Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Readers could phone in their votes as well, the poll ran in hard copy editions. Twobells (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the filing editor accidentally transcluded my entire talkpage onto the AN3 page. I fixed it. Black Kite (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I rarely get into the content dispute that forms the predicate for a report here, but in this instance, User:Twobells is warned that if they continue to reinsert the material in the article, they risk being blocked for disruptive, non-neutral editing. There is no gray here. The material cannot be included for many reasons, including that the material is not even supported by the source, the source is unreliable, and the poll was an online poll, which is inherently worthless (the Telegraph even offered prizes to the "winner".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the poll was both online and allowed the reader to phone in. How is the source unreliable? The material supports the argument if you read the article, as for 'disruptive' I wasn't the one reverting edits. Twobells (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is you that wrong about this, Twobells. I see that you have been blocked (below), but while you are not editing, read up on Sampling bias please.Slp1 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Twobells reported by User:Sjö (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 567385629 by Black Kite (talk)Left Wing-Right Wing? The sentence is neutral, wikipedia does not cherry pick according to political position"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 567716360 by Black Kite (talk) Reverted political bias see talk"
 * 3)  "I have laid it out as neutrally as I can, if you feel it is still pov don't revert go to the talk page"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 567733590 by Sjö (talk) The article has all the information someone needs it lays out the Bill and readers preferences and why,  I have added a new cite to round out the issue"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

See also the request above Sjö (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Acroterion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:209.66.114.182 reported by User:Guanxi (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 02:46, 6 August 2013‎ 66.233.11.67

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 13:34, 6 August 2013‎ 209.66.114.182
 * 2) 17:21, 6 August 2013‎ 209.66.114.182
 * 3) 17:24, 6 August 2013‎ 209.66.114.182
 * 4) 23:12, 6 August 2013‎ Terahertz7 <--- Same user as 209.66.114.182

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

209.66.114.182 and Terahertz7 are very likely the same; I suggested they register an account and the next reversion and Talk update were under Terahertz7.

FWIW, if you look at 209.66.114.182's contributions, they mostly involve IBT Media, their personnel (e.g., Etienne Uzac, and organizations they own (e.g., International Business Times); I didn't look at the revisions to see if there is a history of similarly removing valid information.

Otherwise, I think the Talk page explains the issues well. I tried to avoid crossing the line into edit warring by incorporating updates to address the other editor's concerns, encouraging them to add the contradictory information they claim to possess, and providing suggestions on how to do it effectively (register, use a cite generator, etc.)

guanxi (talk) 02:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I should add as context the following, which may help you make sense of what you are seeing: IBT Media is in the news because it recently acquired Newsweek. This brought out concerns that IBT Media is closely affiliated with or controlled by David J. Jang, an evangelical minister popular in East Asia, who has a reputation for claiming he's the second coming of Jesus, connections with the Moonies, and running a cult-like sect. IBT Media has denied and according to the cited reports, tried to suppress claim about their relationship with Jang (and his Olivet University).

(Wikipedia absolutely should not take sides; I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying the claims about the relationship with Jang/Olivet are widely reported in RS's and should be included)

guanxi (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything else, or change anything, in order for this to be addressed? I'm not sure if there's a problem with this post or if people are just busy. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . The IP has not edited the article or anything else since August 6.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Jekjekjek3 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (as )

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (as )
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)  (as 107.220.86.220)
 * 7)  (as 107.220.86.220)
 * 8)
 * 9)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Erik notified Jekjekjek3 of the discussion on article talk page, but Jekjekjek3 just went ahead and re-added the content. Even though Jekjekjek3 hasn't violated 3RR, this dispute has become very protracted now, and since the editor is completely uncommunicative it makes it impossible to resolve the situation. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Daniel Case per a report at WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Flarepath13 reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

    
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Repeated violations of WP:COPYVIO. Repeated warnings on user's Talk page ignored, including a final warning. WP:IDHT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 24 hours. Feel free to post on a noticeboard or contact me personally without waiting for a 3RR violation if the copyright violations continue. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Untieailed reported by User:A.amitkumar (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 567827673 by Anushka127 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 567827217 by Anushka127 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Successful cross-over actors and actresses: Tabu, Anupam Kher, Amrish Puri, Anil kapoor, Irrfan Khan, Danny Denzongpa and Amitabh Bachan. She is clearly not"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 567825181 by Anushka127 (talk) reverting false shameless wrong purple prose written in bad English and restoring sourced facts"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 567824629 by Anushka127 (talk) Many Indian actors are successful in Hollywood (Including her father-in-law). Calling her successful in Hollywood makes all Indian actors look bad."
 * 6)  "reverting vandalisms by Aishwarya or her PAs"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with '  ==Aishwarya Rai Filmography==  Stop Edit warring on this article, and both of you discuss on the article talk page to get consensus, I will have to inform an a...'"

section of personal user talk page after which edit war continues
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Anushka127 reported by User:A.amitkumar (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Spammer is at it.I am well aware of such haters who happen to be doing it at social networking and youtube also.It is an open fact that Aishwarya is the most successful and the most popular Indian actor in Hollywood."
 * 2)  "A spammer/hater with malicious intent*who has been blocked a many times) has been hellbent to write wrong info here."
 * 1)  "Spammer is at it.I am well aware of such haters who happen to be doing it at social networking and youtube also.It is an open fact that Aishwarya is the most successful and the most popular Indian actor in Hollywood."
 * 2)  "A spammer/hater with malicious intent*who has been blocked a many times) has been hellbent to write wrong info here."
 * 1)  "A spammer/hater with malicious intent*who has been blocked a many times) has been hellbent to write wrong info here."
 * 1)  "A spammer/hater with malicious intent*who has been blocked a many times) has been hellbent to write wrong info here."
 * 1)  "A spammer/hater with malicious intent*who has been blocked a many times) has been hellbent to write wrong info here."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "←Created page with '  ==Aishwarya Rai Filmography==  Stop Edit warring on this article, and both of you discuss on the article talk page to get consensus, I will have to inform an a...'"
 * 2)   "/* Aishwarya Rai Filmography */"

section of talk page after which edit war continues
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb and User:71.231.186.92 reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: No action)
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to: this

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APatriot_Act&diff=567688321&oldid=561070453 diff (by 71…)

Comments:

There appears to be a slow-moving edit war, with one revert last Tuesday and two more earlier today at Patriot Act between those two editors, with 71… noting that the Patriot Act deals with issues other than patriotism, and Joefromrandb (who has been blocked twice before for edit warring) accusing 71… of POV pushing and soapboxing. Joefromrandb left a profane note at 71…’s talk page, and reverted 71…today rather than participate in a discussion thread 71… started yesterday. p b  p  18:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment for the reviewing admin: Purplebackpack89 has been bickering with Joefromrandb at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded and User_talk:Joefromrandb, culminating in this AN/I thread. I suggested that he disengage and find something else to do, as the conflict was escalating quite rapidly. He response is, apparently, to file this report for an article that he doesn't even seem to edit. -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . @pbp, this is a frivolous report at best. It's true that there's a small battle going on in the article, but Joe did not leave a "profane" message on the IP's talk page as you stated. He used the word "bullshit" and not even directed at the IP. Big deal. Also, Joe is spot-on in his reverts. What the IP is adding is unsourced opinion (WP:OR). Of course, that's not an exemption to edit warring, but thus far there's been no breach of 3RR by either editor. You want to warn them that there might be a breach? Fine, but I see no basis for filing this report. Your energy would be better spent helping with the article and the dispute than coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No action per Laser Brain and Bbb23 above. I think it would be a good idea if PBP and Joe disengaged from each other, as well. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bazaan 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)  This is a deliberate misreprestation of the source used.
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is deliberately misrepresenting the source used which is explicit in that the government has armed the settlers and that the majority of attacks on the indigenous peoples have been carried out by the armed forces, not the settlers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: This is harassment, you're blocking every legitimate correction. My edits say the exact same thing, that the government arms the settlers. But you will need to give a citation that the armed forces are directly perpetrating most atrocities, because as far I know (and I know a lot more about this conflict than you), armed Bengali settlers are typically used at the forefront by the military to carry out massacres, rape and arson. Regarding the image, the temple attack was suffered by mainstream Bengali Hindus in Chittagong city, during the recent anti-war crimes trial protests by the Jamaat-e-Islami. It's not an image of the indigenous peoples conflict in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. --Bazaan (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what you know to be true, and your edit completely changes what is cited. Your edit makes it appear that the armed forces not the government has armed the settlers, and that the majority of attacks were by the settlers and not the army, so that is deliberate source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone with a proper understanding of the CHT conflict will know that the Chittagong Hill Tracts is the playground of the Bangladeshi military (and was off-limits to the civilian government for many years). I will cites tonnes of references that Bengali settlers, armed and backed up by the military, are at the forefront of the majority of attacks.--Bazaan (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * But it looks like you're both contributing to the edit war here, please take it to the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Both of you fail to grasp the key point for the purpose of this board, and that is edit warring, not your content dispute. Sniping at each other outside of the article isn't helping you resolve the dispute. Edit warring in the article will only lead to sanctions. At this point, neither of you has breached WP:3RR, although both of you have edit-warred. Why don't you stop editing the article until you can resolve the dispute? And, frankly, I don't see why it matters all that much which version is left in place during the period you argue discuss the matter. It occurs to me, though, that one possible resolution - or at least interim resolution - is to remove the sentence altogether. It's a topical sentence that, by its nature, is generalized and not fact-specific. For example, the succeeding sentence is precise and easier to determine whether the source supports it. Topical sentences are often problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I remove the fact that the state has armed settlers and formed militias who carry out mass atrocities? Or that the majority of atrocities were carried out by the army? So now we have deliberate source misrepresentation in an article. Great, and no doubt when I fix that misrepresentation I will be blocked for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The difficulty here is that nobody can easily glance at the offline source and determine who is correct, and you risk being lumped in with other editors and being sanctioned accordingly by administrators who are unwilling or unable to determine the truth of the matter. I suggest you tag it with Template:Failed verification and bring the matter Third opinion.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is what the source says "The main perpetrators were the armed forces working in close cooperation with the sponsored settlers. To add to this tense situation the government decided to supply arms to the settlers " The article now says the main people responsible for the killings are the settlers and that the armed forces were handing out guns, not the state, clear cut source misrepresentation. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please post that quote on the article talk page and ask User:Bazaan to respond there.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:14, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Ancientsteppe reported by User:Lysozym (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

He had been warned more than once:

Comments: He was blocked for 48 hours after being reported on WP:ANI, but the moment his ban was over, he turnd back to the EW: -Lysozym (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User: ‎39.52.161.86 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) as Osama hussain aatish khan
 * 2) as Osama hussain aatish khan
 * 3) as Osama hussain aatish khan
 * 4) as ‎39.52.161.86

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User first edited the article from ip (‎39.52.161.86) and later created "Osama hussain aatish khan". -- S M S  Talk 19:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * the registered account indefinitely and the IP for one week, both for vandalism, although I could have included other bases.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Aspects (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 21:50, 3 August 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:24, 10 August 2013
 * 2) 20:24, 10 August 2013
 * 3) 20:48, 10 August 2013
 * 4) 20:50, 10 August 2013
 * 5) 20:52, 10 August 2013

(Not for the same article, but for the same concept) Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st warning: 22:05, 3 August 2013 Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st removal: 22:08, 3 August 2013 Diff of edit warring / 3RR 2nd warning (me not noticing the first warning and its removal): 03:23, 4 August 2013 Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1st removal: 03:34, 4 August 2013


 * 1) 1st attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Werieth/201308 (archived while still in discussion)
 * 2) 2nd attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Werieth

Comments: I previously brought Werieth here on for edit warring, but this is even a more glaring example of five reversions in five and a half hours and four reversion within thirty minutes. From my last report: "Werieth has been edit warring to remove single covers of notable cover versions on song article claiming that they violate WP:NFC across numerous articles. Werieth has reverted four different editors that came across the image deletions independently.  After being warned in the discussion by three editors that this edit warring would not exempt him from 3RR, including KWW who stated "The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you." The fact that there is a discussion on his talk page about the image deletions and his reverting four different editors show that his edits are not exempt per WP:3RRNO because the images are not unquestionably violating WP:NFCC." Everyone in the previous discussion was telling Werieth that he can be BOLD and remove the image, if reverted he needs to take the image to discussion. Werieth has responded to everyone's suggestions by edit warring. Aspects (talk) 21:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The file in question does not meet WP:NFCC criteria. I have asked several times for them to take it to WP:NFCR but because they know it doesnt they just edit war to keep the file. Per NFC the burden is on those wishing to include the file to assert that it meets NFC. In this case the only thing cited for inclusion is WP:OTHERSTUFF while I have pointed several discussions proving it doesnt meet policy. Werieth (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to close this one because I was active on the previous one and have commented, however I would merely point out that it takes two to edit-war, or in this case three, and the tag-teaming reverts by Aspects and Cavarrone reflect no better on them that they do on Werieth. Furthermore, at no time has the talkpage been used to explain how the image passes all the tenets of NFCC, notably 3a and 8, and per NFCC the image should technically stay out of the article until this is resolved at NFCR. Whilst Werieth is technically in breach of 3RR, there are enough issues surrounding the image to suggest this should be hashed out at NFCR. The article should probably be protected. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * On the talk page, days ago, Aspects actually explained how the image passes all the tenets of NFCC, including notably 3a and 8. Cavarrone 21:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have suggested multiple times that they take it to NFCR but they refuse to do so. Werieth (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, this is an symptom of the dreaded MOS problem of WP:COVERSONG. Where there are two or more very notable versions of the same song, there should really be two articles, which would render this issue moot. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please note that in the NFC talk page now Werieth is now struggling for adding a rule that allows just 1 image per page as primary visual identifier of the article's subject . But his idea does not even seem have consensus . Cavarrone  21:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is, and has been general consensus that 1 image is the standard unless the second image is unusually notable and the subject of commentary (and passes NFCC 1-10 of course). The statement my Masem that you link above does indeed suggest that "99% of the time" a second IDing image is invalid.  Having said that, the discussion you linked at NFC isn't actually about this issue precisely (and you'll notice that the change to NFCC8 has been unilaterally rejected so far). As I said above, the problem here is that this article is effectively two articles. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, I said it on Wr. talk page several times (eg, cite: " The main part of these articles consists in two sections of similar size about two different subjects, two songs that are merged together per WP:NSONG requirement but that are independently notable from each other"), and this is the main reason for which I consider these cases not eligible for a bold deletion of the images per NFCC. Especially if five editors disagree with Mr. Werieth. Side note, I also agree that 99% of times 1 image is sufficient. Cavarrone  22:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Background in the related discussion regarding previous edit wars, Werieth was requested by three different administrators to avoid edit wars in controverial cases and instead take the images to FFD or NFCR.
 * Kww said "you know that I'm generally your ally on this one, but I really think you should go for discussion on this. The WP:NFCC cover for WP:3RR is not sufficiently clear in this case to give you much protection. I can assure you that I wouldn't unblock you on those grounds if another admin blocked you."
 * Dianaa said "removing the image from the article and listing it as F5 is not the best way to tackle the problem when you see an image that you think does not meet the NFCC. If you unilaterally strip images from articles it will often result in disagreements. Better you should list any files with inadequate rationales as F7 speedy deletions or at WP:FFD. Another option is to list the article at WP:NFCR. These methods are better, as the interested parties have designated venues to post their reasons why they think the images belong in the article."
 * Masem said: "are right to target these images of covers as inappropriate NFC, this is the wrong way to do it - this is the same attitude that got Beta/Delta blocked/restricted/banned from WP..." "With an affirmative statement in policy of that situation, edit warring on removal of such images is very much inappropriate as long as all the other parts of NFCC are met. This is why we have WP:NFCR and WP:FFD to review when such images are appropriate, if other dispute means don't work. Removing such images boldly when you see them on articles for the first time is fine, but any subsequent re-reversions to remove them without gaining consensus is against edit warring policy. Tag and bring them to NFCR if you get resistance in removing them, but please don't edit war over them even though I believe you are right.". Cavarrone 22:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . It's great to see y'all back here. As with the previous report, I've locked the article, this time for five days; the last was only for three days. Maybe in your next go-around, I'll lock the article for ten days. I thought about blocking all of you, and if this keeps up, that may be the result. After all, all I have to do is add a "b".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If users want the file included take it to WP:NFCR and get it OKed. Which I doubt will happen, as they prefer to edit war and ignore policy to keep the file. Werieth (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As WP:3RR suggest: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy". If the file is not removed, copyright law of the US is not being violated. You are really using NFC as a shield to edit-war. The next time I would suggest the block of all involved parts as articles don't have the fault of editors, especially those who use the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Aspects (talk) to last revision by Werieth." which would be a violation of WP:ROLLBACK if you have it, as well as WP:EDITSUMMARY. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to remember everyone that only one editor here violated 3RR, everyone else "dropped the stick" to avoid violating the three revert rule. And talking about "tag-teaming edit war" for the counterpart, when the editors who disagrees with Werieth's actions and reverted him consist of four different editors (and elsewhere even five different editors), is misleading. Cavarrone 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Duarfimaws reported by User:Kapil.xerox (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567774089

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=prev&oldid=567837706

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567896822
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567904825
 * 3) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567960839
 * 4) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567974045
 * 5) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567974084

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=567837706 Comments:

Warnings on user's talk page:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duarfimaws#Refrain_from_using_Talk_pages_for_primary_research
 * . That's quite a mess and certainly isn't a classic edit war. I'm assuming that some of the accusations made by Duarfimaws were against living persons. I'm wholly unfamiliar with the material in the article, but I checked on the web, and it looked like the swami Duarfimaws accused of stealing is a living person. The comments by Duarfimaws on the talk page were way over the top.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:71.246.120.34 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

No discussion on talk page.

Comments:

I am not a party to this dispute, but saw a query about it on WP:RSN and thought it qualified as edit warring. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 10:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a resumption of a prior instance of edit warring over the same material, ( vs. ), only no longer written as a long quote.Novangelis (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose that now that I have posted on the talk page, as well as posted at RSN and WT:MED, I can no longer be considered not-a-party-to-this-dispute. I wasn't before posting this, anyway. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 11:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

- 31 hours by. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Blackhu20 reported by User:Vejvančický (Result: Indef)
I'm sorry if this report isn't properly filled, but I think it belongs here. User:Blackhu20 stubbornly moves his user page and talk page to the main space (see logs of Manzil Poudar, Manzil poudar) despite repeated attempts of communication and warnings (see User talk:Blackhu20). I also suspect that User:Blackhu20 is a sock of (blocked as a sock of ). This becomes really time wasting. Again, I'm sorry for not properly filling the report, I wasn't sure how to do that with the help of templates. User:Blackhu20 has been notified about this report. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User being reported:
 * - Indef for abuse of multiple accounts and general disruption. He [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asia&diff=prev&oldid=567906887 removed the entire text] of the Asia article to replace it with a blurb about Nepal. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Brews ohare reported by User:174.113.14.197 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: ?

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  Original addition of contentious material
 * 2)  1rst revert
 * 3)  2nd revert
 * 4)  3rd revert
 * 5)  4th revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Also, Snowded is very close to breaking 3RR too, although hasn't broken the letter of the law yet. 174.113.14.197 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He's not going to either, just trying different ways to get Brews to respect the fact he can't just insert content if its disputed. Given his topic bans and block history I doubt I will succeed but its always worth trying  Snowded  TALK 18:37, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was wrong, he has responded to my request to move the discussion and restore the original version. So I think its over.  You're not GoodDay are you?  IP from the Maritimes one time use?  Snowded  TALK 18:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No action Since Brews ohare has reverted himself and redirected the article, I don;t think any action is required here. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

User:RealNMMP reported by User:SL93 (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 568122417 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 568124195 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 568124572 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 568126847 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 568137534 by Flyer22 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring and violating the 3 revert rule. The editor has a conflict of interest as well with the article. The editor has been warned three times about inserting promotional content into the article. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now edit warring at Usernames for administrator attention. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User needs blocking. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure where to report this at. Not only is there edit warring, but the editor is also saying that editors are slandering the organization at User talk:SL93 and User talk:Flyer22. There is also the promotional username and a conflict of interest. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 72h. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Username issues remain (UAA report was removed by a bot.) Could you block the username as promotional and representing an organization? OSborn arfcontribs. 00:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * An SPI case is open - Sockpuppet investigations/RealNMMP. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The user identifies as a member of the NMMP. THere's certainly a COI issue, not sure it's a username vio though. Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think SPI is needed here, is stale and only edited once in December 2012. I will re-report RealNMMP to UAA to get feedback there on whether the username is an issue. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:GabeMc (Result: No action)
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:

Comments:


 * This is about as silly as a report can get, in that the accuser has as many reverts as the accused. In any case, having reverted twice, I am now discussing this at WT:MOS. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No action Three reverts each (in fact, has Joefromrandb even reverted three times?), and the filer is issuing edit summaries calling the other editor a troll? Not the greatest idea. You should both stay on the talk page discussing this. WP:BRD means exactly that. Black Kite (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, but this seems like red-tape procedural tedium. After all, what is there to discuss when one party is completely correct and the other is completely wrong? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lemaroto reported by User:Ophois (Result: Blocked)
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: He has been altering the writers credits, not differentiating between "and" and "&" (which have different meanings. I left him a 3RR warning and a link to the wiki article that explains the difference in meaning, but he immediately reverted after another editor undid his changes.


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:110.143.235.186 reported by User:Bjenks (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on IP user's talk page: User_talk:110.143.235.186

Comments:

The subject political party, Australian Democrats, are overtly involved in a 2-faction battle for control. The faction recognised by the relevant public authority (Australian Electoral Commission) is recorded in Wikipedia. Since the situation may change (though this is unlikely), both factions are acknowledged in the article. The IP editor wishes to remove mention of the officially registered party group. There is to be a general election in Australia on 7 September 2013, requiring candidates to be officially registered. I understand the differences will be officially resolved (for electoral purposes) within 7 days. I am a former member of this party (resigned in 1993) and have no personal involvement in or connection with any member of the present organisation(s). Bjenks (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * but as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Binthaneya reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Already blocked indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: un-reverted

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: Not editing this particular page

Comments:

this user was recently blocked for similar behavior at The Dubai Mall. For some reason their 3RR violation was not reported here. Once their block expired they immediately went back to editing Burj Khalifa in what appears to be a pretty clear POVPUSH manner. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my ANI Complaint regarding this user as well  -Ryan  05:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef by User:Gogo Dodo. Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Wickey-nl reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Wickey-nl has repeatedly been removing links from this template over the past few hours.

First change to the template:, which I reverted and asked him to discuss on the talk page. However, he continued reverting. I do not want to break WP:3RR, so filed a request for page protection, which was not acted on quickly enough to stop him removing the links for a fourth time today:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

In addition to the initial request in my first revert, I have asked the editor on three separate occasions to respect WP:BRD and discuss on talk rather than revert

Comments:


 * Result: Protected. The template has been fully protected by User:Mark Arsten. It is unclear whether WP:ARBPIA covers this template, but this comment by User:Wickey-nl seems to be a dig against elections conducted under Israeli administration, so we're very close to the I/P topic area. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:109.186.234.86 reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Nothing I removed was even sourced. Kubrick, Malick, Kurosawa, etc. are not thought of as directors of art films by serious scholars (Ray Carney, Susan Sontag). Familiarize yourself with the work of Prof. Carney, the world's foremost authority on art film"
 * 2)  "Do you seriously belive that Lynch, Hitchcock, Coppola, Scorsese, etc. made art films? Carney is not just some professor, he is the world's foremost authority on art films. Read his website (people.bu.edu/rcarney), especially about those I've removed"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 568228599 by Freshacconci (talk) Please listen to my arguments first and read some of Carney's material. Don't beheave like a creationist and deny academic consensus!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Art film */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Art film. (TW)"
 * 3)   "further"


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

(See below)


 * Comments:

Removing large sections of the article and refusing to discuss it on the article talk page. I attempted to discuss it on the IP's talk page but those were erased with no other response.  freshacconci  talk to me  16:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

IP is currently edit-warring on Karl Riedl‎ and was given at least two warnings. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * by User:Sergecross73 Mark Arsten (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Djsnake86 (Result: No violation)
Article vandalized by Werieth

Wyscout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyscout

Werieth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth

Previous version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyscout&oldid=568337526

Previous version reverted by Werieth to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wyscout&oldid=568356316 (images removed)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [Wiscout Platform 1.0 for Set-Top Boxes screenshot, Spring 2009.jpg image removed]
 * 2) [Wyscout Platform 2 on Google Chrome, 5 March 2010.png image removed]
 * 3) [Wyscout Platform 3 screenshot, 5 March 2012.jpg image removed]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: link to the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth

Comments: I've just read on user Werieth discussion page that he created other problems to other users like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aspects


 * Wow, I removed several screen shots and a copyrighted picture from an article that do not meet WP:NFCC. This user has an obvious COI and the user needs to read WP:VAND my actions are no where near that. Werieth (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Just have a look on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Werieth, there are 4 users in less than 3 days (!) that complains the same problems with your image deletion skills, I can change the licences of those images, it's no problem, you don't have just to remove them, you could continue the discussion and make the wikipedia articles look better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djsnake86 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not edit-warring, not vandalism, malformed report. This noticeboard is for edit-warring only, please do not abuse it.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not the appropriate place for such discussions: please use the article talkpage to work out article content, and please be careful about changing licenses: non-free images with incorrect licenses may be deleted. Just because other editors have disputed some of Werieth's removals doesn't mean he isn't right.  Acroterion   (talk)   14:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sprutt reported by User:Obitauri (Result: Declined)

 * User being reported:
 * Page:

Reason: Doing 4 edits in 24 hour period, he also did same on 8 and 9 august but more in count. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Georgian_alphabet&action=history --Obitauri (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Editor User:Obitauri apparently does not fully understand that WP is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit as long as they act in accordance with regulations. The complaint is pointless. User:Obitauri please note that instead of filing dubious complaints, users first should engage in talk if there are disagreements. Sprutt (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Making 4 constructive, consecutive edits in a 24 hour period is not edit warring. There was no revert-warring and no bahviour consistent with the definitiopn of edit warring. Please don't repoerr edits here simply because you don't agree with their content. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "see talk page"
 * 2)  "the phrase "Bangladesh Civil War" is never used in any source, changed it to "a war" as seen in the source"
 * 3)  "/* Human rights abuses */  see talk page"
 * 4)  "/* Human rights abuses */  The image is of a Bengali Hindu temple from Chittagong not from Chittagong Hill Tracts, this has nothing to do with the indegenous people"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Image */"
 * 2)   "/* More source misrepresentation */"


 * Comments:

I have explained on the talk page that any change to content added by another editor is a revert, he will not listen. I gave him a 3RR notification on the talk page Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The second one is not a revert and the fourth one is not even in the past 24 hours. Stop flooding this page unnecessarily.-- Zayeem (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Twinkle says the fourth one was within 24hrs. How is the second one not a revert? You totally changed the content and remove existing content. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 3RR Violation I can see all the reverts under the period of 24 hours. Seems to be a clear breach to me. He comes frequently here, and has got multiple warnings of 3RR violations in Bangladesh-related articles. . I guess warning will not suffice now.  Fai  zan  07:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, I made only 2 reverts here. only changing or removing doesn't count as a revert, Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part., doesn't really go with the second diff.-- Zayeem (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:175.38.163.188 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * I would block, but it's been almost 24 hours since the IP last reverted. Let me know if edit warring picks up again. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Khaledd01 reported by User:Harout72 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2, 3, 4 (the last edit was done after I informed the user about forums not being reliable)

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

Comments:

I'm reporting the user for edit warring, he/she never violated the actual 3RR rule. The user persistently inserts the same unsupported peaks found in forums, the link of which he/she pointed out in this edit. My warnings to the user have not been effective.--Harout72 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Apalaria reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 48 hrs)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 568093988 by Redtigerxyz (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 568381630 by Redtigerxyz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 568496993 by Dougweller (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 568509078 by Dougweller (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Changes being reverted by biased people */ reverted as sources fail RS"
 * 2)   "/* Changes being reverted by biased people */ Debnath"


 * Comments:

He states that "I will keep reverting to my version unless you specify which websites fail WP:RS because I do not see any problem." I made it clear it is all the websites he is using. See also WP:RSN Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He continues to revert despite the warning I gave him about this report.

Blocked 48 hrs as second offense. Vsmith (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Stale)
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: N/A

Comments:

I am not a regular editor at Human but I did see this user make a couple of edits that suggested there might be problems ahead. the edit summary on this one, for instance. There is also some talk on their user talk page that seems suggestive. I did revert this edit on a related page.


 * Addendum: you can add this revert. I'm at my self-imposed 1RR already so will not be re-reverting, but "there are 280 page watchers" does not seem to me like evidence that an edit is non-controversial. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 08:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional comment: I have posted at WP:FRINGE/N regarding the assertion of "fringe" material on the edit immediately above. but while checking the user's talk page history, i note that they have been warned for multiple reasons (including edit warring) in the quite recent past, specifically for their edits to Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. here, here, and here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 09:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt I even need to comment, but the reverts are 3 days old and it clearly wasn´t an edit-war if you read the edit summaries. Edgth (talk) 06:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I don't see what the edit summaries have to do with anything. Nor is the stale finding a comment on the user's behavior otherwise.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Rajputbhatti reported by User:Angelo De La Paz (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments: Rajputbhatti is an Indian pro-Islamists, he attacked some Christian-related articles before and received several warnings because of that reasons. Now, there is an edit war in articles of Nigeria and Religion in Nigeria. He deleted 3 different sources (2010 and 2011's census) which show off higher Christian population, and only keep 1 source of the 2001's census with higher Muslim population.Angelo De La Paz (talk) 12:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Angelo De La Paz is a latino anti-Islamist, he is attacking several articles about Religion. When I viewed the history of article Nigeria, I find out that he was in severe conflict with other Users. I just ignored him and made an edit and also explained it, but soon I realized that he was an anti-Islamist trying to impose his own views and resulted in edit conflict. He has also undone my other edits not related to Religion in order to hurt me. I am of Muslim background but I assure you that I have never favoured Islam over Other Religions. Please block him.rajputbhatti
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:69.225.140.208 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result:Declined )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 568373829 by Winkelvi (talk) no I did the complete opposite, idiot"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 568678881 by Winkelvi (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 568688948 by Winkelvi (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Design the Skyline. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Design the Skyline. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* D00m vs. Doom */ new section"


 * Comments:

Even though it's about a band, wouldn't this article fall under BLP guidelines? The IP user being reported has continued to remove accurate content and replace it with inaccurate content regarding a band member. In addition to the edit warring, he has taken to using personal attacks in edit summaries and my talk page as well as engaging in harassment at my talk page. A talk page discussion has been started at the article, he was notified of it, and has yet to engage there. Regarding the spelling of the band member's stage name, his own Twitter account (plus a plethora of other online sources) support the spelling with two zeros:. When it is acceptable for me to revert the changes the IP user made back to the correct spelling, I will add at least one reliable reference that supports the spelling to hopefully quell any future disagreement over this. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

^ lol that's funny. Let me state the real truth and facts. First of all, I NEVER removed or replaced incorrect content with anything lol. What happened was that you said I replaced the band members name with zeroes (for example, the last name of his Dani Doom alias was changed to "D00m" by the user above), which I reverted and changed back to "Doom". He reverted my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Design_the_Skyline&diff=568373829&oldid=568301090 with the false claim that I "changed it to zeroes" when it is in fact the exact opposite as you can see in the link. Then I I leave him messaged on his talk page about this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Winkelvi&diff=568682941&oldid=568682517 and then he reverts it saying I was making "personal attacks". Basically at this point, I'm just thinking what the fuck is this guy thinking? Basically in a nutshell, he (the user above this comment) reverts me and says I did something that was the EXACT OPPOSITE of his claim, then reverts me again with no explanation even after I explained myself and then reverts me again and again and again despite the fact I told him over and over that what he's doing is wrong. Also if you want pure proof that the member's name is Dani Doom and not "D00m", here is a source straight from their label http://www.victoryrecords.com/designtheskyline I don't know if the man above me is on drugs or something, but him starting all this drama is flat out ridiculous and absurd. 69.225.140.208 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've copied this over from my talk page where I've been trying to sort this out. To me, this looks like a big misunderstanding. Without a source in the article, no hidden text note, removing '00' for the more standard 'oo' seems a perfectly reasonable response. Winklevi, your edit summary for this edit is a little confusing. Reading it again with the additional information I've now seen, I think I can see what you're trying to say, but on first reading to me, and the IP, it does seem to say that 'oo' is what it should be, and that the IP has used '00', which of course they hadn't.
 * It would have been better to add the source at the start of the process, rather than engaging in an edit war (even if both sides thought they were reverting vandalism). Additionally, if you'd have explained it on the IP's talkpage rather than just sticking to a templated message, that would probably have helped too.
 * Mr IP, additionally, please refrain from personal attacks; calling someone an idiot and asking if they're crazy rarely gets a good response from most people.
 * I hope this has helped sort this out :) Ged  UK  20:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like it will sort it out. But there is still the issue of the current version of the spelling being incorrect and needing to be changed.  As I asked in the report here, wouldn't the names of bandmembers in the article make this a BLP concern, therefore the rules regarding reverting to the correct content be different? Also, shouldn't there be a warning to the IP user that harassment on editor talk pages isn't a good idea, either?  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, if it's sourced then it can be changed. Don't just revert though, change it and put the source in at the same time. Yes, it's a BLP issue, but the key fact with this dispute is that you both thought you were protecting the person, and because of a communication breakdown, you both kept reverting thinking you had policy on your side. As soon as there's a reliable source in there, then it becomes clearer one way or the other. Ged  UK  21:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did mention NPA here. Ged  UK  21:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb reported by User:GabeMc (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: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Joe is on a mission to harass and bother me per WP:TEDIOUS. He is now reverting my script-assisted delinking as requiring consensus. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  20:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * He is also edit warring at my talk page. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearest boomerang I've ever seen. Take a look at the talk page "edit war". Joefromrandb (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the fourth or fifth time at least that the user has been accused of edit warring since his block for that on 31 July. In addition, edit-warring with another user on their own talk page is patently unacceptable  p  b  p  21:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the fifth. The first four were quickly dismissed. Unfortunately there is no penalty for filing frivolous reports, like this one. And "edit-warring" on any page is perfectly acceptable to remove a libel. And now, please excuse me while I duck out of the way. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . The filer is not coming here with clean hands, and the fact that these two have sparred before is hardly compelling evidence that Joefromrandb is the problem. --  tariq abjotu  21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Jattnijj reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Please provide a reliable reference"
 * 2)  "Please provide reliable references"
 * 3)  "Reliable references please"
 * 4)  "Reliable references please"
 * 5)  "References please peer reviewed mcloed states its attributed of so by who"
 * 6)  "References please"
 * 7)  "Reliable references please"
 * 1)  "Reliable references please"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Other editors have issued warnings.


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Other editors have tried to resolve this.


 * Comments:

There are other articles like Jat people where he is doing this. I think he is treating Wikipedia like a WP:Battleground S H 16:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The behaviour of the reported contributor is already being discussed at Ani. - Sitush (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Im asking for academic peer reviewed references, and removing unreferenced claims and opinions.

Jattnijj (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * per WP:CASTES and AN/I. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Tedpatten reported by User:Magog the Ogre (Result: indef)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=549515043&oldid=549330999]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=550475145&oldid=550366444 April 15] Revert of
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=551961457&oldid=551936158 April 24] (Revert of
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=552274760&oldid=552163547 April 26] (Revert of Qwh again)
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=555053899&oldid=554723036 May 14] (Revert of 24.240.22.168  again as IP - see evidence below)
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=558764339&oldid=558123112 June 3] (Revert of  as IP - see evidence below)
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=568511432&oldid=568298868 August 14] (Revert of me)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tedpatten&diff=568299293&oldid=390707078]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, attempt was made on user's talk page

Comments:

This is not 3RR violation report, rather it is a report for edit warring against multiple other users while refusing discuss. The user has seen five different users tell him the content is inappropriate (including [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=568222275&oldid=562628088 this edit]), and his only response to the warning I left on his talk page was to hit the revert button without bothering to discuss or even leave an edit summary.

What's more, this user has a history of vandalism and IP hopping. Vandalism: made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=549323960&oldid=543226335 this edit] as IP, returned the next day and added the disputed content in question[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SunTrust_Banks&diff=549515043&oldid=549330999]. This is obviously the same user because of they both used the same external link, and there was some serious quacking going on regarding the IP edits above, all from 184.166.48.0/21 range, which just happens to come from Montana, where it appears the user is from given his other edits.

Finally, the user has engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marc_Racicot&diff=prev&oldid=556438658][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tedpatten&diff=369917755&oldid=369372854] and appears to be here to push a point, not edit collaboratively. As far as I'm concerned, this user shouldn't be here at all, but at very least, the user should be blocked for edit warring against several other users despite a warning and refusing to discuss. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . WP:HERE pretty much sums it up. Let me know or post to WP:RFPP if there is socking. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman reported by User:Macktheknifeau (Result: technical decline)
Page: Eddy Bosnar

User being reported: User:GiantSnowman

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddy_Bosnar&oldid=565645355

User:GiantSnowman is violating 3RR by continually reverting edits I have made to improve the Eddy Bosnar article. He is also abusing his administrator privileges by wikilawyering, and accusing me of vandalism so that he can get his way on the article. After adding a reliable fact about the player to his biography, Snowman disliked that I had added the fact, and he began a process of intimidation against me, while also breaching 3RR.

My first edit - This was the start of the problem.

Snowman's first revert.

My second edit - This added a reliable source to the article.

Snowman's second revert - He instantly reverted the edit.]] He then began his attempt at intimidation, using his admin privileges to threaten me.

My third edit - This added three more reliable sources, and at that point I should have thought the issue over with.

His third revert, breaching 3RR - Instead, Snowman breached the 3RR rule with this 3rd revert, and then had the nerve to report me for breaking the 3RR rule!

I find this intimidation and threatening behaviour to be a sickening abuse of his administrative powers. I request that Giantsnowman be blocked from editing the article in question, and that he apologise for this threats and his disingenuous assertions. I would also suggest he be reported for breaching the covenant of trust held in the administrators. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * This is more than mere edit-warring, and is under discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I therefore ask that this be closed. GiantSnowman 08:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree, he clearly breached 3RR, and I see yet again that Snowman is trying to use his admin privileges to get his way in this issue, by calling for closing this report. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Decline. There is enough going on here that the AN/I discussion is warranted, and that board has priority. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Sarah-Jane Mintey reported by User:SefBau (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Theodore Agnew */"
 * 2)  "/* Theodore Agnew */"
 * 1)  "/* Theodore Agnew */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of maintenance templates on Theodore Agnew. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Keep on deleting maintenance templates even after warned. SefBau : msg  14:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for many reasons.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

== User:118.71.2.127 reported by Alexbrn talk (Result: 24 hours) ==

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:33, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Historical development */")
 * 2) 14:34, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Historical development */")
 * 3) 14:35, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Historical development */")
 * 4) 14:36, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Historical development */")
 * 5) 14:51, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Historical development */")
 * 6) 15:18, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Historical development */")


 * Diff of warning: here


 * Note Cluebot warned for vandalism, but equally this is mass reversion.

—Alexbrn talk 15:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Afmkzs reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: Blocked; protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Famke Jansson. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User previously used an IP address only to revert back continuous edits that I made clear were disruptive, user then created a name after the article page in question went protected and made the same exact disruptive edits as before. User doesn't explain his reverts or responds to my warnings or other user warnings, doesn't care about MoS or consensus. Lady Lotus (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked the user for 48 hours and semi-protected the article for a week. (Creating the account didn't actually help the user because they were still not auto-confirmed. In other words, they could not continue the edit war until after the protection expired.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Littleolive oil reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Protected)
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: Olive has been amply warned due to her editing in this topic area.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: One proposing new changes typically needs consensus for those changes per WP:BRD. This issue (the ordering of text) has been discussed previously. Will big through the archives to find details if people wish.

Comments:

Note that user Olive and I have been involved in disputes for sometime and would be considered previously involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm protecting instead of blocking here. The page will be protected for a week, so hopefully consensus about whether the disputed content should be the first or the third paragraph in its section can be hammered out by then. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:EyeTruth reported by User:Gunbirddriver (Result: No admin action justified, for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Here is a version of the article prior to the multiple reverts: 

This is a repeat of a previous complaint which earlier resulted in a warning on 23 July here and later on 5 August resulted in a 48 Hour Block seen here. The editor in question continues to insert the term "blitzkrieg" into the article.

"The envisioned a blitzkrieg"

Here are the links to the talk page discussions:
 * here
 * here and
 * here.

The editor continues to revert edits in an effort to insert text into the article which the other editors involved do not believe is helpful and do not agree with. The initial reverts can be seen He was reported to the Administrators and was issued a warning on by Administrator EdJohnston on 3 July here. After being referred to the administrators for tendentious editing he opened a DRN on the matter, presumptively to resolve the conflict, but he did not appear to be open to any aspect of what was being said except for those things that were in agreement of his own opinion. No consensus was reached, and the DRN concluded as unresolved. Immediately following the close of the DRN and without a consensus opinion on the articles talk page or in the DRN supporting his text, he inserted the term into the article again and Here he stated “The DRN closed without a resolution. Perhaps we can reach a decision through editing??” and with that added the term back in. His “attempt to reach a decision” resulted in a number of reverts, for which he filed a complaint against myself. He claimed that the DRN discussion ended with most editors agreeing with him, but this was not the case. He was reported again and was issued a 48 Hour Block here. Subsequently there was confusion on the part of the Administrators over whether or not he had continued changing the content after being issued a warning, but as can be clearly seen above he continued to change the text after the July 23rd warning had been issued not to change text until a consensus had been reached. As to the content, no consensus has been reached, but the issue at this point is the behavior, which is disruptive. He has been asked multiple times by other editors to tone  down his rhetoric, but he continues to be  condescending and dismissive. In the past we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks.
 * here on 17 June at 15:36,
 * here on 17 June at 17:32,
 * here on 17 June at 18:58, and then
 * here on 25 June, and again
 * here on 30 June at 21:38, and again
 * here on 30 June at 22:14.
 * here 2 August at 05:55, and
 * here 2 August at 19:04
 * here 2 August at 28:21.

Despite just coming off a 48 hour block for inserting the term into the article, he inserted the term into the article again

here on 16 August at 18:06,

stating “this is a really useful contribution”.

The edit is the same one he was warned and blocked for previously, and regardless of how "useful" EyeTruth might view the edit to be, it is disruptive behavior to continue to make this addition without consensus for inclusion, especially when there is clear opposition to the term and editor consensus opinion is against using it. Current stated consensus on the talk page is 6 to 1 against, with four of those opinions being recently active in the discussion.

This editor is well versed in administrative procedures, but has only existed as an editor as EyeTruth for about four months, leading me to question whether he had a previous wiki identity that he no longer is using. I have notified EyeTruth that I am again bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So many lies above, I don't even know where to start. You pulled this same fabricated story and got me blocked, but on a closer look, the admin that performed the block later concluded that it was unfounded and a mistake. THIS DISPUTE IS A CONTENT DISPUTE. You can't change that no matter how much you try to twist what has happened (you tried in the DRN but thankfully no one listened), and you cannot escape the inevitable outcome of this dispute. Here I'm working hard to settle this dispute in a reasonable manner and the best you can do is to escalate it? You know this is really a very simple dispute.

I think you might want to heed an admin's advice (User: Nick-D): "The underlying article content issue is really simple: if some reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the battle describe the operation as an intended 'blitzkrieg' then this needs to be noted in the article. The same applies if some substantial reliable sources on the battle use different wording or dispute the use of 'blitzkrieg'." I have been screaming the same suggestion all along. Recently, User:Sturmvogel 66 has also raised the same suggestion. The newest editor to this drama (User:Azx2) has also given you the same advice. User:Magus732, User:Binksternet, User:Someone not using his real name have all raised similar suggestions. And some of these editors support many of your arguments, yet they are all willing to resolve this in a logical manner that is in accordance with the Wikipedia policy (specifically the WP:NPOV). EyeTruth (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) EyeTruth (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . The August 5 block of EyeTruth was an error on my part and should not be counted against him. Beyond that, I'm leaving this report to another admin to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * How so? EyeTruth was warned to stop inserting the term by adminstrator EdJohnston on 3 July, stating: "“To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.”  On 2 August EyeTruth began inserting the term into the article again, though as shown above he did not have consensus.  That is violating the warning given earlier by EdJohnston and would seem to indicate the block was appropriate.  A subsequent attempt at adminsitrative action by EyeTruth against myself then resulted in administrator Mark Arsten  warning both individuals on 3 August, but this was not as a result of a complaint against EyeTruth, but as a result of EyeTruth's complaint.  The original warning by EdJohnston on EyeTruth's talk page had been removed by EyeTruth, which would seem to be a deceptive practice.  It did result in your mistaking the timing of the warning given to EyeTruth.  It seems the earlier block was valid, as EyeTruth ignored the 3 July warning not to change the wording until a consensus had been reached, and no consensus had been reached on 2 August, and has not been reached to this day. It would seem inappropriate to dismiss the earlier block if you had been deceived by EyeTruth altering his talk page record. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've told you before that your skills with bending words are exceptional and it is scary. (It is interesting how you conveniently forgot to mention how you went ahead to disobey the warning Mark Arsten gave us, even though you never got any "green-light" from Bbb23 or any other admin to take any action). Then there is "EyeTruth altering his talk page record" and the cherry picked comment from EdJohnston, topped with the warped interpretation labelled unto it. Enough said. For anyone interested in seeing EdJohnston's verdict, check it out HERE, and since it was binding on the DRN case, HERE is the DRN case. See them for yourself, unadulterated. (Gunbirddriver, did you think that in the WP:ANI report I initiated, which was moderated by Mark Arsten, I provided a warped account of events that did  not mention EdJohnston's verdict? If Mark Arsten even as much as skimmed through the report, then he is aware of EdJohnston's verdict). EyeTruth (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing deceptive on my part. Are you now suggesting that someone other than yourself removed administrator EdJohnston's warning from your talk page?  I think that is unlikely, but the records can be checked.  Regardless, the time sequence from warning issued to block made was 3 July - 2 Aug, not 3 Aug - 2 Aug as Bbb23 seems to have been led to believe.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not bother feeding your posts on here with replies any more, since from experience I know it will only help escalate this into a pointless drama. I will love to see evidence of "EyeTruth altering his talk page record." You haven't said anything new, so bye bye. EyeTruth (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a brief synopsis of the administrative history: The block by administrator Bbb23 appears to have been appropriate, as EyeTruth violated the terms of EdJohnston’s warning of 3 July. Furthermore, EyeTruth was well aware of the fact that the first warning had been removed from his talk page, and did nothing to correct the confusion of administrator Bbb23 when this administrator was given the impression that his block had been premature. This type of deceptive practice in my opinion is in and of itself objectionable. It is objectionable to misled administrators, and it is objectionable for an editor to allow them to take actions which are based on ideas which the editor is aware are incorrect. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor EyeTruth Warned by Administrator Ed Johnston on 3 July here, with warning “To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.”
 * Editor EyeTruth removed the warning from his Talk Page on 7 July and placed it in an archive here.
 * Editor EyeTruth Warned a second time by administrator Mark Arsten on 3 August here.
 * Editor EyeTruth Blocked by administrator Bbb23 on 5 August here.


 * As I just noted at User talk:Mark Arsten I don't think that EyeTruth's edit was well considered given that it didn't acknowledge differing viewpoints. However, he or she has stated that it was intended as part of the solution to adding material reflecting both viewpoints in the article, so it's probably worth assuming good faith. Gunbirddriver, per WP:NPOV I would suggest that you expand upon this with references which note differing views of the nature of the German offensive: it's certainly not feasible to seek to exclude the view that the Germans were hoping to use blitzkrieg tactics at Kursk given that this is the viewpoint of some experts on the battle. I'm not taking any admin action in relation to this for now, but I'm leaning towards blocking both editors here for unhelpful conduct if this continues much longer: taking an absolutist position which denies the other views of this battle is not in line with core Wikipedia policies, and you're both talking past each other. I could fully protect the article to allow for dispute resolution, but that looks like a waste of time at present as previous attempts at discussions haven't been successful given that you're not actually trying to work together. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, trust me, I have an interesting history with Gunbirdriver. Writing an alternate vewpoint in his place will be a complete waste of effort (this is from expereince). That is why I explcitly encouraged him to add whatever he wishes to add, that is appropraite. EyeTruth (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously trying to negotiate compromise wording on the talk page, or inserting wording that reflects the different views in the article would be superior than the approach you've taken I'm afraid, as it risked pouring fuel on the fire. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Negotiating was out of question for Gunbirddriver. I've tried before, and he flatout rejected any negotiating. I have been willing to negotiate for a long time, so if he is now willing, then that will be the best. Nick, you should notice by now that Gunbirdriver sees this as a battle against me and not one over differing views. Even if I had inserted wordings that reflects the different views, it would have made no difference to Gunbirddriver (I'm speaking from experience). I will talk to Sturmvogel (or any other editor that was invovled) and see if he/she can insert wording that reflects the different views. If nothing is coming forth, then I will do it and hope it doesn't escalate things (well, it shouldn't since an admin is now invovled). EyeTruth (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:EyeTruth reported by User:Gunbirddriver (Result: No admin action justified, for now)
Page:

User being reported:

Here is a version of the article prior to the multiple reverts: 

This is a repeat of a previous complaint which earlier resulted in a warning on 23 July here and later on 5 August resulted in a 48 Hour Block seen here. The editor in question continues to insert the term "blitzkrieg" into the article.

"The envisioned a blitzkrieg"

Here are the links to the talk page discussions:
 * here
 * here and
 * here.

The editor continues to revert edits in an effort to insert text into the article which the other editors involved do not believe is helpful and do not agree with. The initial reverts can be seen He was reported to the Administrators and was issued a warning on by Administrator EdJohnston on 3 July here. After being referred to the administrators for tendentious editing he opened a DRN on the matter, presumptively to resolve the conflict, but he did not appear to be open to any aspect of what was being said except for those things that were in agreement of his own opinion. No consensus was reached, and the DRN concluded as unresolved. Immediately following the close of the DRN and without a consensus opinion on the articles talk page or in the DRN supporting his text, he inserted the term into the article again and Here he stated “The DRN closed without a resolution. Perhaps we can reach a decision through editing??” and with that added the term back in. His “attempt to reach a decision” resulted in a number of reverts, for which he filed a complaint against myself. He claimed that the DRN discussion ended with most editors agreeing with him, but this was not the case. He was reported again and was issued a 48 Hour Block here. Subsequently there was confusion on the part of the Administrators over whether or not he had continued changing the content after being issued a warning, but as can be clearly seen above he continued to change the text after the July 23rd warning had been issued not to change text until a consensus had been reached. As to the content, no consensus has been reached, but the issue at this point is the behavior, which is disruptive. He has been asked multiple times by other editors to tone  down his rhetoric, but he continues to be  condescending and dismissive. In the past we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks.
 * here on 17 June at 15:36,
 * here on 17 June at 17:32,
 * here on 17 June at 18:58, and then
 * here on 25 June, and again
 * here on 30 June at 21:38, and again
 * here on 30 June at 22:14.
 * here 2 August at 05:55, and
 * here 2 August at 19:04
 * here 2 August at 28:21.

Despite just coming off a 48 hour block for inserting the term into the article, he inserted the term into the article again

here on 16 August at 18:06,

stating “this is a really useful contribution”.

The edit is the same one he was warned and blocked for previously, and regardless of how "useful" EyeTruth might view the edit to be, it is disruptive behavior to continue to make this addition without consensus for inclusion, especially when there is clear opposition to the term and editor consensus opinion is against using it. Current stated consensus on the talk page is 6 to 1 against, with four of those opinions being recently active in the discussion.

This editor is well versed in administrative procedures, but has only existed as an editor as EyeTruth for about four months, leading me to question whether he had a previous wiki identity that he no longer is using. I have notified EyeTruth that I am again bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So many lies above, I don't even know where to start. You pulled this same fabricated story and got me blocked, but on a closer look, the admin that performed the block later concluded that it was unfounded and a mistake. THIS DISPUTE IS A CONTENT DISPUTE. You can't change that no matter how much you try to twist what has happened (you tried in the DRN but thankfully no one listened), and you cannot escape the inevitable outcome of this dispute. Here I'm working hard to settle this dispute in a reasonable manner and the best you can do is to escalate it? You know this is really a very simple dispute.

I think you might want to heed an admin's advice (User: Nick-D): "The underlying article content issue is really simple: if some reliable sources which provide in-depth coverage of the battle describe the operation as an intended 'blitzkrieg' then this needs to be noted in the article. The same applies if some substantial reliable sources on the battle use different wording or dispute the use of 'blitzkrieg'." I have been screaming the same suggestion all along. Recently, User:Sturmvogel 66 has also raised the same suggestion. The newest editor to this drama (User:Azx2) has also given you the same advice. User:Magus732, User:Binksternet, User:Someone not using his real name have all raised similar suggestions. And some of these editors support many of your arguments, yet they are all willing to resolve this in a logical manner that is in accordance with the Wikipedia policy (specifically the WP:NPOV). EyeTruth (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC) EyeTruth (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . The August 5 block of EyeTruth was an error on my part and should not be counted against him. Beyond that, I'm leaving this report to another admin to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * How so? EyeTruth was warned to stop inserting the term by adminstrator EdJohnston on 3 July, stating: "“To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.”  On 2 August EyeTruth began inserting the term into the article again, though as shown above he did not have consensus.  That is violating the warning given earlier by EdJohnston and would seem to indicate the block was appropriate.  A subsequent attempt at adminsitrative action by EyeTruth against myself then resulted in administrator Mark Arsten  warning both individuals on 3 August, but this was not as a result of a complaint against EyeTruth, but as a result of EyeTruth's complaint.  The original warning by EdJohnston on EyeTruth's talk page had been removed by EyeTruth, which would seem to be a deceptive practice.  It did result in your mistaking the timing of the warning given to EyeTruth.  It seems the earlier block was valid, as EyeTruth ignored the 3 July warning not to change the wording until a consensus had been reached, and no consensus had been reached on 2 August, and has not been reached to this day. It would seem inappropriate to dismiss the earlier block if you had been deceived by EyeTruth altering his talk page record. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've told you before that your skills with bending words are exceptional and it is scary. (It is interesting how you conveniently forgot to mention how you went ahead to disobey the warning Mark Arsten gave us, even though you never got any "green-light" from Bbb23 or any other admin to take any action). Then there is "EyeTruth altering his talk page record" and the cherry picked comment from EdJohnston, topped with the warped interpretation labelled unto it. Enough said. For anyone interested in seeing EdJohnston's verdict, check it out HERE, and since it was binding on the DRN case, HERE is the DRN case. See them for yourself, unadulterated. (Gunbirddriver, did you think that in the WP:ANI report I initiated, which was moderated by Mark Arsten, I provided a warped account of events that did  not mention EdJohnston's verdict? If Mark Arsten even as much as skimmed through the report, then he is aware of EdJohnston's verdict). EyeTruth (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing deceptive on my part. Are you now suggesting that someone other than yourself removed administrator EdJohnston's warning from your talk page?  I think that is unlikely, but the records can be checked.  Regardless, the time sequence from warning issued to block made was 3 July - 2 Aug, not 3 Aug - 2 Aug as Bbb23 seems to have been led to believe.  Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I will not bother feeding your posts on here with replies any more, since from experience I know it will only help escalate this into a pointless drama. I will love to see evidence of "EyeTruth altering his talk page record." You haven't said anything new, so bye bye. EyeTruth (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is a brief synopsis of the administrative history: The block by administrator Bbb23 appears to have been appropriate, as EyeTruth violated the terms of EdJohnston’s warning of 3 July. Furthermore, EyeTruth was well aware of the fact that the first warning had been removed from his talk page, and did nothing to correct the confusion of administrator Bbb23 when this administrator was given the impression that his block had been premature. This type of deceptive practice in my opinion is in and of itself objectionable. It is objectionable to misled administrators, and it is objectionable for an editor to allow them to take actions which are based on ideas which the editor is aware are incorrect. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Editor EyeTruth Warned by Administrator Ed Johnston on 3 July here, with warning “To avoid admin action, please don't restore that word until such time as you have consensus.”
 * Editor EyeTruth removed the warning from his Talk Page on 7 July and placed it in an archive here.
 * Editor EyeTruth Warned a second time by administrator Mark Arsten on 3 August here.
 * Editor EyeTruth Blocked by administrator Bbb23 on 5 August here.


 * As I just noted at User talk:Mark Arsten I don't think that EyeTruth's edit was well considered given that it didn't acknowledge differing viewpoints. However, he or she has stated that it was intended as part of the solution to adding material reflecting both viewpoints in the article, so it's probably worth assuming good faith. Gunbirddriver, per WP:NPOV I would suggest that you expand upon this with references which note differing views of the nature of the German offensive: it's certainly not feasible to seek to exclude the view that the Germans were hoping to use blitzkrieg tactics at Kursk given that this is the viewpoint of some experts on the battle. I'm not taking any admin action in relation to this for now, but I'm leaning towards blocking both editors here for unhelpful conduct if this continues much longer: taking an absolutist position which denies the other views of this battle is not in line with core Wikipedia policies, and you're both talking past each other. I could fully protect the article to allow for dispute resolution, but that looks like a waste of time at present as previous attempts at discussions haven't been successful given that you're not actually trying to work together. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nick, trust me, I have an interesting history with Gunbirdriver. Writing an alternate vewpoint in his place will be a complete waste of effort (this is from expereince). That is why I explcitly encouraged him to add whatever he wishes to add, that is appropraite. EyeTruth (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously trying to negotiate compromise wording on the talk page, or inserting wording that reflects the different views in the article would be superior than the approach you've taken I'm afraid, as it risked pouring fuel on the fire. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Negotiating was out of question for Gunbirddriver. I've tried before, and he flatout rejected any negotiating. I have been willing to negotiate for a long time, so if he is now willing, then that will be the best. Nick, you should notice by now that Gunbirdriver sees this as a battle against me and not one over differing views. Even if I had inserted wordings that reflects the different views, it would have made no difference to Gunbirddriver (I'm speaking from experience). I will talk to Sturmvogel (or any other editor that was invovled) and see if he/she can insert wording that reflects the different views. If nothing is coming forth, then I will do it and hope it doesn't escalate things (well, it shouldn't since an admin is now invovled). EyeTruth (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)