Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive221

User:179.209.144.66 reported by Evenfiel (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 02:53, 10 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567897690 by Evenfiel (talk)")
 * 2) 02:24, 12 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 568017854 by Evenfiel (talk) This information clarifies the website's position regarding users")
 * 3) 08:33, 12 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 568162559 by 70.72.184.211 (talk)")
 * 4) 18:15, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 568779846 by Evenfiel (talk) Important information about the website's policy. The references are solid please read them.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The user insists that his sources (forum posts, blogs posts and comments, lastfm user comments) are valid. I've left him a warning in his talk page and he replied to the reverts done by me and another user. Evenfiel (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . The block is more for the disruptive content (unacceptable attacks) than for the slow edit war. I've removed the material. Evenfiel, next time you file a report, please notify the user as the instructions at the top require. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Evenfiel (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Amanhanda reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below

Comments: Scholarly sources do not agree on a birthplace for Siddhārtha Gautama, so the article should not word the description as if it's a fact. The birthplace issue is a perennial subject on the article's talk page (Talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 7 for example). As far as discussing it on the talk page with the editor, this I am guilty of not having done sooner. I had initially thought that this was an editor who had already discussed this on the talk page, but after looking to make sure it turned out this user has never used a talk page of any kind for any reason, so I was mistaken. - SudoGhost 03:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:175.136.88.159 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 24 hours)

 * 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 March 23. using TW"


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


 * Comments:

Eight changes to that page over five days Dawnseeker2000   03:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:177.6.107.110 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 24 hours)

 * 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 Mobile payment. using TW"


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


 * Comments:
 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:‎AndyTheGrump reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (note the user chose to revert it with a personal assault in the edit summary and proceeded to revert once more)

Comments:

Whilst not violating the 3 RR per se, edit warring such as this is also unacceptable. The user has a huge history of disruptive editing, as evident from his block log.

Just a couple of days ago he did break the 3 RR:


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

I suggest a more permanent solution is in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Estlandia/Miacek has been acting in concert with User:Dbachmann to inpose a NOPV-violating revision to the template, with no attempt whatsoever to discuss the change, and while fully aware that previous consensus has clearly opposed it. I suggest that Estlandia be sanctioned for meatpuppetry and refusal to engage in collaborative editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked the template for three days. Estlandia, I see no recent discussion of your change on the article talk page. Also, Andy did not breach 3RR at Workers' Youth League (Norway).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:TySoltaur reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 14:27, August 3, 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:44, August 4, 2013
 * 2) 18:09, August 4, 2013
 * 3) 19:18, August 16, 2013
 * 4) 18:54, August 17, 2013
 * 5) 18:58, August 17, 2013
 * 6) 19:00, August 17, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:01, August 17, 2013 but see also his edit comments at 1 and 2 and edit 3 warning me about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:02, August 4, 2013

Comments:

Although reverts 3-6 are only a technical violation of 3RR (18 minutes short of 24 hours), I introduce the first two as evidence of edit warring. He refuses to accept messages on his talk page, so it would probably be pointless to bring up the matter there. There is now a third editor on the talk page concurring that the his edit (and reverts to restore his edit) should not be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it's funny how you report someone else, but "conveniently" not yourself for the same infraction! TySoltaur (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm one revert short of you in each group. In addition, you have not attempted to justify your edits on the talk page, or, in fact, anywhere on Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you DID do 3 reverts, and it's recorded in the article history. TySoltaur (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a limit of 3 reverts, it requires 4 within 24 hours to be a WP:3RR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has a history of instigating edit wars and violations of WP:NPA, as can be seen from the warnings they have removed from their page. The previous (stale, so un-actionable) episode has additional links, but see, , ,. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, you´re on a mission aren´t you? The first revert listed was me just making an edit to the article, not a ´revert´ as such (it´s also two days old). The second revert listed, which is actually the first, was me giving a reason for the removal as Command complained that the reason I previously gave isn´t correct. The third revert listed, which is actually the second revert, was me addressing his complaint that there was a source. I pointed out that the source was being taken out of context. I was then reverted by somebody else who said that I should get consensus on talk. I didn´t revert that and I plan on opening a section on the talk page. I´ll also note that Command is also at two reverts. Edgth (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * - I see two reverts by the reported user, and zero attempts to discuss the issue on any talk pages. Oddly, I also happen to see two reverts and zero attempts to discuss by the user who reported the issue. However, Edgth is put on notice that removing warnings from his talk page and not reforming his behavior is classic tendentious editing that is going to get him blocked at some point - and possibly banned. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:179.209.144.66 reported by Evenfiel (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
 * 1) 02:53, 10 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 567897690 by Evenfiel (talk)")
 * 2) 02:24, 12 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 568017854 by Evenfiel (talk) This information clarifies the website's position regarding users")
 * 3) 08:33, 12 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 568162559 by 70.72.184.211 (talk)")
 * 4) 18:15, 16 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 568779846 by Evenfiel (talk) Important information about the website's policy. The references are solid please read them.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: The user insists that his sources (forum posts, blogs posts and comments, lastfm user comments) are valid. I've left him a warning in his talk page and he replied to the reverts done by me and another user. Evenfiel (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . The block is more for the disruptive content (unacceptable attacks) than for the slow edit war. I've removed the material. Evenfiel, next time you file a report, please notify the user as the instructions at the top require. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Evenfiel (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Amanhanda reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See below

Comments: Scholarly sources do not agree on a birthplace for Siddhārtha Gautama, so the article should not word the description as if it's a fact. The birthplace issue is a perennial subject on the article's talk page (Talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 7 for example). As far as discussing it on the talk page with the editor, this I am guilty of not having done sooner. I had initially thought that this was an editor who had already discussed this on the talk page, but after looking to make sure it turned out this user has never used a talk page of any kind for any reason, so I was mistaken. - SudoGhost 03:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:175.136.88.159 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 24 hours)

 * 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 March 23. using TW"


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


 * Comments:

Eight changes to that page over five days Dawnseeker2000   03:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:177.6.107.110 reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 24 hours)

 * 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 Mobile payment. using TW"


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


 * Comments:
 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 08:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:‎AndyTheGrump reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (note the user chose to revert it with a personal assault in the edit summary and proceeded to revert once more)

Comments:

Whilst not violating the 3 RR per se, edit warring such as this is also unacceptable. The user has a huge history of disruptive editing, as evident from his block log.

Just a couple of days ago he did break the 3 RR:


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

I suggest a more permanent solution is in order here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Estlandia/Miacek has been acting in concert with User:Dbachmann to inpose a NOPV-violating revision to the template, with no attempt whatsoever to discuss the change, and while fully aware that previous consensus has clearly opposed it. I suggest that Estlandia be sanctioned for meatpuppetry and refusal to engage in collaborative editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've locked the template for three days. Estlandia, I see no recent discussion of your change on the article talk page. Also, Andy did not breach 3RR at Workers' Youth League (Norway).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:TySoltaur reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 14:27, August 3, 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:44, August 4, 2013
 * 2) 18:09, August 4, 2013
 * 3) 19:18, August 16, 2013
 * 4) 18:54, August 17, 2013
 * 5) 18:58, August 17, 2013
 * 6) 19:00, August 17, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:01, August 17, 2013 but see also his edit comments at 1 and 2 and edit 3 warning me about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 18:02, August 4, 2013

Comments:

Although reverts 3-6 are only a technical violation of 3RR (18 minutes short of 24 hours), I introduce the first two as evidence of edit warring. He refuses to accept messages on his talk page, so it would probably be pointless to bring up the matter there. There is now a third editor on the talk page concurring that the his edit (and reverts to restore his edit) should not be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I find it's funny how you report someone else, but "conveniently" not yourself for the same infraction! TySoltaur (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm one revert short of you in each group. In addition, you have not attempted to justify your edits on the talk page, or, in fact, anywhere on Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you DID do 3 reverts, and it's recorded in the article history. TySoltaur (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a limit of 3 reverts, it requires 4 within 24 hours to be a WP:3RR violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This user has a history of instigating edit wars and violations of WP:NPA, as can be seen from the warnings they have removed from their page. The previous (stale, so un-actionable) episode has additional links, but see, , ,. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# &#9604; 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Jesus, you´re on a mission aren´t you? The first revert listed was me just making an edit to the article, not a ´revert´ as such (it´s also two days old). The second revert listed, which is actually the first, was me giving a reason for the removal as Command complained that the reason I previously gave isn´t correct. The third revert listed, which is actually the second revert, was me addressing his complaint that there was a source. I pointed out that the source was being taken out of context. I was then reverted by somebody else who said that I should get consensus on talk. I didn´t revert that and I plan on opening a section on the talk page. I´ll also note that Command is also at two reverts. Edgth (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * - I see two reverts by the reported user, and zero attempts to discuss the issue on any talk pages. Oddly, I also happen to see two reverts and zero attempts to discuss by the user who reported the issue. However, Edgth is put on notice that removing warnings from his talk page and not reforming his behavior is classic tendentious editing that is going to get him blocked at some point - and possibly banned. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User:117.196.73.75 reported by User:The Bushranger (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "How do you know man if the submarine was near Karachi for a few hours or days (This is a navy officer commisioned on INS SINDHURATNA. Any problem??)"
 * 2)  "How do you know man if the submarine was near Karachi for a few hours or days (This is a navy officer commisioned on INS SINDHURATNA) Presenting Wrong facts from News paper like TOI isn't acceptable."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 568947468 by AsceticRose (talk)"
 * 4)  "How do you know man if the submarine was near Karachi for a few hours or days. It is a classified information which no one has any proof for. (This is a navy officer commisioned on INS SINDHURATNA."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on INS Sindhurakshak (S63). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is repeatedly removing sourced information in what appears to be an attempt to WP:CENSOR deployment information (that was reported in the source) under a spurious WP:NOTNEWS claim. The Bushranger One ping only 22:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that was used for block evasion. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Kendrick7 reported by User:StAnselm (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been re-adding Category:Anti-Catholicism in the United States to the Jack T. Chick article, with a bizarre appeal to WP:BURO. Since this is contrary to the guidelines on the category page, he has also been engaged in disruptive editing on that page, and related category pages (e.g. ) in order to remove the restrictions that he does not like. User:Kendrick7 has also engaged in personal attacks against the admin who first suggested (two years ago) that such categorization is inappropriate, and against myself. Please help stop this disruptive editor. StAnselm (talk) 05:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Further comment: The user in question is continuing to edit disruptively with edits such as this, with the bizarrely misguided summary "don't need consensus, WP:BURO is an actual thing". StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good Lord. Whitewashing Jack Chick? Really? What is next for this editor? Hitler loved puppies, what's with all the hate? -- Kendrick7talk 05:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, WP:BURO is an actual thing. One admin's opinion upon the closure of an cfd in 2011 doesn't actually magically create a policy the rest of us are forced to live with. -- Kendrick7talk 05:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'll self recuse my self from this topic until, say, Tuesday. I'm definitely a tad verklempt that one Admin has decided for all time that no one alive is, in fact, opposed to the Catholic Church, but I'm probably biased. I hope this can get sorted out by then! -- Kendrick7talk 05:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . This goes well beyond edit warring. User has disrupted multiple pages and has demonstrated a total disregard for the opinions of many other editors to the point of harassment. Appeals to WP:IAR, whatever label you use, cannot be used as an exemption from edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Angelo De La Paz reported by User:Deadbeef (Result: No vio)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 568953947 by Bladesmulti (talk) RV unsourced entries."
 * 2)  "1.7 billion Buddhists is an unrealistic number, Now there is another website claimed there are 2.1 billion Muslims,and it's the largest religion, can we believe it? I were renewed Buddhism by country few weeks ago."
 * 3)  "http://glipho.com/standrewslynx/weekend-buddhism is a personal blog, not a realiable source. I also have a biased source that said Islam is the largest religion with 2.1 billion: http://www.muslimpopulation.com/"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

User is fresh off of a 48-hour block for edit-warring with another user.
 * Comments:
 * This person has messed up not only the page List of religious populations but also Buddhism by country, just because his own research lead him to make his own figures, and comments like "1.2 billion is more acceptable" would lead to the same conclusion. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And here are your biased entries which violates WP:NPOV and your citation given are just personal blog (http://glipho.com/standrewslynx/weekend-buddhism) and even copied the whole original article on Wikipedia (http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist), they are not reaiable sources (see WP:OR and WP:RS. We are now discussing in its Talk Page and avoid any edit wars. I were blocked once because of a Muslim extremist few days ago (now he is blocking for 1 month) and now I am facing with a Buddhist extremist, how great. Please compared my edits to Bladesmulti's edits at List of religious populations and see the who are making problems here. Thank you.

Angelo De La Paz (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Buddhist extremist", "muslim extremist", this is how you talk, yet you won't ever talk about any sources like (http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/religion/buddhism/), can we know the reason? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Faizan reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "not tripe. Please adhere to the NPOV. I am not under 3RR"
 * 2)  "I read the explanation on talk page, and have modified the content severly. Please stop. The duplication has been removed. We need a mention for all communities as per weight."
 * 3)  "restoring info in lead, removing duplication, removing unreferenced text. removing casualty figures from the Background section. Restoring text with no factuality issues"
 * 4)  "/* Background */ I am adding rape info shortly, the casualty figure is as a background"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Neutrality */ Re"


 * Comments:
 * (ec)This revert is also a misuse of rollback. The article is undergoing FA at the moment and this is highly disruptive behaviour. I have but two reverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 2:24 pm, Today (UTC+5)


 * Poor report Obviously not a 3RR violation. The edits are not reverts, you cannot count all of my edits int he article as reverts. I did not do four reverts. The other editor, Darkness SHines is also done 3 reverts. The history justifies it. Even if the four diffs provided are counted as "reverts" then even they don't fall under 24 hours period. Fai  zan  09:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * withdrawing as Faizan has agreed to stop. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Faizan has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Faizan&diff=568962668&oldid=568912095 warned] for source falsification by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. If he continues to make contentious changes to the lead without getting consensus he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:86.132.241.46 reported by User:SchroCat (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: in edit summary; on article talk page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Similar issues with the same editor on Fettes College article. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me know if disruption continues on any other pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you go to the talk pages of this author and of the two related topics on Fettes College and on James Bond you could easily determine on the balance of probabilities if what is claimed could be factual or not.
 * The material being put forward would never in any case be allowed to be sourced because by its very nature.


 * This is nothing compared to the scale of leaks from the Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks but Fettes College used to be well know among the local residents who lived in the surrounding areas near the college as "The School of Spies". The school used to have its own shooting range and its own underground Armoury locked by heavy steel doors and containing everything from small arms pistols to heavy machine guns. The College also had its own Navy, Air Force and Army Cadet Force. In the past many a former officer in the Anglo American Intelligence services was educated there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.241.46 (talk • contribs)


 * This isn't the place for the comments, and Fettes is not unusual in British public schools in having a cadet force, shooting range and armoury. I've tweaked the thread title back: I reported you, not the articles. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:70.112.208.79 reported by User:Aua (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569081984 by Aua (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 568993683 by Aua (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 568886299 by Aua (talk)"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* WP:LEAD, WP:SOCK, WP:PROMOTION and other violations.. */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* WP:LEAD, WP:SOCK, WP:PROMOTION and other violations.. */ re"


 * Comments:

Anon warned more than once. Avenue for discussion was available on the talk-page. Anon insists on reverting to their own wording of the intro (please see full history; anon was reverted multiple times before by a number of editors). In addition to anon, there is also a suspected, single-purpose sock of anon, but that's a different story altogether. I self-reverted so I don't break 3RR myself, but I really think it's vandalism at this stage.

Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for a week, although, honestly, everyone has been edit warring over the content. That said, the IP has been doing the most and has not been participating in any discussion. Also, semi-protection will take care of the registered account you suspect of being the same individual as the IP (I have no opinion on that issue). I wouldn't call this vandalism, and there's been no recent breach of WP:3RR by anyone. Most important counsel: focus more on discussion on the talk page than on all of these little battles in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Honestly, it'd be a lot easier to discuss things, but anon refuses to discuss anything (generally, not even in edit summaries). I will restore to another editor's version for now, but we'll see. If we can bring anon to the discussion table to get their point of view, that'd be a huge victory.
 * Thanks again! &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 21:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Radiodef (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: On the Owl City page-
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

In related article space-
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There is a dispute on the Owl City page over whether or not Owl City should be called a band. This appears to have been going on for some time. Note that the 3RR is somewhat complicated here because there are at least 7 articles that I see that are immediately involved in this dispute. As a passerby, there appears to be somewhat of a consensus that Owl City should not be called a band, but has continued to revert edits to the contrary of his own opinion. This user has today performed reverts on all of them in succession, effectively 7 reverts in a row. has also made similar revert-type edits across the article space. Both users claim the talk page discussion supports their reverts.

Of June: Revision history shows that these two users have been reverting each other over the course of the past month, although never more than one revert within a 24 hour period.

Also note that in diff #1 (link 2) comment the user in question appears to acknowledge that his revert is a propagation of the dispute and in diff #5 (link 10) in the related article space the user appears to revert just for the sake of a revert as the previous version uses "artist" and not "band". The user also refers to references supporting the use of "band" but the two inline citations (here and here) are a VEVO video and a product at the iTunes store, both of which are relatively specious to me as sources for this information.

Because these users are continuing to revert despite that there is an ongoing discussion (WP:IDHT and WP:TALKDONTREVERT), it appears that this dispute will not resolve itself without administrator intervention. The block log for the user in question also shows they have been blocked before for this kind of behavior.

Radiodef (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to drop by to agree with on this one,  believes Owl City is a band due to some questionable and frankly unreliable sources, and continues to revert edits based on these beliefs. I would also request a block on this user (on this page), as this clearly will continue until action is taken.

Regards, Sam. Samcooke343 (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reporting editor is clearly not familiar with what an edit war is.
 * Reporting editor is clearly unfamiliar with WP:RS. The term "band" for Owl City is referenced. The term "project", is not.
 * I have been discussing this on the Owl City article and there appears to be consensus to keep it worded as "is an American electronica band, one of several projects by singer-songwriter and multi-instrumentalist Adam Young." This incorporates the idea that the music is not solo work by Young and that it is a project of Young's. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine me RSes that supports that Owl City is a project, which is the thrust of the discussion on the Owl City page, and I'll gladly (and correctly) change that article and every album article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As per WP:EW, the 3RR need not be broken to be an edit war. I want to be clear that I am reporting this because of the large cumulative number of reverts across the article space and because of the WP:IDHT and WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Radiodef (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then Samcooke343 is guilty of the same behaviour: no discussion just revert to his preference and a large cumulative number of reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow reported by User:Ubikwit (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: The most recent revert is this, related to the same material. Related reverts are as follows.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

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

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

Comments:

There is an Arbcom case related to the main article of which this has been a controversially created subarticle. The scope of the relevant discussion of the material encompasses more than the Talk page of the subarticle. In this case, the edit summaries are indicative of the nature of the content dispute, and P&W has reverted the edits to the same material made by four other editors, including myself.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Um -- the "reverts" do not amount to "edit war" as they are spread out over a much longer period than 24 hours, and the complainant appears historically to be as much a warrior as the one complained about here. So both "stale" and "clean hands" apply to this "report", alas. In addition, this noticeboard is not the place to continue skirmishing on a topic which has been the subject of extended moderated discussion to which the OP was a party, and for which he did not like the internal consensus. IOW, WP:IDHT also applies here. Collect (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Related discussion here Talk:Tea_Party_movement.

Collect, are you suggesting that the reverting simply be continued unabated.

If 24 hours applies here, I'll refile the case at the appropriate board.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 05:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah. The 24-hour rule applies here, Ubikwit.
 * The problems with this report are abundant and Collect has touched on a few of them. Every now and then Ubikwit edits without consensus, and then I revert, asking him in my edit summary to establish consensus on the article Talk page. Notice that he did not post a diff of any warning to me, because there was no warning. Nor did he post a diff of any effort to resolve the dispute on the article Talk page, because he never made any effort to resolve the dispute on the article Talk page. He just quietly accumulated diffs until he had enough to satisfy "3RR", and ambushed me — failing to take into consideration that a great deal more than 24 hours had elapsed. In fact, nearly two weeks elapsed between the first diff and the last. Some of these diffs represent an eventual compromise between Snowded and myself regarding the lede of the article. There is no academic consensus supporting the statement that the Tea Party movement supports an originalist view of the Constitution, but Ubikwit and Snowded successfully editwarred it into the lede and eventually I just let it go. Ubikwit is definitely exhibiting battleground behavior after his failed attempt to WP:OWN the article and get the title (and therefore the scope) of the article changed to his preferred version. This incident is probably going to become another unfortunate addition to the ArbCom case against him. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" &mdash; goethean 16:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, this edit warring relates to P&W's insistence to include material from primary sources in the lead without even attributing it. If I have misfiled this report, would an admin please inform me that such is the case. The main article is under discretionary sanctions now, as was the Moderated discussion page. This subarticle was created outside of the purview of those, however, so I am also unsure whether AE would be the proper venue to raise this.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 07:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IOW, there was no current "edit war" and your post here was due to your iterated concerns about sourcing which have already been made on multiple locations on Wikipedia. This is known as "forumshopping" at that point, Ubo, and since that is now your "stated reason" for this complaint on this noticeboard,  this is contrary to Wikipedia proactive, policy and guidelines.  Please be aware that such improper use of noticeboards can also be viewed as harassment, and could even lead to your own block just for that reason.  Cheers - now will someone close this before Ubi digs the hole deeper? Collect (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While there's nothing going on right now that necessitates a block, there certainly has been a slow-motion edit war going on here. Contrary to some assertions above, there is not a required "24-hour rule" beyond which edit-warring behavior may not be considered, and while we are generally reluctant to take action on old matters that are already largely resolved, we can and will address slow-motion warring that's still ongoing. Next time, it's likely to be addressed with more than a warning. I hope both parties will take that into consideration, and utilize the talk page or dispute resolution rather than the undo button. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- the "reverts" are two weeks old now -- seems "stale" is an understatement. What occurred here is just plain harassment at this point.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So let me see if I have this straight. You are accusing me of harassment, and doing so in a manner that is utterly dismissive of the findings of the admin that looked into the report. And the findings included the specific comment that a "24-hour rule" is not a constraining factor applicable here.
 * I filed this report in an attempt to resolve a dispute that has been acknowledged to be a slow-moving edit war.
 * I'm posting a followup comment because this report will be presented at the Arbcom case for the consideration of the Committee.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have posted essentially the same position and argument on multiple talk pages and noticeboards, and on the ArbCom pages more than once to boot.  Amazingly enough, when a person posts the same stuff on multiple boards, and posts multiple warnings for the same material on a talk page, there is but a small leap of logic to see what may be occurring.  I suggest you not make that leap evident to everyone and his brother.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User:69.225.131.67 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: rangeblocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Discography */"
 * 2)  "/* Musical style and legacy */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 569287785 by Winkelvi (talk) unexplained removal of constructive edits"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 569289260 by Winkelvi (talk) reverted removal of constructive edits"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 569290328 by Winkelvi (talk) reverted removal of constructive edits"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 569290328 by Winkelvi (talk) reverted removal of constructive edits"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569290328 by Winkelvi (talk) reverted removal of constructive edits"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569290328 by Winkelvi (talk) reverted removal of constructive edits"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about suspicion of sockpuppeteering. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Re:block evasion"


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


 * Comments:

This IP is a sock of User:Gunmetal Angel. SPI has been opened, but this IP continues to undo reversions done per DENY. I suspect nothing will stop him unless blocked ASAP. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No further need to act. IP has been blocked as a sock at SPI. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  22:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've rangeblocked the /20 range for 3 months. Elockid  ( Talk ) 22:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

User:207.34.139.42 reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "inserted references and increased accuracy and decreased anti women and anti Aboriginal vandalism"
 * 2)  "removed the obviously autobiographical aspects of this article and the bias against women and Aboriginal people - tag for not being neutral and for being autobiographical?"
 * 3)  "removing the racist  and sexist slant"
 * 4)  "reduce racism and sexism"
 * 5)  "increased truthiness"
 * 6)  "removed the anti-woman and anti-aboriginal biases"
 * 1)  "removed the anti-woman and anti-aboriginal biases"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Report also filed for obvious vandalism; see talk page for warnings by another editor Kiko4564 (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Indefinitely semi-protected by User:Berean Hunter.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Hog1983 reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Initialy edit made by Hog1983:

Diffs of the user's reverts (reverse chronology):
 * 1)  (also an inappropriate PROD)
 * 2)  (also an inappropriate PROD)
 * 3)  (also inappropriate blanks the page with a CSD attack page format)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:S%C3%A9ralini_affairTalk:Séralini_affair

Comments:

The last three (chronologically) are an abuse of the CSD and PROD templates, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit-conflicting with IRWolfie's notification, I've given Hog a final warning; if he continues, I plan on giving him a 24-hour block. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * user also gave me an edit warning after reverting him once viz http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Roxy_the_dog&oldid=569297157 . Roxy the dog (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * He's just templated my userpage now with an ANI notice, but I can see from his contribs he started no such discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He's angry; outraged even. Possibly with good cause, depending on who he is. If it comes to blocking, could whoever does it please be gentle? He's got plenty of reading to be getting on with on his talk page, so a bit of a break wouldn't do any harm, in my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but spurious deletion tags really need to stop, one way or another. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If his behaviour triggers a hard block, that will give him time to do the reading he badly needs to do. If you're reading this, Hog1983, do the reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pretty clear situation here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Wwwhatsup reported by User:MarioNovi (Result: Declined)
Have been having problems with this editor owning pages or links he is personally and professionally involved in. Three reverts of same material at Better Badges in 24 hours now.


 * 
 * 
 * 

In my changes I keep asking to discuss on talk page or with RFC but he refuses. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment As I have just said here, here and here, these two contributors have got fundamental problems. My suspicion is that this needs consideration at a more general level than specific AN3 reports. There certainly is a substantial COI problem for one of them and the other has a bee in their bonnet about it. - Sitush (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - With respect, it's far more than a "bee in their bonnet". As of a few weeks ago, MarioNovi had started 2 AFDs, a DRV, a COIN thread, an ANI thread, an RFC, and RFC/U, a WP:3O thread and 2 EL/N threads over the last six months, all focused on Wwwhatsup and a handful of articles where he has acknowledged a COI. It's been less than 2 weeks since Sitush again warned MarioNovi for forum shopping and now we're here. For the record, I called WP:NOTHERE after the first two AFDs. Editors (even those with a conflict of interest) should not be subjected to this sort of harassment. An admin should feel free to do what should have been done months ago and block MarioNovi per WP:BOOMERANG. Stalwart 111  06:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:FORUMSHOP only applies if you go to one, get consensus you don't like, then go to another until you find one you do. None of my tries got any interest so I was in the wrong forum. The only exception was this RFC which you admit you closed even though people agreed . No one has ever told me correct place but I think you are trying to distract from issue for some reason. Reason I forum shopped is because I did not want to remove links without knowing if I was right or he is. No one was interested in talking about it a lot except a few who said I was right so I finally decide to start doing it. MarioNovi (talk) 06:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. If you keep getting no response then that is a signal that you need to drop the stick. However, Wwwhatsup is far from blameless here. - Sitush (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't close that RFC - that's just silly. I suggested it be closed at "Requests for Closure" and an admin closed it with the comment, "Inappropriate use of RFC on a user's talk page". You didn't get the result you wanted at either AFD and took one to DRV. You also didn't get the result you wanted at COIN, ANI, that misguided RFC or your improperly formatted RFC/U which then got no support. Then you went to 3O, EL/N, a random article talk page and now you're here with the same message as at each of the previous venues - editor has a COI; must be stopped. That's a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOP. Stalwart 111  07:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was aware that I was breaking 3RR, but I had added refs after earlier reverts, and it was MN's 3rd revert this diff with the summary "Nothing in second ref about Better Badges at all." that pushed me over the edge. Take a look at the ref. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you counting my first edit as a revert? Because it was an edit not a revert. Edit that you reverted. MarioNovi (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are both edit warring. Wwwhatsup, my comment about blamelessness was with regard to the wider issues, not this specific report. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My comment should have read as nothing connecting Better Badges to the topic it is referencing. but it doesn't matter it is still 3rr. Why did you refuse to seek consensus? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first edit was a revert, in part, of this edit. WP:EW: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." So you did make three reverts to the article, though that first one was on the 18th. - Aoidh (talk) (formerly User:SudoGhost) 07:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond what Stalwart111 notes above, from MN's first ever appearance on Wikipedia in January practically his/her every activity has been aimed at me and my edits. I've been outed, I've been forum-shopped, canvassed against. I believe I've been very patient, and tried to respond appropriately, and get on with building Wikipedia, as usual. But somewhere the pettiness and harassment has to stop. More than one editor, including me, and you, Sitush, has done their best to direct MN's efforts in more positive directions, but with little effect. After a brief pause, it's always back to the same. Is it any wonder that I am beginning to lose patience? The first ref states clearly that BB donated the transmitter. The second that BB served as the home address for the station. There would be no dispute if it was not for MN's ongoing campaign. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See this. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * - We're not going to sift through this mess; this smells like a user conflict anyway.  K rakatoa    K atie   11:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Santamoly reported by User:PaleCloudedWhite (Result:48 hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See my edit summary in the 4th revert diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Santamoly added new text to The Mayor of Casterbridge, which was reverted by David J Johnson for being uncited POV text. Santamoly has not responded to David J Johnson's concerns (expressed both on the article talk page and Santamoly's talk page), other than to call David's removal a "cheap shot" etc., and has since re-added the material 4 times (it was removed twice by Charlesdrakew and once by myself). In my removal I advised Santamoly not to re-add it again or they would be contravening 3RR. In response they opened a thread at DRN, to which I posted a comment. Despite this, they have subsequently re-added the material to the article again. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * - this is an editor who's been here a while and knows better. The edit summary isn't really a sufficient 3RR notice; however, it's clear he saw it and knew what he was doing.  K rakatoa    K atie   12:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:99.46.226.13 & User:Dream Focus reported by User:Spshu (Result: Protected)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to: 567924453

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) link 568583900
 * 2) 568838710
 * 3) 568889846
 * 4) 569288802

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 569289719 569397080

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

Comments:

I have reverted his edit only because he did not wait for any other editors to enter the discussion and had difficulty finding the Request for Page Protection page. I have made other editors aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American television. I was told to come here from my request for page protection for this article. Spshu (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I only reverted him once after looking through the information and discussing it on the talk page. So him tagging my talk page with a edit warring warning is rather odd.   D r e a m Focus  15:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Spshu keep changing information in the Tribune Entertainment page by naming the information Tribune Studios by saying formerly Tribune Entertainment. I told him that Tribune Studios is a new production studio that was formed this year. And I've added sources indicating it to keep confusion and wanted to create a separate article with the information on the Tribune Studios production company with the references. See this history page for details I've noticed how Spshu loves to start edit wars with other users and he does it intentionally to get things his way. I told him on the talk page that this isn't Burger King where he can have it his way. And he gets away with it so many times! Look on his talk page! And I warned him not to do it again, but Spshu doesn't seem to get it. All Spshu does is get over to make himself look good by getting other users in trouble to make them look bad, and I'm sick of this! I've tried to be nice to Spshu and I know other users here at Wikipedia tried to be as well. I forgive Spshu, but he's got to go. 99.46.226.13 (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 99.46.226.13 is now trying to recruit editor for his side of the discussion: Favre1fan93, EdJohnston, Jedi94.
 * This isn't about who has the right information, but you tend to cherry pick then get mad that I used your source. Also, they you were caught making outright false statements about me. You edit where reverted then discussion WP:BRD, but instead of waiting for the discussion to be completed you reverted me and were reverted as there was no consensus. Spshu (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * O, and 99.46.226.13, no, you didn't try to be nice to me here. The first comments about me were prejudging me based on my talk page just like your comments above. Just because others hide or archive their edit warring warnings and I don't, you decide to judge me. So don't give me the line: "I've tried to be nice to Spshu ..." Spshu (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected for a week by User:Barek. Whether 'Tribune X' and 'Tribune Y' are the same company after a relaunch (or are different companies) is surely a matter which can be settled by finding sources. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Johnston, I can verify my sources: Source 1, Source 2, and Source 3 99.46.226.13 (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Revdangerfield reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notice: Talk in article on Paperback Writer. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Paperback Writer. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Paperback Writer. (TW)"
 * 4)   "seriously?"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Paul on guitar */ comment"
 * 2)   "/* Paul on guitar */ further"
 * 3)   "/* Paul on guitar */ comment"
 * 4)   "/* Paul on guitar */ further"


 * Comments:

POV pushing and replacing sourced content with unsourced opinion freshacconci talk to me  14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I replaced inaccurate information with information that I had sourced from three separate credible publications, as opposed to Freshacconci's single inaccurate source. Freshacconci is maintaining that ALL of my edits are "unsourced opinion" because I mentioned photographic evidence supporting my edits, but was unable to upload the photo in question. My other edits were clearly sourced and referenced. Revdangerfield (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revdangerfield (talk • contribs) 15:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This editor was sufficiently warned and continued to edit war and POV push, despite warnings from two editors. I have tried explaining how this works and you can see the discussions on the article talk page and his user talk page. The page has been restored and I have removed unsourced info that was left over from a different editor's changes. What is left is well-sourced and neutral. freshacconci talk to me  15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And after all that, he continues the edit war. freshacconci talk to me  15:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * and again here!. Theroadislong (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:71.249.192.199 reported by User:Star Gazer 13 (Result: Both warned)
Bulgarian Children's Chorus and School Gergana User being reported: 71.249.192.199

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bulgarian_Children%27s_Chorus_and_School_Gergana Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I have been trying to help edit this article for some time. This organization has serious problems to the extend that it has been left by 25 out of the 30 families it consisted of. There was a big scandal involving falsified documents and numerous breaches of the non profit law. I believe there is still investigation going on in Bulgaria regarding the falsified documents - meeting minutes- that were sent to the Ministry of Education in Bulgaria in order to obtain public funding for the organization. I have published independent sources to back my edits. The case was followed by the largest Bulgarian newspaper in the USA. The reported IP along with these two editors: Skylark2 and 74.66.235.121 do not allow me to add a word to the article they have created, reverting all my edits minutes after I post them. apparently they do not want the information about the controversy and the split of the organization to be available to the general public through Wikipedia. My goal is to help achieve a neutral article about the organization so the general public gets familiar with the facts. The article is most likely created by "Gergana" leadership itself in bad faith. It does not cite any independent source that back their version of the facts I am contesting. At least one citation does not have any relation to the fact it is supposed to support. The sources they cited are one interview with the current school principal, the organization website, and two announcement for a book being released.

My sources are two articles on the topic of the controversy published in the largest Bulgarian newspaper in the USA "BG Voice" written by a well established in the Bulgarian community investigating journalist named Yasen Darakov. Further, Mr. Darakov made sure to interview both sides of the story which is reflected in the article and he apparently checked his facts. I suspect Skylark2 and 71.249.192.199 are sock puppets of 74.66.235.121 who was temporarily blocked for an attempt to out me and for personal attacks. Their versions of the article are essentially the same. I have also reported 74.66.235.121 for COI. I have tried to discuss on the talk page but I got personal attacks and false citations only. Please help me resolve this issue. I am trying to help achieve neutrality and I don't want to engage in edit warring but my edits are deleted entirely all the time. This the version with my edits that is being deleted:  Thank you in advance.

Star Gazer 13 (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13


 * No evidence that IP was warned in his talk page. Additionally, since this looks like a content dispute, I've warned Star Gazer 13 as well. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mumtaz muhammed reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

(see below)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Claims to be the fastest-growing religion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

New user (reported at SPI as a possible sock of User:Rajputbhatti) edit warring. Reverts:, , , , (diffs added manually since Twinkle can't handle that many edits...). Thomas.W  talk to me  17:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * He stopped reverting after receiving a final warning about 24 hours ago. Please re-report if he continues. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:28, 15 August 2013  (edit summary: "Restored disputed contents removed by User:Ronz; see talk page.")
 * 2) 12:10, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Restored disputed contents—a quote—rephrased by User:Ronz; removed Template:Content since Template:Primary sources is restored by User:Ronz; see talk page.")
 * 3) 16:49, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted to 18:28 (UTC), 15 August 2013 (568689151) version — changes by User:Ronz is disputed")


 * Diff of warnings: 16:17, 14 July 201316:00, 20 August 2013

Attempts to resolve dispute on article: User_talk:Johnmoor/Archive_2 User_talk:Johnmoor User_talk:Johnmoor Talk:Grammarly Talk:Grammarly

Comments:

Johnmoor appears to have stopped discussing the matters of dispute, ignoring the findings of the RfC which he wrote, and is simply reverting any edits now without even joining the relevant discussions. --Ronz (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

—

The initial issue in dispute is the use of primary sources in Grammarly, which Ronz tagged first with Template:Refimprove and when GeorgeLouis undid him, he simply undid GeorgeLouis and replaced Template:Refimprove with Template:Primary sources, saying on the talk page that "At a glance, it looks to need a more thorough cleanup. Anything not referenced with independent should be considered for removal." I talked to him about this, pointing him to WP:PSTS, that the use of primary sources at that point in Grammarly (excepted for the press release previously cited and now removed) is not in violation, but before talk could progress, Ronz was making even more bold edits and when he would not listen after pointing him to WP:EQ and WP:CIVIL, I undid his edits. Then when further discussions on the Grammarly talk page, my talk page and his could not bring us to agreement, what happened next can be seen through the Grammarly history. It seems that Ronz sees the use of primary sources as forbidden; an RfC was ongoing when he kept making disputed changes. Thank you. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Johnmoor still isn't discussing the content under dispute, nor is he answering basic questions about why he is unable to agree with the consensus from the RfC
 * Note that I originally identified the problem in June, the RfC was started in July, and here we are in late August unable to even make the changes agreed to by consensus of the RfC, while Johnmoor continues edit-warring.
 * Johnmoor's characterizations of my concerns of how to use primary sources are simply wrong, and demonstrate he's not reading what I've written from the very start 03:58, 26 June 2013 18:05, 11 July 2013. --Ronz (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) (initial edit) 17:09, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Giving balance to this pubic relations campaign to attack emerging science linking health impacts to unregulated chemicals exposure.")
 * 2) (1st revert) 19:22, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "correcting an inaccurate frame")
 * 3) (2nd revert) 19:51, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 569465118 by Alexbrn (talk)")
 * 4) (3rd revert) 20:17, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 569469882 by AndyTheGrump (talk)")
 * 5) (4th revert) 20:26, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 569471423 by AndyTheGrump (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

—Alexbrn talk 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that Stepheniehendricks has continued reverting - the source cited does not support the claims made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And Stepheniehendrick has now posted a personal attack on me on the help desk: . Note that prior to reverting Stepheniehendricks, I had not previously edited the article - and needless to say, I am not a paid editor for the chemical industry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Still at it: --Yaush (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:178.94.36.47 reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: One week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Tomb of the Mutilated . (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Blatant vandalism; also possible socking, please see history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tomb_of_the_Mutilated&diff=549984530&oldid=548942329 3RR breach imminent Kiko4564 (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for one week by User:Berean Hunter. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:5.8.240.43 reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: One week)

 * 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:

As per WP:DUCK, almost certainly a sockpuppet of above user if not a meatpuppet. No second warning given as clearly they (or the other user) would already have read it. Kiko4564 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for one week by User:Berean Hunter. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Jimmythedinosaur reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Adding spam links on World Firefighters Games. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Adding spam links on World Firefighters Games. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

From the looks of it, has been warring with Amchloe who was dealing with their obvious vandalism. Appears to have had a history of vandalism. Kiko4564 (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * indefinitely by User:Berean Hunter. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Dgenx 214 and User:Net cust reported by User:WayKurat (Result: All three blocked)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: original version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff (Dgenx 214)
 * 2) diff (Dgenx 214)
 * 3) diff (Net cust)
 * 4) diff (Net cust)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
 * log of all notices/warnings to Dgenx 214 regarding his additions
 * comment posted by Dgenx214 after posting the warnings

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

Comments:


 * User:Dgenx 214 began adding game results of every game of the 2013 PBA Governors' Cup eliminations in its respective article last Sunday, August 18. I have warned him several times that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and he will add more or less 90 results on the page when the tournament finishes. He just ignores all of my messages. When I posted a level 4 message on his talk page, he posted this in my talk page. After I explained it to him again fully the consequences of his additions, he became inactive. Then today, August 21, he created a sockpuppet (User:Net cust) and continues to add those results again. I warned him again but it was ignored (please see separate sockpuppet report) and just reverts back to his version without comment. -WayKurat (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * All three editors involved have been blocked. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Newportbelcourt reported by User:MusikAnimal (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

State before edit war:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * User was warned time and time again about edit warring, which evidently in his case is more about ownership of article than anything – as the username implies. May or may not be related to User:Belcourt history. My edits were merely to restore the categories and remove unnecessary spacing, nothing controversial, yet this user keeps reverting them. Earlier in the page history shows the user removing a large amount of sourced material, with no valid explanation. Attempts by other editors to restore it have been futile. &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 15:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See also recently opened sockpuppet investigation. Regardless of result, semi-protection should be considered for this article as there is an ongoing trend of ownership of articles by users affiliated with the subject. &mdash; MusikAnimal</b> <sup style="color:green;">talk 15:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:110.77.234.239 reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: one year)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I am sorry - but please READ what is vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569489933 by Kiko4564 (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569489933 by Kiko4564 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Welcome to Wikipedia! (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Hammer Smashed Face. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Another Chris Asian 53 sock/ meat puppet; also vandalised my talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKiko4564&diff=569623986&oldid=569513406 Kiko4564 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for one year by User:Nick. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

User:CFredkin reported by User:J (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit was aware of the problems with his edits per his self-initiated recent "dispute" case. and notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (See above.)

Comments:

User is attempting to modify biographies of Democratic senators to only reflect partisan think tank rankings, rather than objective evaluations of their positions. After unsuccessfully attempting to use the dispute resolution process to force his opinion into the articles, he has now decided to edit war against multiple editors to get his viewpoints in regardless. He isn't here to improve these biographies, as his edit warring makes plainly clear (his wikilawyering efforts to find policy reasons for his edit warring aside). user: <b style="color:#df1620;">j</b> (talk)  05:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here are the edits I'm trying to make to the article on Mary Landrieu:


 * 1) Update American Conservative Union rating from 2007 to 2012 data.


 * 2) Update reference to National Journal rating which currently states: "In 2012, the National Journal rated her as the most conservative Senate Democrat." However the source provided actually says: "For 2012 votes, the public policy magazine National Journal ranked Pryor as the 49th-most conservative member of the Senate, with Hagan as the 52nd-most conservative and Landrieu as the 47th." I'm pretty sure that only 3 Senate Democrats are referenced.


 * 3) Remove 2 claims that Landrieu is "one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate" which are synthesis and are not supported by the facts provided once the above 2 edits are made.


 * 4) Remove the following claim that "Her opposition to the public option played a major role in the crafting of the health insurance reform bills of 2010.", which is synthesis and not supported by the information provided in the article.


 * I've initiated a discussion on these changes on Talk:Mary Landrieu, which so far no one else has bothered to weigh in on. I absolutely refute (and resent) the allegations above that I'm not here to improve these biographies.  Also, the person who filed this claim seems to have veered into the personal realm by referring to me as "edit warrior" in the version history for Mary Landrieu.  I agree that there appear to have been multiple violations of Wikipedia policy here, but I don't believe I've committed them.CFredkin (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You can resent the allegations all you like but the facts are that you remove references because you claim they are either "outdated", even though the article isn't just a summary of what she's been up to in the past year, it's a summary of her entire time in the Senate. Or because they're "inaccurate" or based on "synthesis", which is not the case, they're based on references provided. Tiller54 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The claim that Landrieu is one of the most conservative Democrats is sourced to a USA Today article, which references the National Journal rating I described above. It makes no other mention about Landrieu's conservative credentials. I'm not sure how you can take the actual National Journal comment (which was inaccurately quoted in the Wiki article and which references a total of 3 Democratic Senators) and infer that she's one of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate. The reality is that Landrieu's voting record has become significantly less conservative over the last several years. She may have once been one of the most conservative Democratic Senators, but that is on longer the case based on her voting record.CFredkin (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also not sure how you can possibly justify not updating an American Conservative Union rating (which was already in the article) from 2007 to 2012. The fact that this group is refusing this update shows where the real bias lies.CFredkin (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. This is irrelevant, you've been reported for edit warring, not for removing sourced content.
 * 2. Ratings don't need "updating"! The rating from 2007 isn't suddenly "obsolete" because the article is a record of her entire senate tenure, not just 2012.Tiller54 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you've resorted to sock puppetry here and here in order to try to force your opinion on the article. Tiller54 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is becoming more of an "Incident" and less about edit warring. The account CFredkin is a single purpose account that seems to be not only edit warring, but also using socks and/or meat puppets to try and get around 3RR(Bmmcatee and NewtonK6 seem obvious sock/meat puppets). Perhaps someone should file a SPI. Even if the editor has some constructive edits, he/she needs to tone down the POV driven edits and use the Talk pages, without edit warring and socking. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If you really believe that sockpuppetry is going on here, then I definitely encourage you to file an SPI. I'm sure it's difficult for you to imagine that someone might see the bullying behavior that you guys are engaged in and not want to intervene. Since your goal seems to involve maintaining an obvious pro-candidate bias in the article, then why not just mirror her campaign site and be done with it?  So far only one of you has engaged in the discussion on the Talk page and that was after this incident was filed.  (And the arguments provided there were so absurd that to me it revealed your own agenda).  CFredkin (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's an edit war going on here, and you guys instigated and perpetuated it. Not one of you has made a straight-faced argument about the edits I'm trying to make, but instead just unilaterally blocked them.  I haven't been editing on Wikipedia for very long (as I'm sure you're aware), and I've made some mistakes in the past.  But this isn't one of them.  If there's a threat to Wikipedia, I can tell you that it's what you guys are doing. You can keep up the bullying and drive out different points of view, but that will only hurt the site in the end.CFredkin (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The existence of User:CFredkin as a likely single-purpose account I ignored, but the appearance now of User:Bmmcatee and User:NewtonK6 is indeed getting to the point of ridiculousness. user: <b style="color:#df1620;">j</b> (talk)  17:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of implying that I'm engaged in sockpuppetry, perhaps you should try requesting an investigation.CFredkin (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The request has been opened. It could also be meatpuppetry, but the correlation between your accounts is inexplicable.  We'll see what happens there, though.   user: <b style="color:#df1620;">j</b>  (talk)  18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think there are a couple of possible explanations. One of which I've already suggested.CFredkin (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'm sure you'll come back here and post the results of the investigation. Right?CFredkin (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:31.18.232.83 reported by User:Jasca Ducato (Result: Semi-protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) User contributions for 31.8.232.83 (Note: To date, all user edits have been reversion on this article.)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:31.18.232.83

Comments:


 * Semi-protected by Alex Bakharev. Minima  ©  ( talk ) 13:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:IFreedom1212 reported by User:Me and (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569754173 by AndyTheGrump (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569753966 by Ajfweb (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 569753414 by Patroit22 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Pronouns reverted to masculine form due to frequent errors."
 * 1)  "Pronouns reverted to masculine form due to frequent errors."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

Both sides should stop reverting. Kiko4564 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Twinkle was less helpful there than I'd thought it would be. In any case, these are all reverts towards the version from yesterday, where Manning was referred to as Bradley and the article used male pronouns throughout. There's a lot of discussion on Talk:Chelsea Manning, although I've not checked for any explicitly addressing 's edits. There're probably other editors also breaching 3RR here, but this is the one I've just spotted. —me_and 17:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy to withdraw since the article has been fully protected. —me_and 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Kubigula (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:96.4.115.1 reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: Blocked for vandalism)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Applications */"
 * 2)  "/* Forensic anthropology */"
 * 3)  "/* Forensic botany */"
 * 4)  "/* Forensic odontology */"
 * 5)  "/* Applications */"
 * 6)  "/* Forensic ornithology */"
 * 7)  "no"
 * 8)  "/* Forensic odontology */"
 * 1)  "/* Forensic odontology */"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * for vandalism by Mufka. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:109.151.173.237 reported by User:Kiko4564 (Result: 31h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569759159 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569758987 by Kiko4564 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 569758356 by Widr (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Vandalism on You Ought to Be in Pictures. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on You Ought to Be in Pictures. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on You Ought to Be in Pictures. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

See WP:AIAV; reported by ClueBot Kiko4564 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gjergj Ceka reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hour block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569761944 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569751904 by Dr.K. (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 569724038 by Pinkbeast (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 569718197 by Alexikoua (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 567893838 by Athenean (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Nationalist POV-pushing, vandalism SPA account. Edit-warring across multiple articles. Please see also: Sockpuppet investigations/Gjergj Ceka. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  19:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I blocked this editor for the disruptive editing (including edit warring) before seeing the report here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Edgar. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359, relisted by User:Falcadore (Result: Both warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the Djflem's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * On going after original listing was ignored


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diffs of Prisonermonkeys reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * On going after original listing was ignored


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Note that the information on promotional runs was initially added in March, but the rearranging of the article did not occur until later creating its own section. The blanking and reverting of the section is what I have listed here. Also, this is the second case of edit warring on the same article between the same two users, with a previous edit war ongoing from March to May over photos (example Prisonermonkey diff, example Djflem diff). Users were also warned about edit warring for the earlier fiasco. (diff) Typical editing style of both users is to revert the article while at the same time arguing their case on the talk page. The359 ( Talk ) 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have relisted this as the original listing was archived with no action taken or even any attention given, and despite the presence of an RFC on the relevant talk, the edit-warring has restarted. --Falcadore (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


 * I don't deny that I have edit-warred, but there has been virtually no third-party support in resolving the issue. I have tried to get other editors into the debate, but have received no help. And despite his attempts to settle the edit-warring through the administrators, The359 has done very little to prevent the problem to begin with. Previous experience in dealing with Djflem has shown me that ignoring his disruptive edits only enables him, as he seems to be under the impression that bold edits are somehow immune from further editing until a consensus is proven. This would not normally be an issue, but it is a hallmark of a serial sockpuppeteer who has haunted the Formula 1 pages in the past (not that I believe Djflem is another sock as he has been around for some time; it's just a behaviour I have recognised as being consistent with anthoer disruptive editor). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be less confusing if User:The359 User:Falcadore had given us a brand new report instead of recycling the last one. Nonetheless Prisonermonkeys and Djflem have reverted the same material twice again each in recent days. (See the reverts listed above: "On going after original listing was ignored"). In my opinion it's now time to issue blocks, unless each of the parties will agree to make no further reverts of the disputed material. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't blame User:The359. I did it. I even added my own sig. I felt it additionally emphasises that the original report was archived with no action taken. If that was incorrect, then I apologise. First time for me on this page. --Falcadore (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. To clarify, the ongoing war is between User:Djflem and User:Prisonermonkeys. Neither The359 nor Falcadore are parties to the dispute. As noted, the fight on this article has been going on since May. EdJohnston (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston invited me to comment before any action was taken. I can't necessarily agree to stop reverting the article, because I feel the content I am reverting compromises the article. It is, essentially, advertising. It might have been reported by a reliable source, but the event that the sources are reporting on was a paid sponsor event. It was designed to promoted the race, and so us going to be overwhelming positive. Every attempt at discussion elsewhere has failed, and when someone did comment in an RFC, they recommended that the section stay, withsubstantial changes made. Djflem has since presented thus as x"it's fine the way it is". He is yet to address a single issue that I have raised, and reverts edits on sight on the basis that his preferred version of edits was the one in place when the article wad frozen. If he had visited the page an hour later, we would be in the opposite situation.

Given that nobody seems to he paying attention to what I think is a serious issue, I felt something had to be done. This section of the article depends on a paid presentation being presented as news, which is a serious problem if Wikipedia presents it as fact. I am willing to work on an alternative solution, but it really doesn't help things when editors go straight to 3RRinstead if actually trying to resolve the issue on the talk page. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Several people have stated their belief that it is not advertising. Therefore the content is disputed.  Therefore your belief that you should continue to remove it as a clear cut case of advertising is incorrect.  I have no clue how much more simple it could be, really.  The359  ( Talk ) 18:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: User:Djflem and User:Prisonermonkeys are warned not to continue the war. There is a discussion on the talk page, and if you can't tell the outcome, you can ask at WP:AN for it to be closed by an uninvolved admin. EdJohnston (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Me and (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569754068 by IFreedom1212 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569733836 by Jogershok (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 569733385 by Jogershok (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 569630448 by 87.189.254.208 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 569623136 by Gaius the Second (talk) poor wording etc"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 569584134 by Mohamed CJ (talk) already in first paragraph"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * Editing is not 'edit warring'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Clear 3RR breach, but happy to withdraw now the article has been fully protected. —me_and 18:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please not that unless I receive an apology from User:Me_and, I shall be making a formal complaint regarding this clearly malicious and unjustifiable 'report'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For that matter, shouldn't have been included in the above list; I don't think it's an obvious exemption, but it's clearly non-controversial. —me_and 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll give you one last chance to apologise, and withdraw this ridiculous complaint. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said above – I'm entirely happy to withdraw this complaint, as I was for IFreedom1212, now Chelsea Manning has been fully protected. —me_and 18:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not an apology. The diffs you post cannot possibly be interpreted as evidence of 'edit warring'. I shall now report the matter at WP:ANI, as I can see no justification whatsoever for your behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As has pointed out at WP:ANI, the 15:25 edit above also shouldn't have been included in the report. I've struck out the diffs I should have skipped in the above, and my apologies for not checking Twinkle's output thoroughly. —me_and 19:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * by another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:MONGO (Result:72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring and arguing with 4 others, warned by User:Ravensfire about 3RR already. I made a series of unrelated edits to reposition images for better flow and to reduce crowding that are unrelated to the reverts but twice reverted the page due to the shouting and acrimonious POV pushing against concensus by User:Somedifferentstuff.--MONGO 04:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 72h - previous edit warring block was also 72h but was two years ago, so I won't increase it. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Priya jain1002001 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Indef)

 * 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 Pappu. using TW"


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


 * Comments:

Repeated attempts to add subject to list. It is not his name but rather a derogatory nickname.  Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  13:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked Indef per WP:NOTHERE. Black Kite (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:67.81.117.211 / User:Rieding reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: Protected)
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page:

Comments:

The newly created account Rieding was clearly created by the IP to avoid being reported for edit-warring after the warning I left. The editor has been clearly told, on their talk page and in edit summaries, what they need to do to change the material about Ocasek's ethnic background - i.e., get a source more reliable than People magazine, but continues insert the information without a proper source. Their edits have been reverted by myself and another editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . Semi-protected for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mtwv reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: Previous version
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 569760594 by Mar4d (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 569760594 by Mar4d (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 569725336 by Mar4d (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 569439466 by Mar4d (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 569260807 by Smsarmad (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 567586063 by Smsarmad (talk)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is an edit warring report(not a 3RR). User has been edit warring and adding POV text even after being warned. S M S  Talk 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnmoor reported by Ronz (talk) (Result:Warning )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 18:57, 14 August 2013  (edit summary: "Removed Template:Primary sources, still disputed; see talk page.")
 * 2) 18:28, 15 August 2013  (edit summary: "Restored disputed contents removed by User:Ronz; see talk page.")
 * 3) 12:10, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Restored disputed contents—a quote—rephrased by User:Ronz; removed Template:Content since Template:Primary sources is restored by User:Ronz; see talk page.")
 * 4) 16:49, 20 August 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted to 18:28 (UTC), 15 August 2013 (568689151) version — changes by User:Ronz is disputed")
 * 5) 09:57, 24 August 2013  (edit summary: "Removed Template:Primary sources, still disputed; removed a citation to a publisher's e-bookshop—advert; removed Template:Content—covered by T:POV; see talk page.")
 * 6) 16:21, 24 August 2013  (edit summary: "Removed Template:Primary sources, still disputed, no RfC consensus to keep; see talk page")


 * Diff of warnings: 16:17, 14 July 201316:00, 20 August 2013

Attempts to resolve dispute on article: User_talk:Johnmoor/Archive_2 User_talk:Johnmoor User_talk:Johnmoor Talk:Grammarly Talk:Grammarly

Previous 3RR report: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive221

Now he's making sockpuppet accusations to justify his continued edit-warring and ignoring his RfC, "I hope you would not keep pushing your views through Sock puppetry though, an administrator can tell if you do." .

Granted, he's discussing matters on the talk page again, but I think it was only because of the previous 3RR report. —Ronz (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC) JOHNMOOR'S COMPLETE STATEMENT ON THE TALK PAGE "I have removed the Template:Primary sources you just restored, and the Template:Content I used, leaving the Template:POV you just introduced. I believe we are done here; let us leave it to other contributors or third-parties to make further changes or air their views. I hope you would not keep pushing your views through Sock puppetry though, an administrator can tell if you do. Thank you." —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . John has made only one edit to the article since the last report was filed. Ron has made two. I don't interpret the socking comment as an accusation but as a warning for the future, although it's still inappropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . Johnmoor decided to revert once again. --Ronz (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Not enough edit warring activity to justify block, left a stern warning Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:129.128.184.5 reported by User:Gen. Quon (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Originally, the article had the singles box for the Elton John version, as well as single boxes for the Ben Folds and Tim McGraw covers, as seen by this previous revision: Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I've tried to tried to explain why the removal of this content is not appropriate, only to be called a "tool", a "wanker", and a "hack" with a "shitty" taste in music on both the talk page and the edit descriptions. In the final revision, they revealed that they seem to be baiting me, by telling me to "tattle" on them.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Insults on revisions page: [|link]

I'm not sure if we're dealing with an extreme fan who is angered by the extra infoboxes, or someone who just wants to call names. Either way, I don't want to edit-war, and I felt I should just report it so that it would stop. This is a bare IP address, so who knows what's going on. I feel protection or semi-protection would work best.-- Gen. Quon   (Talk)   18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 31h block for edit warring and personal attacks Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Keri & User:Jimthing reported by User:ТимофейЛееСуда (Result: 31h each)
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Original Edits

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Keri 1st Revert
 * 2) Jimthing 1st Revert
 * 3) Keri 2nd Revert
 * 4) Jimthing 2nd Revert
 * 5) Keri 3rd Revert
 * 6) Jimthing 3rd Revert


 * 1) Multiple Reverts on Hungerford massacre
 * 2) Multiple Reverts on Dunblane school massacre
 * 3) Multiple Reverts on Monkseaton shootings

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to Jimthing & Warning to Keri

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No intervention. Found war while using iGloo vandalism tool.

Comments: Also seems to be some borederline edit-warring going on on Keri's talkpage. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 23:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note - The first diff - marked as "Keri's 1st revert" above - is older than 24 hours. User:Jimthing has made 3 reverts in the space of the last few hours. 3RR warnings were posted. As I clearly explained to Jimthing when reverting his tit-for-tat postings on my talk page, I have *not* made 3 reverts and have no intention of doing so. The user meanwhile fails to address the questions raised on his talk page about the edits. As for "borderline edit warring" on my talk page... do be brief: its my talk page and I'll remove whatever I see fit to remove. Keri (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute - here and here. Get your facts straight. Keri (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment, User Keri seems to be gaming the system, pushing up to the limit in the 24 hour period (see this edit summary) knowing full and well what is being done is inappropriate and the two seem to be baiting one another. 00:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC) -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 00:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I have clearly stated prior to this discussion that I have no intention of moving into 3RR territory, and as I have also been the only one making any attempt to resolve the disputed edits - without reply from Jimthing - you accusation of "gaming the system" is verging on a personal attack and I suggest you withdraw it. Keri (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This user Keri has been deliberately undoing perfectly acceptable See Also links, with little to no reasoning, except their own personal preference, and certainly without discussing beforehand. This is why I undid his edit warring actions accordingly, as they also refused to allow me a few minutes to actually respond, before doing his undo warring, which is entirely unacceptable. Allowing another user ZERO time to write a decent explanation of relevance (which I am now doing on one of those talk pages accordingly, when I have time between doing other things!!) is no way to behave to another users hard work collating relevant links together across multiple pages. Jimthing (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h each - pure edit war over such a trivial matter as what links should be in "See Also" section without any attempt to use the talk page to settle the difference on the talk page. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Dogmaticeclectic (Result: Decline)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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:

At the first article, the mention of Windows XP was removed from the infobox in all 5 reverts. At the second article, the mention of Virtual PC was removed in all 3 reverts. (Note that this is a WP:EW report, not a WP:3RR one.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello


 * The collection of diffs here looks overwhelming in the first look but there are aspects that Dogmaticeclectic did not mention. For instance:
 * The diffs in List of features removed in Windows 8 belong different dates: 25 March, 22 August and 25 August. Neither 71.143.229.137, User:JonMerel or User:Lukeno94 made any objection to may reverts; nor they counter-reverted. So, what we have here is three BRDs, all three solved.
 * Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page is most amusing: In the link that Dogmaticeclectic provided, User:Socrates2008 supported my removal proposal. Dogmaticeclectic has not even commented! How on earth is this the Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page?
 * In case of Windows Movie Maker, we talked in Talk:Windows Movie Maker. A consensus is formed. I don't know how can Dogmaticeclectic attach a diff in 27 December 2012 to a diff in August 2013 but User:Damaster98 was content in 27 December. Even the consensus in August was formed with the help of Damaster98. Here is the missing Diff that predates my first revert.
 * One important point is that Dogmaticeclectic never made a single attempt to communicate with me or any other involved party.


 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no time limit for an edit warring report except that the edit warrior must be active - hence the other, recent diffs above - nor is it required that the reporting user be involved in talk page discussion. Also, contrary to your statements, in neither of these cases was consensus actually established - you just continued reverting. Finally, you made that edit before User:Socrates2008 posted that message, so don't call it a "proposal" in that context - and in any case that message did not support the entirety of that edit. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. There are no arbitrary limits, no. But Silence means consensus. If User:Damaster98 did not object in 27 December, he is content. In truth, not only he did not object, he backed me up in the recent discussion. So, the is a consensus. Same goes with 71.143.229.137, User:JonMerel or User:Lukeno94. If they are content with my review of their edits, there is no dispute, let alone an edit war.


 * As for Talk:Windows Movie Maker, I'll allow others to be the judge of that.


 * Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're only bringing up users who haven't spoken out against the edits in question - how convenient for you. What about users like myself and User:DeNoel? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Yes, I deliberately bring up editor who haven't spoken because it is exactly that element that gives me the green light to act: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent is taken to agree; he ought to have spoken when he was able to). As for User:DeNoel: We discussed with him. (Your link proves that you knew it.) He insisted that Windows XP is in the source while neither me nor Damaster98 could spot it. Eventually, he gave up.


 * As for you yourself, you must attempt to participate in consensus-building process if you wish to be acknowledged beyond that of an angry reverter. Instead of you attempt to force an overriding will – while pretending not being aware of the discussion – and then file an EW report – while exhibiting knowledge of the discussion which you previously denied. Your methods so far have been gaming the system, deceit and bullying. Try a polite message once in a while; believe me, you get results. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticelectic, some of your arguments border on the nonsensical. It's obvious that I agree with Codename Lisa's position, and it is hilariously obvious that you are going out of your way to revert Codename Lisa simply because they made the edits. Take the addition of unsourced information into an article by an IP, which, as far as I'm aware, hadn't been there previously. Codename Lisa rightly removed it, and you reverted simply because she had removed it. A user doesn't have to comment on a talk page to show opposition to your edits; reverting you shows that. Honestly, I'm sick to death of watching people improve Microsoft-related articles, and then get reverted by you, Dogmaticelectic, because you don't like their edits. And accusations of WP:OWN are ironic and hypocritical in the extreme. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 17:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * . I don't normally note this because it's fairly obvious but Dogmaticeclectic has an extensive history of edit warring blocks on Microsoft-related articles. They also are heavily focused on Microsoft articles. Finally, there's a fair amount of bad blood between Dogmaticeclectic and Codename Lisa. I'm not sure if there's enough here for a WP:BOOMERANG. Although I am not WP:INVOLVED, I'll let another admin evaluate it from a fresher perspective.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been edit warring since those blocks, while the other user has. (Also, calling 3 blocks an "extensive history" is just laughable.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. The part "there's a fair amount of bad blood between Dogmaticeclectic and Codename Lisa" is unfortunately correct. The reason is that my edits are also focused in computing area. Another reason is that Dogmaticeclectic is not open to discussion at all. His modus operandi is BRRRRR(someone is blocked) or BRR(disagreeing party stops just not to get involved in an edit war). The only form of discussion he is ever engage in is sending templates. There is one exception however: User talk:Codename Lisa. This discussion is so rare that I still cannot believe my eyes. It should go to the hall of the fame. But I am afraid I stand by everything I said here: User talk:Dogmaticeclectic. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you seriously just link to statements by you that were completely and utterly debunked by multiple other users (including an administrator)? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. If it is indeed what is going to occur, then why do you object? I'll let others to be the judge of that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is you and the user being reported here, along with a couple of others, who have banded together to make highly controversial - and often policy-violating - changes to Microsoft-related articles and attempt to have anyone who dares disagree blocked.
 * By the way, I suggest you back up your accusation that I am "going out of [my] way to revert Codename Lisa simply because they made the edits", or I will take it as a personal attack. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Take it how you will, it's an observation that seems very accurate. I already backed it up within my initial statement, after all. And cut the bullshit about "policy-violating changes" - you wholesale revert anything you disagree with, including the removal of unsourced content. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The user being reported keeps "wholesale revert"ing anything that happens to be unsourced instead of tagging it, even if it's not WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Codename Lisa has not done anything to merit a block, or even a warning, in my view. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

User:70.105.240.183 reported by User:RolandR (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Dissolution */"
 * 2)  "/* Dissolution */  There was no IDF until 1948 so I changed the words "integrated into" to "became"."
 * 3)  "/* Dissolution */   The IDF did not exist until 1948 so there was nothing to integrate into. For this reason I changed the words "integrated into" to "became"."
 * 4)  "/* Dissolution */  There was no IDF until 1948 so I changed the words "integrated into" to "became"."
 * 5)  "/" Dissolution */    There was no IDF until 1948 so I changed the words "integrated into" to "became". "


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Lehi (group). (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* August 2013 */"


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


 * Comments:

This article. like all others relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict, is under a one-revert rule. Editor has been notified of this, but continues to edit war. RolandR (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor continues to edit-war even after the submission of this report. RolandR (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:HistorNE reported by User:Yintan (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */ removing Israeli conspiracy theories"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570244473 by Yintan (talk) please consult WP:BLP"
 * 3)  "Since when Israeli, Saudi and US-gov propaganda media counts as "WP:RS"? Please also consult WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Hassan Rouhani."
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking."


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Son's suicide claims */"

I responed on Talk:Hassan Rouhani. Yintan should learn to assume good faith and consult WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. --HistorNE (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Numetalfanatic reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: Indefinite)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Repeated addition of the same unsourced (and, based on photos, unlikely) claim in a BLP. This edit is the long-time fascination of the indefinitely blocked User:Puggnoxious and his socks. New sock case will be opened next.

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: Talk:Mick_Thomson, Talk:Mick_Thomson, etc. Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Blocked indef. Quack, quack. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Zoltan Bukovszky reported by User:Maurice07 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 19 August 2013, 10:41
 * 2) 21 August 2013, 17:07
 * 3) 22 August 2013, 09:22
 * 4) 22 August 2013, 09:36
 * 5) 24 August 2013, 11:14

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The main element of the dispute, Turkey's geographical location. I moved this with concrete evidence and resources on the talk page but geographical and contradictory personal opinions, has created this polemic. Maurice07 (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:140.247.25.6 reported by User:DavidLeighEllis (Result: one week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Professor3929 reported by User:Orlady (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)
 * 11)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of other relevant messages on user's talk page:
 * - General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Council for Higher Education Accreditation
 * - User's allegations of self-interested COI editing by Orlady
 * - Bot's notification on removal of YouTube links from the article page
 * - Templated warning against attack pages, with other comments about the CHEA page
 * - User's revision of allegations against Orlady

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This newly registered user seems to be pushing a POV against the Council for Higher Education Accreditation in particular and against higher education accreditation in the United States in general. They have successfully converted the article into an attack page against the organization. They have been edit-warring not only to change content, but also to repeatedly remove cleanup templates. These have been massive changes and it has all happened very quickly; if I weren't WP:INVOLVED, I would have semi-protected the page to foster discussion. User is also starting to edit-war on List of unrecognized higher education accreditation organizations: (page history) and they have posted some of the same anti-CHEA content on Talk:List of recognized higher education accreditation organizations, where the user and I had the following interaction over comment positioning and refactoring of the talk page:, , , , and. I also gave the user a templated warning about talk-page refactoring, which appears to have been heeded. --Orlady (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Professor injected complaints into the article pages (not talk pages) about how the articles should be improved. I reverted and left messages (edit summaries & a talk page comment) about the proper location for discussions on article improvement. In a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT moment, Professor blanked his/her talk page. And Professor has left a sort of EW message on my talk page. . Professor is quite WP:Disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

User:109.186.234.86 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: one month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 570314014 by ThomasO1989 (talk) Carney is a Cassavetes authority. Why shouldn't he be at least mentioned here?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570313317 by Insulam Simia (talk) Given that Carney is the world's foremost Cassavetes authority, may I ask why?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 570312459 by Insulam Simia (talk) And that is why?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 570311841 by Binksternet (talk) You seem to ignore my arguments out of some hostility to Carney or prehaprs to the whole notion of film as art"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 570309980 by Binksternet (talk) Seems to be an excerpt from a published work rather than some random link"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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

The IP is now blocked for one month. Let's see what happens in late September. Binksternet (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * I reported this user to WP:AIV. The process should be a lot hastier there. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 21:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that user has also violated 3RR at many other articles including Sam Mendes, Saving Private Ryan and Woody Allen. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor has said so himself that he does not care about "Wikipedia's silly policy," which indicates a lack of competency. Because things did not go his way on The Thief and the Cobbler, he will ignore any request to discuss his edits on a talk page. He will immediately revert any warnings added to his talk page and prefers "discussing" in the edit summary of each revert. All his edits consist of pushing Ray Carney quotes and edit warring. A 2-week block did not change his behavior. To quote Einstein, "insanity is doing something over and over and expecting different results." IMO, this editor is simply disruptive and has no place here. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * for one month by User:Sergecross73. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Murrallli/User: 14.139.95.98 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 1 week/warned)
Page:

User being reported: and  (see below)

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

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

Note that the first edit is by User:Murrallli, and the latter three are by User:14.139.95.98. However, the IP account essentially admitted to be Murrallli. After the first revert by the IP, I reverted, with a note in the edit summary recommending logging in, and I left this message on User Talk: Murrallli. After I did so, the IP responded on my talk page with [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Qwyrxian&diff=570349752&oldid=570316209 this edit], where he states explicitly that it "doesn't matter whether he logs in or not"--this, to me, is tacit admission of being the same user. Furthermore later, Murrallli did log in to remove my warning/explanation from his talk page. Lastly, if you look at the numerous sections at the bottom of my talk page, you'll see comments from both Murrallli and the IP, and the writing style is exactly the same, with the same types of errors and formatting. As such, they are clearly the same user and this needs to be treated as 4 reverts by the same person.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here on my talk page and as the only edit on User Talk:14.139.95.98

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I made several comments on my talk page (note basically most of the last 7 sections, since this user likes to put each paragraph in a new section). Also, I left a formal explanation for all users to see on Talk:Cinema of Andhra Pradesh in this edit.

Comments:

Note that in addition to the 3RR violation, the user is also breaking WP:NPA by labeling my good faith edits as vandalism (something I asked them not to do), and the edit warring is being done to reinsert POV text, unsourced text, and sources that clearly do not meet WP:RS to the article. I don't know if the IP is static or not; if it isn't, it may be necessary to semi-protect the article in addition to the 3RR block. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The IP address has just reverted again in this edit, meaning even by itself it's passed 4 reverts. I won't re-revert on the article at the moment because I'm at 3 reverts, even though the article now is significantly in violation of policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's apparently static. Murilllo scarcely seems to be trying to hide their identity with using the IP; these posts on my page state that they've forgotten their password and are unable to log in. They also make the same foolish accusations of disruption and vandalism (this from the guy who wrote "stop abusing fellow editors as vandals" to Qwyrxian), with conspiracy thrown in; my conspiracy with Qwyrxian, I think. They seem aggressively resistant to advice and information. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC).
 * P.S. Here, 14.139.95.98 has posted an unblushing request for revert support on Cinema of Andhra Pradesh. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC).
 * P.P.S. Murallli just found his password and started posting as Murallli again. Bishonen &#124; talk 11:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Kindly check, the edit summaries, first 3RR was disobeyed by User:Qwyrxian, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murallli (talk • contribs)
 * Murallli, I've moved your comment to the bottom because threads should go in order.
 * Sadly, though, I just looked back at the history of the page, and see that I did, in fact, violate 3RR. I forgot that the first edit of my cleanup was a revert (when counting myself, before, I was thinking that I had just started editing in response to a change, not that I'd specifically undone another user's change). Since I've crossed 3RR, I will accept a block; note, though, that enough evidence has arisen that I have filed an SPI on Murallli/IP at Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx; if I'm right (and one of the admins with long term experience with Padmalakshmisx thinks I am), then my latter 3 reverts might qualify for the exception of reverting a long term sockmaster abuser, basically a de jure banned user. But I do freely admit that I went one revert too far, should have been more careful, and accept a block (short term, hopefully). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lfdder reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: This is the version before I removed the comment.

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


 * Lfdder has received a warning, but it wasn't for edit warring. I removed his comment having found it offensive and warned him for that.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Lfdder has stated that he does not consider prick a personal attack; rather, a term of endearment. I disagree; if I called someone that at school, I would be excluded for a couple of days.-- Laun  chba  ller  21:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had seen this edit war in progress (found it by accident when looking at the history of the TFD page), and I was tempted to block. I decided against it because I didn't see evidence that the parties were continuing their dispute (i.e. it seemingly was stale), but this AN3 report shows that it was still a live dispute.  Nyttend (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

User:109.201.152.195 and User:109.201.152.196 and User:109.201.152.198 and User:96.47.83.49 reported by User:jytdog (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) initial set of edits by User:96.47.83.49 in dif made with no edit note
 * 2) diff I reverted with edit note "journal of student research is not a reliable source"
 * 3) reverted by User:96.47.83.49 in this diff with no edit note
 * 4) reverted by me in diff with edit note "as per WP:BRD please bring to talk - do not edit war. Thanks"
 * 5) reverted by User:109.201.152.198 in this dif with no edit note
 * 6) reverted by me in this dif with edit note "this is not a reliable source - please do not revert without bringing to Talk as per WP:BRD)"
 * 7) reverted by User:109.201.152.196 in this dif with no edit note
 * 8) reverted by me in this dif with edit note "this is not a reliable source - please do not revert without bringing to Talk as per WP:BRD)"
 * 9) reverted by User:109.201.152.195 in this dif with no edit note

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

I also have opened a discussion on reliable sources noticeboard here

Comments:


 * Result: Semiprotected two weeks. Jytdog, I recommend that you don't continue to revert if you see these editors again because you risk being sanctioned yourself. In this particular case one may assume that WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Advice heeded! Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Adelove25 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 570509697 by MelbourneStar (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570509332 by Richard BB (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 570509142 by Richard BB (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 570508808 by Richard BB (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 570507508 by Richard BB (talk) watch the video"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


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


 * Comments:

appears to have also made a succession of reverts on the article, however, citing that 's edits contain unsourced + undue content; and to their credit, not only warned the editor, but asked that they take it to the talk page (here and here). — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 09:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now ceased reverting this user's edits as I'd much rather not continue an edit war (nor be blocked from editing because of one). I apologise for any defiance of 3RR, but it was initially intended to cut out original research and non-notable topics to the article. However, given that this isn't blatant vandalism, I will not be reverting any more of this user's edits. —  Richard  BB  09:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . Will block if the user repeats reverting. Wifione  Message 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:Sokac121 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 570199111 by ProKro (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570437661 by Bobrayner (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 570459254 by CodeCat (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 570508164 by Sokac121 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 570570717 by Sokac121 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 


 * Comments:
 *  Wifione  Message 04:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:USchick reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Page protected for now)
Page:

User being reported:

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: Talk:2013_Ghouta_attacks

Comments:

There are lots of other reverts in the article history, this is just one whom I personally warned. Another editor also posted a request at WP:RPP, and I just posted to ANI requesting that the article be temporarily placed on 1RR. VQuakr (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Notified here. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Reply:

My comments on the talk page are being ignored, just like the comments of other editors. User:VQuakr does not have consensus and does not respond on the talk page before he pushes his unsubstantiated POV. User:Sopher99 is being very disruptive as well. He was warned here USchick (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This really is not the correct forum for non-edit warring issues, but would you care to provide examples (diffs) of where I "did not respond on the talk page" or added unreferenced information? VQuakr (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits 1,2,3 is an edit war that still needs to be resolved. An unsubstantiated claim is being made. This edit 4 was discussed on the talk page earlier today. Since there were no objections, I made the edit hours later. USchick (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There has been a massive amount of editing, pov pushing, and format mistakes made by users and ips alike. Its a current event, and perhaps the most polemical international issue right now. Vandalism on this page is frequent and it is currently awaiting semi-protection. I don't think any block is necessary, but page protection/semi protection is. Sopher99 (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here VQuakr reverted an edit and then asked for new consensus to justify his edit war Earlier in the day consensus was reached to delete this section.
 * In this discussion Talk:2013 Ghouta attacks He's trying to convince me that spreading international propaganda and his personal POV is perfectly acceptable as long as it's properly sourced. Perhaps he needs to be mentored on how to work collaboratively on articles of international significance. USchick (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can and should block the editors involved in edit warring. For a start, I've fully protected the page. Discuss on the talk page of the article and call me or any other administrator when you feel you've reached consensus on various issues involved with the article. Thanks  Wifione  Message 05:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Airtyme2 reported by User:EuroCarGT (Result: Not blocked; user agrees to stop reverting)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 570618853 by EuroCarGT (talk) Can you explain how it is promotional?  I don't know how to message you."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570615408 by Eyesnore (talk)  Stop reverting my contributions.  You claim that the statement is promotional, but your claim is wrong.  Nothing is promotional about it."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 570613369 by Eyesnore (talk)  This is not promotion material.  P90X  is a home fitness program and does have more than 1.2 million post to youtube."
 * 4)  "/* Exercises overview */"
 * 5)  "/* Nutrition */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Keeps reverting after disagreeing with many reverts of promotional content. EuroCarGT 03:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems it has been resolved now, with some talking on the user's talk page. EuroCarGT  03:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * by the editors editing the page; user seems to have agreed to stop reverting for now. Wifione  Message 04:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:ZYXW9876 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Part of larger discussion but relevant diff is

Comments:

User doesn't really seem to get how sourcing works despite numerous attempts to explain. -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  13:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If Neil is going to mention ethnonym Slav, and definition of such from Latin, Greek etc, then why not add three words, ie "from Slavic glory"? It is a fact that Slavs defined the word Slav as glory. I don't understand Neils racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZYXW9876 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding personal attacks -- accusing an editor of racism -- is not a good thing to add to your obvious edit warring. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And now a baseless accusation of sockpuppetry . -- Neil N  <sup style="font-family:Calibri;"> talk to me  17:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and personal attacks.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Thenazgullord reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) Latest revision as of 14:58, 29 August 2013
 * 2) Latest revision as of 14:47, 29 August 2013
 * 3) Latest revision as of 14:37, 29 August 2013
 * 4)  "/* Introduction */"
 * 5)  "/* Introduction */"
 * 6)  "/* Introduction */"
 * 7)  "i changed a countrys name to its officially recognized one by the UN"
 * 8)  "/* Introduction */"
 * 9)  "i changed the name of a country which was posted wrongly. FYROM is not named "Republic of Macedonia" as there is still the matter of the name for which greece has veto-ed"
 * 10)  "i changed the name of a country which was posted wrongly. FYROM is not named "Republic of Macedonia" as there is still the matter of the name for which greece has veto-ed"
 * 1)  "i changed the name of a country which was posted wrongly. FYROM is not named "Republic of Macedonia" as there is still the matter of the name for which greece has veto-ed"
 * 2)  "i changed the name of a country which was posted wrongly. FYROM is not named "Republic of Macedonia" as there is still the matter of the name for which greece has veto-ed"
 * 1)  "i changed the name of a country which was posted wrongly. FYROM is not named "Republic of Macedonia" as there is still the matter of the name for which greece has veto-ed"


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


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


 * Comments:

SPA. Edit-warring in violation of WP:NCMAC despite multiple warnings. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Dang. I wanted to submit this too but must have forgotten to press save after preview. Note that WP:ARBMAC is also applicable here; warning given: . Editor may also have been socking with and ; the sudden influx of all these edit-warring-only accounts is rather striking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that Future, didn't want to upstage you. :) I also agree with you regarding the socking concerns. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  15:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * for not being here to build an encyclopedia. This user's contributions consist only of disruptive editing and edit warring against resolutions like ARBMAC and NCMAC. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note also their unblock request wherein Thenazgullord announces future sockpuppetry. De728631 (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good calls on indeffing this user and protecting the page. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  17:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)