Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive222

User:Picture Master reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: 2 x 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 570685474 by Intothatdarkness (talk) - Adding image is not vandalizing. If you don't like it, take it to talk. XD"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570543728 Someone please block this "GimliDotNet" guy! He insists on vandalizing the article!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 570356138 by GimliDotNet (talk)"
 * 4)  "Stop with the vandalism! It's the only picture in the public domain of the article. Your personal opinion about the quality of the picture is not important!"
 * 1)  "Stop with the vandalism! It's the only picture in the public domain of the article. Your personal opinion about the quality of the picture is not important!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Vandalism */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Vandalism again */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* Vandalism again */"
 * 4)   "/* Vandalism */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

Me too, user is pushing fan-art and accusing others of vandalism for reverting it.

I fully expect consequences to as I have 'lost it' which I will accept GimliDotNet ( Speak to me,  Stuff I've done )  15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems I can't report myself, please count this as a report for me too. Heads gone, ban probably do my blood pressure good. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  15:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Great, let's see who is vandalizing!

Adding low-quality art and then accusing others of vandalism when they remove it isn't a good way to go about things. User Picture Master doesn't seem inclined to discuss additions either on article talk pages or on their talk page. Intothatdarkness 16:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * . Intothatdarkness already mentioned in this revision that bold editing is not vandalism. Unencyclopedic fan-art does not contribute anything to Wikipedia articles, but edit warring about its removal doesn't help either. As a result, both involved editors have been given 24 hours to contemplate. After that, Picture Master should seek consensus at the article talk page for inclusion of the image. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:ZYXW9876 reported by User:Macrakis (Result: Already blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:02, 29 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
 * 2) 12:51, 29 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
 * 3) 13:25, 29 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
 * 4) 14:13, 29 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
 * 5) 17:07, 29 August 2013  (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: Persistently re-adds 'from Slavic glory' to article, despite multiple Edit Warring, RS, and 3RR warnings in Talk:Slave and User talk:ZYXW9876. Has done this in multiple 24-hour periods.


 * Already blocked per report farther up the page.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Leoxaq reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:



Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Leoxaq

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Multiple users disagree with this one user's edits. Talk page is full of discussion of the issue, yet user keeps editing despite lack of consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

I show evidence written, "Yaoi is unrelated to LGBT". And I edit it. Reference：Template talk:LGBT in Japan--Leoxaq (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

User in question only provided one single source for their multiple assertions regarding yaoi, all of which the other editors regarded as inconsequential to whether it is or is not an LGBT-relevant topic. User in question continued to harp on how yaoi is only relevant to "hetero women" (that it is only written by heterosexual women for heterosexual women to see themselves in "beautiful men"), despite its very name ("yaoi") being identified in both Japan and non-Japanese territories by publishers as containing content of a homosexual nature. At some point, things broke down, and user in question stuck rhetorically to saying the same thing over and over again like a stuck record, no matter what we said to the contrary. User disputed it on my talk page and on template talk page as well. Plenty of talk was had, none of it bearing fruit. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - 31 hours for long-term edit warring. User:Leoxaq has removed the word Yaoi from the article ten times since 23 August. He keeps asserting he is correct, but nobody on the talk page supports his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:128.151.71.18 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Sorry but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on such an obvious case of edit warring. The editor has been warned and the edit history of the article tells the whole story. Please let me know if you have any questions. ElKevbo (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected six months. One or more IPs have been trying to force the addition of John Allen Bennett's name as a notable alumnus since March. Whoever this alumnus might be, he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article. A short block seems unlikely to help, so it is logical to do semiprotection. Nobody has offered any reasoning on the talk page as to why his name should be included. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:39.45.79.177 reported by User:EuroCarGT (Result: Full Protect: 2 days)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "There are reliable sources for assists"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 570718547 by Eyesnore (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 570718133 by Qed237 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 570713384 by Qed237 (talk) Even EPL official site has assist data. If you think it's not right doesn't make it wrong."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 570654548 by Qed237 (talk) There is assist data on every page. Live with it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warning on talk page. ///Euro Car GT 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * User:EuroCarGT, User:Eyesnore, and User:Qed237 are all guilty of edit warring in this case. This was handled improperly by all of them.  This is not an exception to 3RR.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The contested changes are no different than most of the other content in the page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been consensus on WT:FOOTY to remove assist-tables. As example this and this i can find at the moment withour even looking that hard. QED 237   (talk)  20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Clear consensus does not appear to exist in that discussion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cantaloupe2 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Extensive discussion about said edits at WT:COI by multiple editors. It seems likely others at pages Cantaloupe2 has recently edited would characterize this editor's behavior as edit warring as well.

Comments:

At the risk of being accused of WP:FORUMSHOP, previously made mention of this at WP:ANI but so far there has been no action, despite multiple others chiming in from other interactions with this user. Not exactly 3RR, and perhaps not even explicitly edit warring, as they tend to jump around somewhat to different, related issues and viewpoints, but interactions with other editors are almost uniformly hostile, accusatory, and demonstrate a complete disregard for consensus building. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# ▄ 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User has also been rather disruptive to the point of warring on WinCo Foods. They misuse the COI template when the issue was bias (see Talk:WinCo_Foods). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I had a WP:AGF belief that different sections would be considered separate parts. On the COI guideline, I edited parts in chunks, then move onto other chunks, so that there's enough time for the previous section to develop comment rather than making all the changes at once. I'm disputing the complainant's contention of "demonstrate a complete disregard for consensus building". I have made significant attempt to explain edits, provided definition of consensus, from wiki and from outside wiki pages and requested that the user provide premises t assertions. If I should have made all the changes to one page in one big section, then I will do so going forward. I feel that the complainant had been evasive in following through with their contentions as when asked for follow up, they bring up other contentions before addressing the response.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cybordog reported by User:Owain.davies (Result: 72 hours)
Pages:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * User talk page (most discussion here)
 * First edit May 2012
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Sept 2012
 * Nov 2012
 * Dec 2012
 * 
 * Aug 2013

Talk:Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine
 * Article page

Comments:

This is a thread about edit warring betweeen myself and Cybordog, rather than 3RR, because of the length of time between reversions.

This user has been on on Wikipedia since May 2012, and only edits two articles (Caduceus and Caduceus as a symbol of medicine) in order to insert their view that "its use remains and is well accepted as an appropriate symbol to signify a healthcare entity" as well as some other assertions around a biblical origin (although he has not done the latter since last year). The article is well cited with academic references which point to the exact opposite, and we have not been able to find a single credible reference to support that position. I have repeatedly asked Cybordog to provide references, and he has provided some esoteric websites, and will not accept that these are not reliable.

I (and some others) have made changes to try and reflect some of the edits whilst not giving WP:UNDUE to what amounts to a fringe theory. This is not the first time the same discussion has been had about this topic, and some people feel quite strongly that this symbol is appropriate, normally because that is what they use. However, there are more than a dozen reliable sources which disagree with them, and none that agree.

Cybordog won't engage properly (and has not responded at all to my recent approaches, including not adding edit summaries) and this was an occasional annoyance, but recently he has been appearing every few days to revert to his preferred, uncited wording.

I would be grateful if you could look at appropriate action, such as page protection, which would resolve this, as I have no desire to continue an edit war. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * - 72 hours for long-term edit warring. This editor's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to change our caduceus-related articles to reflect his own unsourced opinions. Past discussions with him have had no effect. Read User talk:Cybordog if you were hoping that any other verdict is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Thargor Orlando reported by User:Groupuscule (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Beagel's version from 9 July 2013 (diff)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, plus: diff

Comments:

Part of the problem seems to be that Thargor Orlando is very determined to delete links from the sources Truthout and Op Ed News, despite having reached no consensus on the quality of these sources. At Riki Ott, Thargor insisted that Truthout was not reliable, despite prior agreement from two editors (groupuscule & Petrarchan47 who had already been working on the article) that it was contextually appropriate. Thargor was so insistent that they deleted the citation of Truthout seven times.

A similar conflict is now shaping up at COINTELPRO, where Thargor Orlando has now three times deleted virtually all of the external links: 1 2 3

Thargor Orlando has also disregarded suggestions that they refrain from this mass targeting of sources: 1 2.

From their talk page, it can be seen that they are inappropriately tagging pages for procedural deletion: 1 2

They are making it clear on their talk page that they refuse to discuss the overall issue: 1 2

In conclusion, I would really appreciate some recognition from the community—and some help conveying to Thargor Orlando—that these deletions of links, citations, and whole pages are not appropriate. The repetitive deletions, enacted against consensus of editors who have already been collaborating on the article, is particularly egregious. But the whole pattern needs to be questioned; as I told Thargor Orlando on their talk page, no one should have to be responsible for stalking an individual editors' contributions in order to (ineffectively) reverse their systematic deletions. Please forgive any errors I have made in this format—it's my first time submitting a report of this type. Thanks everybody for reading. groupuscule (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First, this really doesn't belong here. Second, I have maybe two reverts over the last 24 hours at one article he complains about, and none in the last 4 days at the other, with both actually improving remaining links.  groupuscule can complain all he wants about my improving sources in the articles, but it generally hasn't been an issue with anyone, with a handful of exceptions that I have yet to pursue further.  Third, I don't need consensus to remove links and improve links: as part of the cycle of editing, we discuss it at talk if there's a continuing issue.   We have policies and guidelines for external links, and groupuscule, as I have told him numerous times, is free to discuss any issues he has with them at the talk page.  Conversation is ongoing at both pages, as it should be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Paul 012 reported by User:WPPilot (Result: )

 * Pages:
 * and


 * User being reported:

I have already posted a request for admin help, this is frustrating. I at this moment am standing in Silom Thailand and I have come here to do photos of the area to update the photos of the local areas. I am a professional and have not really had this happen in the past at all yet I now seem to have a user that does not agree that I am in Silom Thailand and claims that my photos of Silom Thailand are not photos of the area that I am in, right now. I for 30 years have been a professional photographer and have been published in hundreds of publications, yet this user seems to OWN the Wiki on the area and summarily removes my photos. Si Lom shows the Silom area, as well as some other areas of Bangkok yet this user seems to know more about the area then my personal location can demonstrate. He continues to remove my photo, taken last night in Silom and he claims that my photo is not what I KNOW it is, Si Lom Thailand. I have really tried to reach out to him and he has become more aggressive in removing my photos of the local area to replace them with photos of cars on streets. The photo he demands is used to show this area could be anywhere in Thailand really yet it would seem that this has I regret turned into a edit war, regardless of reality or my current location. The user seems to think he controls any page related to Bangkok, and has already tried to replace my professional photos with photos of the sky and cars on a road, insisting that my photo is not what I know it is as I am standing here right now. Common sense does not seem to matter, and he simply reverts my contrib's with poor quality photos. Can I please get some assistance with this matter? I have posted a request on the Admin help page and another admin also agrees that professional photographs, as he seems to think he owns the pages that I have contributed to HELP. --WPPilot 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone has breached 3RR here, though I find WPPilot's notion that an I alone am waging an edit war against him and everyone else rather perplexing. Please feel free to peruse the discussion at Talk:Bangkok, Talk:Si Lom as well as the histories of both pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * After contributing thousands of dollars over years to obtain professional quality photos I have NEVER had a user attack my contribs like this. Please take a look at the photos that he is trying to claim add value to these Wikis, and after 11 years of staying here in Silom Thailand I can attest to the simple fact that my photos are photos of what I represent them to be. Please take a look at the revision history of these pages, and he pictures that Paul 012 seems to think add value to this story.--WPPilot 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Part of my frustration is that I have spent thousands of dollars to come here and do photos, exclusive ones for Wikipedia, as I have for years. To have another user simply shut off my efforts and not make any effort to communicate in a manner that other admins feel is professional is really causing no good what so ever. I am here to do photos, and I get the feeling that this user does not want me to.--WPPilot 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This 3RR report was not filed in the proper form, but I've created a header that tries to reflect the issue. At present it looks like no admin action is needed, since nobody has broken 3RR. WPPilot's previous request for assistance appears to be [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Edit_War this thread] at the WP:Help desk. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of you. If either of you continues to revert, action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again user Paul 012 has reverted my contribution on the Silom page. His new claim is that the Sky train is a few hundred yards past the location it was in my photo, and the map he offers shows that the other photo IS a photo of Silom. This is his third reversion, (3rr) and now qualifies him for consideration of action. WPPilot (talk)--WPPilot 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope WPPilot isn't accusing Takeaway of being a sockpuppet of mine, in addition to ignoring the clearly presented facts and insisting on attacking my supposed motives. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the incorrectly named image from the Silom article because, as Paul 012 has mentioned already, it doesn't show Silom road at all but instead the beginning of Rachadamri road, across the intersection with Rama 4 road. - Takeaway (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Facts are not in any way clear, the address that was used is NOT the location on the photo I took, but a block down the street. This is a waste of my time, and I really would rather get paid for my efforts then donate them to a page that someone thinks he owns. Fact is that the map Paul 012 posted CLEARLY shows that the one photo is of Silom. I have better things to do then deal with this petty childish stuff. The sky train was departing the Saladang station, on Silom road, the map shows a green arrow a block further down the road, so it is misleading yet it shows that the skyline photo IS Silom, so his photo of cars (that could be anywhere) that he was so determined to use taken by a cel phone, to me shows that the intent is not objective. --WPPilot 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you feel that way but both Paul 012 and I recognise the subject of your photo as being the beginning of Rachadamri road. Looking at the photo, I think that it is probably made from the balcony of one of the rooms of the Dusit Thani Hotel. The expanse of grass alongside the road can only be the corner of Lumpini Park as the other three corners of this one intersection are either buildings, shrubs alongside buildings, or the parking lot of the Dusit Thani Hotel. This can only mean that the image shows Rachadamri road. Please have a look at Google Maps/Google Earth to verify this. - Takeaway (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:149.254.181.198 reported by User:Thelmadatter (Result:no violation )
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:81.100.242.0

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

Comments:

Thelmadatter (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read 3RR and note that the reverts have to come within 24 hours.  K rakatoa    K atie   22:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gjtitjg reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) "Undid revision 570900349 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 2) "Undid revision 570901145 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 3) "Block this trolling vandal"
 * 4) "Another stupid trolling vandal"
 * 5) "A stupid bot, third stupid trolling vandal"
 * 6) "Please block all 3 vandals"
 * 7) "PLEASE stop ALL 3 asshoIe vandals."
 * 8) "PLEASE BLOCK ALL 3 vandals, it is VERY ANNOYING!"
 * 9) "PLEASE block all 3 n!ggar annoying vandals."
 * 10) "Im going to have to warn the last vandal."
 * 11) "Stop it you n!ggar."
 * 12) "Undid revision 570903765 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 13) "Undid revision 570903982 by Loriendrew (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)  "Warning: Long term pattern of vandalism on Mohonk Mountain House. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User evading blocks (Fruugirt, Casason), persistent vandalism despite warning, using inappropriate language. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to postpone a discussion because I just gave him to read a page on the 3-revert-rule.--Mishae (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Indefinitely blocked for vandalism by User:Bongwarrior. The user's talk page has been disabled by a checkuser, User:Jpgordon. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lakdfhia reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */ reworded statement on racism, please no whitewashing of bigotry"
 * 3)  "not generalization. is statement of fact. is not say he is racist, only has engaged in public racism. clear distinction."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 570908353 by NeilN (talk) is more source now"
 * 5)  "/* Personal life */ is two source, vulgar whitewashers"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Racism charge */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Racism charge */"
 * 3)   "/* Racism charge */"


 * Comments:
 * Just reverted ClueBot NG at 20:03 UTC with the edit summary "is unsourced, please to not be vandalised by bot". I've left a message on his talk page to make sure he understands that's a revert and he could be blocked for it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot revert was number 7, number six was this. - MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Studiomusica reported by User:Kww (Result: 48h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 29 aug 2013 om 23:17

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 29 aug 2013 om 23:17
 * 2) 30 aug 2013 05:08‎
 * 3) 30 aug 2013 16:52
 * 4) 31 aug 2013 14:10
 * 5) 31 aug 2013 20:55

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I had previously blocked this editor as a sock of but unblocked him when checkuser evidence didn't corroborate. I still think that's probably the case, but at this point I am too WP:INVOLVED to take further action.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours. Yes, the linkage between the two users does produce large amounts of quacking, but presumably the checkuser disparity means it's a meatpuppetry issue instead (or a technical way round CU). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:2.102.186.231 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I believe this is an IP hopper as i have seen a similar IP a few days earlier. Also note it violates WP:CANVASS which state that "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title"  Pass a Method   talk  21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No need to give me a warning. You also made three reverts, though I feel no need to defend myself. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This dispute doesn't even show up in the last 200 edits of the talk page, so it's rapidly disappearing into the rear view mirror. Nonetheless User:Pass a Method's removal of text from a talk post by User:Obiwankenobi on the grounds of WP:CANVASS violation appears to have weak justification. The IP was reverting Pass a Method's edit to restore the original text that Obiwankenobi had posted. I suggest this be closed with no action. If 3RR had been broken (even on a talk page) I'd still recommend a block, but we only see three reverts reported. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: No action, per my comment above. Due to the page move, you have to look at the history of Talk:Bradley Manning to see what this was about. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Czixhc reported by User:Tobus2 (Result:no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also (same change to other pages):
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Czixhc has been arguing for acceptance of a map he added to Human skin colour for about 6 weeks and is now starting to add it to other pages despite it's verifiability still being under discussion. The map was removed on 20th July and he reverted 4 removals by 2 different editors (not myself), , and  and was warned for 3RR on 24th July. Removal was again reverted 3 days later by User:Undress_006 (friend?/sock?) and by IP's (142.166.x.x) over the next 2 weeks, , ,.

Discussion on the talk page started immediately after the first reverts and has been continuing (for better or worse) ever since. About a week ago Czixhc reverted twice again, and then started talking about using the map on other pages. Two days ago, in between posts to the talk page, he added the map to International migration and has reverted it's removal three times, and  in just under 7 hours. This afternoon it looks like he got frustrated that I didn't reply to his post within 2 hours and added the map to two further pages, Immigration to Argentina and French Uruguayan. He has yet to break 3RR but I am concerned this is escalating into a multipage edit war and is better stopped sooner than later. Tobus2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If he hasn't violated 3RR, why did you make the report and waste our time? Additionally, you're as close as he is to 3RR, so think about your own behavior.  K rakatoa    K atie   22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I thought this was the place to report edit warring as well as 3RR violations. Can you please point me to the place this should be reported. Tobus2 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the right place to report both edit warring and breaches of WP:3RR. Another way of looking at Katie's comment is that you are as guilty of edit warring as the editor you reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My edits were restoring the status quo which I thought was in line with WP:Revert, but ultimately I agree, it's not OK to be reverting the same content on several pages several times a day which is why I'm seeking some sort of intervention here. Tobus2 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I know that i was found innocent in this, but there are some things that i'd like to clarify: 1-I've brought evidence that backs the map up (and that eveidence comes from the Oxford Brookes University, a very serious institution) while tobus hasn't brought any during all this time, according to the burden of proof: "The burden of proof is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position. He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the Presumption of innocence, passing the burden of proof off to another party." This is why i'm adding it. because Tobus hasn't brought any evidence (on the 6 weeks that this discussion have lasted) that supports his point of the map being unreliable, in fact the only reason for which he keeps removing it is because he haven't textually admited it as reliable. I also must remark that Tobus intentionally reported me at a hour he knows that i'm not on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested can see the discussion on action and my sources here: . Czixhc (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The map has a single self-published source which fails to meet Verification.
 * Czixhc has again reverted this morning and . My understanding is that when new material is being contested the page should stay at the status quo (ie without the contested material) until consensus is reached - from [WP:Reverting]: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.". If this is correct then I will again revert his changes and expect it to stay that way, if I've interpreted the policy wrongly I'll leave the pages as is until the matter is decided. Can somebody please clarify whether Czixhc's changes should stay up or down while we are resolving the issue? Tobus2 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tobus, this is not the right place to discuss this. continue in the talk page. Czixhc (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Atelerix reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 571090771 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 571021294 by Qwyrxian (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571010433 by Qwyrxian (talk)"
 * 4)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Gilgit–Baltistan. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Gilgit–Baltistan. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Recent changes */ new section"


 * Comments:

User is continually changing the article from a sourced version to a very POV one which has no sources in it. He appears to be copy and pasting from an older version. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User has reverted again after this report, diff added. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 17:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jack Styler reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Added information"
 * 2)  "Added information"
 * 3)  "Added current information to the end of the article"
 * 1)  "Added current information to the end of the article"


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


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring / vandalism on the WikiLeaks page after message and warning. Rhododendrites (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . He's a new editor, and it doesn't look like vandalism to me, more likely incompetence. You haven't even tried to talk to him, just left warnings. Nor has Andy other than shouting at him in edit summaries. Also, the first diff in your list is not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Andy did also leave him a message, brief as it may have been, before my warning. What would best practices be for such a situation, when someone (new or not) doesn't seem to check the usertalk or edit summaries but nonetheless keeps on adding the same thing in the span of a short time? (Assuming a certain level of damage of the edits) rpp instead? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There really wasn't any damage as the article is under pending changes, so he couldn't consummate his edits. And being new makes a difference. If an experienced user is making absurd changes, it's less important to talk to them. If it's a content dispute, there should always be discussion. RFPP is intended for vandalism, and this isn't vandalism, and all RFPP could do would be to alter the article to semi-protection, which seems a waste of energy and not really warranted. You're right about Andy. He did leave a message (I mistook it for a warning). And Jack tried again to add the material after that message. I've left a second message on Jack's talk page. If he doesn't respond and continues to attempt to edit disruptively, you can update this report or contact me on my talk page if I'm on-wiki. I put the article on my watchlist, but I'm not checking in as much as I normally do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. I had forgotten the changes were pending, which makes a difference. Where I wasn't clear is with the case of repeatedly inserted direct edits -- which, while not really vandalism, are nonetheless problematic -- without reading summaries/talk pages. Seems after several back and forth a noticeboard is the only other way lest risking 3RR oneself. Regardless, it's true in this case it wasn't necessary. Thanks for checking into it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:178.109.150.75 reported by User:EuroCarGT (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fuckwit."
 * 2)  "Fuckwit."
 * 3)  "Fuckwit."
 * 4)  "Fuckwit."
 * 5)  "Fuckwit."
 * 6)  "Fuckwit."
 * 7)  "Fuckwit."
 * 8)  "Fuckwit."
 * 9)  "Fuckwit."
 * 10)  "Fuckwit."
 * 11)  "Fuckwit."
 * 12)  "Fuckwit."
 * 13)  "Fuckwit."
 * 14)  "Fuckwit."
 * 15)  "Fuckwit."
 * 16)  "Fuckwit."
 * 17)  "Fuckwit."
 * 18)  "Fuckwit."
 * 19)  "Fuckwit."
 * 20)  "Fuckwit."
 * 21)  "Fuckwit."
 * 22)  "Fuckwit."
 * 23)  "Fuckwit."
 * 24)  "Fuckwit."
 * 25)  "Fuckwit."
 * 26)  "Fuckwit."
 * 27)  "Fuckwit."
 * 28)  "Fuckwit."
 * 29)  "Undid revision 571128834 by Smsarmad (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 571128834 by Smsarmad (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Reverted edits by 178.109.150.75 (talk) to last revision by Lugia2453 (HG)"


 * Comments:

Vandalism, reverting many edits multiple times, using bad words, disruptive editing and lots more. ///Euro Car GT  21:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - User blocked for vandalism. ///Euro Car  GT  21:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Crème3.14159 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: Prev Ver


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Aftermath */"
 * 2)  "Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow self-published sources. So, please refrain from adding them."
 * 3)  "70.76.85.36 and Fowler&Fowler, please build consensus on the talk page and don't start a revert war. Thanks."
 * 1)  "70.76.85.36 and Fowler&Fowler, please build consensus on the talk page and don't start a revert war. Thanks."


 * Page:


 * Previous version reverted to: 29 August


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:47, September 1, 2013
 * 2) 23:59, September 1, 2013
 * 3) 00:05, September 2, 2013
 * 4) 09:32, September 2, 2013


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: 24 Aug, 1 Sept, 2 Sept
 * The warning was served by TitoDutta after I undid his two reverts on the Asaram Bapu page. He has been trying hard to sanitize the page, redacting criminal allegations as much as he can. He started reverting my edits. There is a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the BLP Noticeboard regarding this.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


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

Edit warring after multiple warnings and doing the last revert 30 minutes outside the 24 hours bracket. -- S M S  Talk 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * @2nd diff: Merely following what somebody MrOllie did here:   --Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not do more than three reverts within 24 hours since one of the reverts was simply deleting a lulu.com link that a user has been repeatedly adding. MrOllie had done the exact same thing there before. So, I assumed it was okay to remove a lulu.com link. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * For a variety of reasons, I will not rule on this report, but Crème3.14159 is (also?) edit-warring at Asaram Bapu.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have added/merged the Asaram Bapu report in this report. -- S M S  Talk 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note that the edits to the Bapu BLP appear to be BLP violations, or at the very least they lack the talk page discussion necessary to establish consensus BLP. An uninvolved admin may decide to use the available discretionary sanctions to prevent edit warring with BLP violating material. Also as mentioned here AN, I would suggest an uninvolved admin fully protect the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: User is now blocked for sockpuppetry for one week. -- S M S  Talk 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:58.165.49.106 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Wow you are so pathetic it's not even funny"
 * 2)  "Nope, sorry"
 * 3)  "Lol just stop"
 * 4)  "Wow just stop you have no reason to take it out it was a major policy of the Howard Government"
 * 5)  "What, are you saying the Pacific Solution never existed?"
 * 6)  "You have no reason to take this out it is a proven fact proven on the Australian Government Website get over yourself."
 * 1)  "You have no reason to take this out it is a proven fact proven on the Australian Government Website get over yourself."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Pacific Solution */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* Pacific Solution */"

✅ Blocked for 24 hours – warned and asked to discuss controversial edits. Starting to get hostile to other editors. --Canley (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * Just an observation that this edit warring actually began yesterday, from a quite different IP address (124.180.157.79), but almost certainly the same editor, based on the style and content of language in article text and in Edit summaries. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:FRANKBISTORY reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Goodluck_Jonathan&oldid=571312101]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Basically, FRANKBISTORY has undone my edits without any explanation as to why. The strangest thing is, most, if not all, of my edits were simply grammar and spelling fixes. In addition, after I attempted to talk about the issue on his talk page, he deleted all of my attempts to communicate via his talk page, and did so multiple times after I attempted to undo those edits.

In addition, it appears FRANKBISTORY has engaged in sock-puppetry - AIRFORCEBOY appeared at the same time and edited the same articles. FRANKBISTORY also attempted, and is still attempting, to delete the discussion of this sock-puppetry on the article's talk page, sometimes while logged in, and other time via an anonymous IP.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I would link to the discussion on the user's talk page, but each time I've attempted to discuss, he does not respond, and simply deletes my attempts at communication.

As another update, my notification of this posting on the user's talk page has also been deleted by him, the same as every other attempt to communicate has been deleted. Rockypedia (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Rockypedia has a very poor command of the english language,contains errors and mistakes. Hope everyone will check all his edits. He is just editing for editing sake. No real contribution. Frank


 * - 48 hours to FRANKBISTORY for edit warring and making personal attacks in edit summaries. Rockypedia is warned not to keep reverting at Goodluck Jonathan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Prestigiouzman reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid Obvious Censorship Attempt, Valid, Referenced, sound input"
 * 2)  "Go to anyone of the  links on both the Righdamhna and Tanistry Pages,Second Censorship attempt undone"
 * 3)  "Repeated Censorship attempt of Valid,referenced input, Request pagelock"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring notice given to subject at 14:26 (UTC) by Snowded, response was to revert again. Edit warring across several articles reverted by at least 3 editors Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Well in fact I've turned Righdamhna into redirect to Tanistry as it was just a dictionary definition, plus they went and duplicated List of High Kings of Ireland into it to bulk it up. Plus I noticed they've been sticking in distantly related links into a whole lot of see also's, they just shouldn't be included as at the level of relatedness a huge number of links would be included. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Did I miscount or something? Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Pretigiouzman is warned that continued edits of the same nature may lead to a lengthy block for disruption. Citations to the output of the self-publisher perfectpublishers.co.uk are not reliable for use on Wikipedia. See also the report of POV-pushing by Prestigiouzman at WT:WikiProject Celts. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please hang tight, i will meet all criteria soon--Prestigiouzman (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:Sokac121 (Result: Page protected before report was filed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 570848793 by Sokac121 (talk)" (number of Serbs, changes has done IP)
 * 2)   (Bosniaks-Bosnians)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571092986 by IvanOS (talk)" (number of Serbs)
 * 4)  "without reason remove 1,200 bytes"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 571131749 by CodeCat (talk)" (Bosniaks-Bosnians)
 * 6)  "Undid revision 571131749 by CodeCat (talk)" (number of Serbs)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: my warning, blocked 29 August 2013

User:Правичност was blocked on a 24 hour 29 August 2013 for same article Slavs archive 3RR Slavs continues with vandalizing. I requested that page protection but unfortunately was not protected. Today is a protected.--Sokac121 (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Umm, the page was protected 45 minutes before you filed this report — we don't block someone for edit-warring at a page that's since been protected, especially as Pravichnost hadn't edited the page for more than thirteen hours before the protection. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not important protection (it is good that the page is now protected), it is important he continued vandalism after it was blocked 29 August 2013.--Sokac121 (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice try though :). Maybe Shokac should be reported instead; for constantly edit warring "Serbs" article for like probably 5 months already; always doing the same thing; removing good sources for a 12 million figure (which is a higher est.) and removing the same figure itself and arguing with several editors over it and when he didnt succeed in his goals on "Serbs", he started removing same sources and figure on article "Slavs" using again; bad reasons or one and same explanation, thus ignores what editors say to him, therefore they are also witnesses of his vandalism. He also likes to call some of those sources "Serbian nationalist sources", because they reveal historical croatian war crimes on Serbian civilian population during the 90s war; or if they mention higher figures of Serb population existing on this planet - more than he can like or imagine - ofcourse he as a croatian nationalist cannot accept that and will always be there to try to discredit such sources and figures, eventough 10 other editors dont think so, he keeps pushing it and edit warring it. He is always active to do everything opposite of the Serbian editors. (Правичност (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC))
 * Oh and btw, it wasnt me who started edit warring on Slavs; same figures and sources for Serbs were set on "Slavs" page as they are on "Serbs" page- and all ethnic groups have it "settled like that", it was Shokac and another Croatian editor who started constantly removing them by using uncreditible reasons right after they realised they couldnt have removed them from "Serbs" article.. and now he is trying to blame me for reverting things back, acting crazy or something. (Правичност (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC))

Sorry you missed the topic, talking about the Slavs and 3RR--Sokac121 (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed i am talking about Slavs too and your hipocratic greedy goals. (Правичност (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC))

User:Rks1306wiki reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Warned)
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 notice (which I forgot to include initially):

Comments:

poorly-referenced/promotional SPA.

also note, the third time this user inserted their promo piece into the article, rather than tag it honestly, they marked it as a minor edit and listed "minor grammatical corrections" in the edit summary. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ]# ▄ 05:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Editor warned. Wikipedia is not for spam or advertising. EdJohnston (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Northamerica1000 reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I am trying to perform a live test of a proposed layout change for the main page for the WikiProject Food & Drink, but Northamerica1000 keeps reverting my edits. I have explained that this is only a test, I have put notices up regarding the test and put a lengthy explanation of what I am doing. I have explained that this is temporary and that I will be reverting the it to the previous version of the page once I have gotten some feedback from other users and members of the project. No matter what I say, he refuses to allow me to do this. It is one of the worst cases of tendentious behavior I have encountered in many years.

Note, this is not my first run-in with him and I am biased in regards to his edit methods and behaviors. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The reversion in diff #2 provided above (diff page) was performed by User:Jerem43, and not by me. I've strucken it, because it was not my edit. Also, here's a link to the entire discussion on the project's talk page: Main page & Project pages. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You did three reverts: the revert of my initial edit, after I reverted you revert and once again after I posted the notices regarding the test. That is three reverts within 24 hours. Add in your refusal to acknowledge any of my posts about this being a temporary test and stating that a false consensus gives you the right to revert any of my edits equates edit warring. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Please provide accurate diff pages. Your diff #2 above (diff page) remains entirely inaccurate, it was not my edit whatsoever, it was yours. I've stricken it again, because it's absolutely incorrect to be listed as one of my edits, because it is not. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, User:Jerem43 is currently at 3 reversions, per the following diff pages:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Please see the talk page discussion (linked above) for further context. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * One of those was an accident, that I self reverted. I tried to make my changes twice and stopped after his third revert of my edits. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I sense WP:BOOMERANG!, Jerem43 The layout doesn't need changing, If it did you'd first seek consensus!,

Northamerica1000 was indeed correct to revert your actions. - →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  21:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My edits represent a request for comments on a proposed design change. I am trying to seek input from other users opinions on my proposed design before I move forward on the proposal but he is not "allowing" me to do so based upon a false consensus that is not as strong as he would like to believe. First, the consensus North refers to is from a proposal of which four people commented on, four people out of a hundred project members - that does not represent an actual consensus of the project membership. Further, North fails to mention other, later discussions in which his actions were contested by other editors (not just me). Also he doesn't bother to mention that in one of the other discussions, some of his changes were disagreed with and it was agreed several that several were to be reverted. Changes that he undid after he reverted my proposal, against consensus.


 * You are also not seeing is that he is using the one, older discussion as a carte blanche to prevent others from doing anything to the page he doesn't like and ignoring later conversations such as this one, this one, and this one that show there is a lot less of a consensus than he claims. So what we have here is one discussion that favors him and three that do not, yet he refuses to acknowledge the three.


 * Also, please look at this discussion in which North's pattern of tendentious editing is in full display. He took an uncontroversial edit that he disagreed with and tried to use another forum to work around the consensus that went against him. Additionally, this discussion shows that he will jump around and try to avoid participating in conversations in which he is on the minority side in a consensus.


 * What he is also not telling you here is that my changes are part of a request for comment from the membership about the design that results from one of those three discussions. He doesn't mention that I have clearly stated that this is simply a two to four week trial run for a possible idea that I am still working on. This change is not designed to be a permanent one, and I have specifically stated this in multiple locations. He does not care, and has reverted every change I have made, refused to participate in the RfC (until this filing) and has been trying to change the direction of the discussion on the talk page to make it seem that I am unilaterally making a permanent change to the page instead of what I am trying to do which is solicit commentary from other members on a possible idea that isn't even ready yet.


 * His behavior is what I am calling into question here. It his his penchant for tendentious editing and his refusal to acknowledge that consensus changes. Along with that, his patterns of edits and not just his actions on WP:Food that show he is engaged in an ongoing edit war with not just me but other editors who oppose his actions on that page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 11:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Jerem43: Instead of posting dramatic changes to the project's main page repeatedly, to obtain proper consensus please consider at least first asking users to preview your proposed changes at the sandbox page instead. This is a very basic element of Wikipedia, per WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. I've posted some comments on the project's talk page in hopes of discussing matters, and have also devised an alternate proposal at the project's Sandbox 3 page. Let's please work together, in hopes to improve the encyclopedia, rather than against one-another. That's my notion from the start. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:109.151.144.40 reported by User:-sche (Result: Already blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&diff=571292142&oldid=571290822 diff], User:Wavelength revised an overly long section heading pursuant to WP:TPOC, providing a detailed rationale.


 * 1) In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AManual_of_Style&diff=571299618&oldid=571299260 diff], 109.151.144.40 undid the retitling. 99.192.50.11 redid the retitling in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571299618 diff].
 * 2) In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571300326 diff], 109.151.144.40 again reverted the retitling. The following diffs consist of pairs of other users reinstating the short title and 109.151.144.40 reverting them:
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571300603 Knowledgekid87 reinstates short title], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571300729 109.151.144.40 reverts]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571301009 Michaelzeng7 reinstates the short title]; [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571301026 109.151.144.40 reverts]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571301750  Michaelzeng7 reinstates the short title], [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571302568 109.151.144.40 reverts]
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571302742 I reinstate the short title], 109.151.144.40 reverts
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&diff=next&oldid=571303591 Wavelength restores the shorter title]; ...

I would also like to mention this diff in which 109.151.144.40 removed another user's comment, and direct attention to the other lenthily-titled sections 109.151.144.40 has posted on WT:MOS positing various hypothetical scenarios that have been judged implausible and unconstructive / concern trolling and hatnoted by other users, including the three sections which are collapsed under this one hatnote: WT:MOS.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A109.151.144.40&diff=571305231&oldid=571305088 link]

Attempts to resolve dispute on user talk page: see User talk:109.151.144.40, where several users (viz. Michaelzeng7 and Knowledgekid87) have already discussed this issue with 109.151.144.40.

Submitted by: -sche (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * At 00:46 on 3 September 2013, User:Ronhjones blocked User:109.151.144.40 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours for "Personal attacks or harassment". It's not clear to me (or to 109.151.144.40; see post on User talk:109.151.144.40) if that block is related to edit warring or not. If it isn't, I don't think it would worthwhile to impose any additional sanction for edit warring, given [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A109.151.144.40&diff=571312347&oldid=571309664 this comment], until and unless new edit warring occurs. -sche (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: The IP is already blocked by another admin for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:2.125.70.81 reported by User:Mo7838 (Result: Protected)

 * Pages:
 * and


 * User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no response from 2.125.70.81

Comments: User has been advised of consequences of edit warring. Response of "Please don't tell me what to do, I can edit what I like and your'e not in charge either" at  indicates a continued lack of respect for the process and other users. Similar problems are occurring on Metroline page.Mo7838 (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . There's been edit warring on both sides; I think protection will best serve to stop this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:2.125.70.81 reported by User:Aycliffe (Result: Duplicate report)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 571285255 by Mo7838 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 571189160 by Mo7838 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571157450 by CourtneyBonnick (talk) Can you stop un-neccesarily editing and changing stuff on this page, no tidy up is needed. Thanks"
 * 4)  "N550 and N551 tidy up, please resist edit warring Mo7838"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 571046540 by Mo7838 (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

This has gone too far. A sysop has full-prodded the page and it will carry on on other articles. ayc li ffe talk 12:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What exactly is being requested? This appears to be the same dispute as the report above, which has already been closed with full protection of Tower Transit. If you believe that other articles are involved, please list them. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't realise it had already been discussed. Please close this discussion. ayc li ffe talk 14:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Please see the other report of the same dispute above, now closed with full protection. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Samermp reported by User:Ishdarian (Result: Warning)
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: I failed on this portion, and I'll take whatever sanctions deemed appropriate.

Comments:


 * This is a new user, and the fourth revert, though within 24 hours, was the day after. I'm inclined to assume that this user didn't quite understand 3RR and will leave them a brief warning. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AldezD reported by adrianw9 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chase_%28UK_game_show%29&diff=571373017&oldid=571152219

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chase_%28UK_game_show%29&diff=571212096&oldid=571187198
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chase_%28UK_game_show%29&diff=571241507&oldid=571240663
 * 3) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chase_%28UK_game_show%29&diff=571245631&oldid=571243256
 * 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chase_%28UK_game_show%29&diff=571276136&oldid=571275045

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Chase_%28UK_game_show%29&diff=571319011&oldid=571153577

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Chase_(UK_game_show)

Comments: There is no vandalism, they simply do not agree that the tables should be there which was being discussed on the talk page, but just getting constantly removed.

Adrianw9 (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not made any additional reversions following the transfer of this info to List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes. I have since nominated that page for deletion and listed my arguments for removal at Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes. AldezD (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The page you have marked for deletion seems to now be a different page to the one you've broken 3RR on. Adrianw9 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You reported me today for The Chase (game show), which was moved to The Chase (UK game show) four days ago. AldezD (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Chase_(UK_game_show)_episodes&oldid=571353835 - actually, you'll find it was created this morning. Not 4 days ago.... Adrianw9 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, above you reported me for The Chase (game show), then linked edit histories from The Chase (UK game show), the target of the move. List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes is an entirely different article from the one that was moved. AldezD (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Sundostund reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

He's edit warring because he believes that my work on the List of Presidents of Syria is not needed, since not all lists need to be FLs.. There is nothing wrong with getting a list to FL standards, and there is a reason why FL standards exist, they are better, and more easily to navigate through then normal lists.... But he doesn't want to change the list, keeping it in its current, bad shape. --TIAYN (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TIAYN just has an obsession to make lists to be FLs. By doing that, he removed more than 3,000 bytes of various data from this list, which is 100% illogical to me. There's no MoS about how these lists must look, nor obligation to make them according to FL. In my opinion, his version of this list isn't an improvement... At the end, I must say that I'm ashamed because I'm dragged into this edit war by him. I'm here to work on articles, not to do edit warring around and breach 3RR. I'm not a vandal, and that can be seen from my edit history. --Sundostund (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the data I've removed is table content, for instance replacing the template ! style="background: ;" |  with these: |... The reason, since they are exactly the same color. I'm making it easier to navigate through, while I'm also removing unwanted clut.. Removing the clut decreased the article's upload time. To say I've dragged him into an edit war is false. We are both to blame, laying the blame on me doesn't help you, me, or Wiki...--TIAYN (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your removal of data is absolutely illogical, and other editors can see everything what you removed from that list... You started this edit war, I participated in it and that's my fault. Since you're 100% willing to continue this edit war and push in your version by pure reverting (as can be seen from article's history), I'm withdrawing from it and I'll let other people to decide who is right here. --Sundostund (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to stop this edit war here and now.. But you are the one who is continuing.. Of the text I've removed is information regarding the National Progressive Front (which is unimportant, and I don't see any other list of article which includes coalitions in the infobox).. The other things, coups, deaths in office will be reincluded, but in note form, similar to that found in the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam article.. Notes. The only thing I'm planning to remove is the information on the coalition, everything else will stay.. Stop blaming me. --TIAYN (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're the one who started this edit war. You want to stop it? Your version of this list, which you try to push in by pure edit war, is the current version. I stopped reverting it. Everyone can see that. Your remodeling of this list isn't bringing any improvement to it, just removal of data which stayed just fine until now. There's no reason to use note form if data can be put in as a part of list... As I said, I'm letting other people to say their opinion on this matter, and I'm withdrawing from this discussion. --Sundostund (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of you have violated 3RR. To avoid sanctions, I suggest that each of you promise not to revert again until a consensus is found on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay
 * You started it, I removed the NPF from the tables, and then you removed them.. You started, you first reverted me...  There is a reason, to make a FL-list.. What do you have against FLs?? I don't get it, I really don't... --TIAYN (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston, I said I'm stopping my role in this edit war, and I meant that. I'm also very doubtful that a consensus can be found on the talk page when someone just remove data, thinking his version is an "improvement".
 * TIAYN, I put back the NPF which you removed from the tables, and you started a frantic edit war. It stayed until now, and it should stay in the future. There's no serious reason to remove it... You're obsessed with making any list a FL-list, which is totally irrational. There's absolutely no MoS about how these lists should look, and no obligation to remodel them after FL... Again, I'm ending my role in this and I'm giving the chance to other people to share their thoughts. --Sundostund (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: List of Presidents of Syria is fully protected three days. EdJohnston (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Optimvs reported by User:A.amitkumar (Result: 31 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "If my choice of words seems incorrect to you, what you need to do is to use the talk page and propose an improved version, rather then revert to an outright lie. Of course if you don't have any other interest in this dispute."
 * 2)  "The status quo is simply a lie and my 5 references prove it. Your goal here seems to be to continue an edit war, rather then make sure that the inforations presented on Wikipedia are correct and complete. Again,use the talk page for better word choice ASO"
 * 3)  "I am simply undoing the reverts that you did without any argument, without any reference and without any knowledge whatsoever about this subject. Quit abusing the system or I will have no choice but to report you for the violation of the 3RR rule."
 * 4)  "You have no arguments for theis revert. You are in league with a bunch of IP's that are abusing the system at this moment. I have 5 solid references for this chapter, use the talk page instead of reverting if you have any arguments at all."
 * 5)  "Nope, you still have zero arguments for deleting this section."
 * 6)  "Using a different IP from the same ISP isn't going to do you much good. I have 5 solid references, your opinion about my so called "sobjective opinion" isn't going to cut it. Go find some references that would support your point of view, if you can."
 * 7)  "You are digging yourself deeper with every revert that you make. Since I have 5 solid references and you only have your personal opinion, this is a very clear case."
 * 8)  "My point of view is backed by 5 solid references. You are deleting content without logging in, to circumvent the 3RR rule. This is your final warning, I will ask an admin to perform sock detection and take apropriate action"
 * 9)  "There are now 5 references that prove this is the ruth, complete and accurate. Log in when making reverts or I am going to file up a request for sock identification."
 * 10)  "added another reference"
 * 11)  "/* Abuses of the Ceaușescu regime in Steaua's favor */"
 * 12)  "(reversing a content deletion done by this IP with no justification whatsoever)"
 * 13)  "reversing a content deletion done by  this IP with no justification whatsoever"
 * 14)  "/* Abuses of the Ceaușescu regime in Steaua's favor */"
 * 15)  "Nope, you can't delete a section with 4 solid references without saying a single word in justification."
 * 16)  "Apparently you forget to read  when it doesn't suit your agenda. Two of the references clearly say that Ceausescu decided that Steaua was going to get the cup."
 * 17)  "Nice try boys, one eliminates some of the references and the other claims there are no references.  Not going to work."
 * 1)  "Apparently you forget to read  when it doesn't suit your agenda. Two of the references clearly say that Ceausescu decided that Steaua was going to get the cup."
 * 2)  "Nice try boys, one eliminates some of the references and the other claims there are no references.  Not going to work."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* FC Steaua București */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on FC Steaua București. (TW)"
 * 3)   "/* FC Steaua București */"
 * 4)   "/* FC Steaua București */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* FC Steaua București */"
 * 2)   "/* FC Steaua București */"


 * Comments:

Talk page suggestions were provided - twice - no change.  A m i t  웃  19:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I started working at the talk page as soon as Amit made the suggestion but the volume of information and the number of references used made it a time consuming task as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FC_Steaua_Bucure%C8%99ti#Abuses_of_the_Ceau.C8.99escu_regime_in_Steaua.27s_favor. He didn't waited at all to see if I was taking his advice, as you can see by the timing of his report. As you can also see, most of the reverts that I did today were simply actions of undoing reverts made without any comment or argument by some IP's trough this day. I am living with the impression that the truth still matters, particularly on a site like Wikipedia, and I really cannot understand why I got reported by an experienced editor who could have read the 5 references that accompanied my contribution and understood the situation.Optimvs (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by Optimvs:
 * - 31 hours. There was a huge edit war in whichUser:Optimvs was the biggest reverter, though others too numerous to mention were engaged as well. You know who you are, so please don't continue this. It is possible that some of Optimvs' material belongs in the article but he needs to get a talk page consensus for his changes. The filer of this report, User:A.amitkumar, has left some reasonable advice on User talk:Optimvs. EdJohnston (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Earthrose258 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 571413420 by Fat&Happy (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 571414546 by Mean as custard (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571415296 by EvergreenFir (talk)"

User was warned but ignored it.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Page is restricted to 1RR per 24 hours. (Twinkle is not allowing me to fill in the warned part). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * and issued an arbitration enforcement warning. Tiptoety  talk 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:71.249.192.199 reported by User:Star Gazer 13 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

This user is engaging in edit warring deleting the "Controversy" section content and pushing it to the back of the article repeatedly. Please investigate sock puppets: Intern Architect, Skylark2,and 74.66.235.121. Same user has been banned temporarily for edit warring on the Bulgarian version of the article. There is a pattern in the deleting of all my edits, personal attacks against me and attempts for editor outing that makes me think this editor has an undisclosed COI and represents the current organization leadership trying to hide facts from the past not in sync with their current interest. No matter how many sources are provided and how many attempts on the talk page to explain that the controversy is well sourced part of the history of this organization- my edits get deleted within minutes. I have provided:

- two independent articles by a reputable investigating journalist in the largest Bulgarian newspaper in the USA BG Voice. - two articles in another newspaper "Bulgaria Sega" that confirm facts about the creation of the organization - document on Wiki Commons confirming an illustrating my edits, the documents are public records of open meeting minutes of the organization membership.

I feel my edits are getting suppressed in an attempt to make a fake history of this organization official through taking advantage of Wikipedia.

Star Gazer 13 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13

Star Gazer 13 (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Star Gazer 13
 * Comment from uninvolved user: Note that the first two of the four reported reverts took place on August 28 and August 30. 71.249.192.199 only has 2 reverts today. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The specific number of actions aside, User 71.249.192.199 was previously blocked for edit warring and their behavior suggests an intention to continue edit warring. Transcendence (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe there are sock puppets involved: 74.66.235.121, Skylark2 and Intern Architect and others on the Bulgarian version too. So actually there are more than 3 reverts per 24 hours.


 * Page protected for a week - both sides appear to have passed 3RR. I'll look at opening an SPI to work out that side, although it looks duckish. In the meantime, some form of dispute resolution is much needed. Bilby (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaledd01 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - 24 hours. Long-term warring at In a World Like This (song) from Sept 2 through 4 about music chart positions. This user is being reverted by three others. He has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

User:2.125.70.81 reported by User:Mo7838 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Edit warring with this user was raised 24 hours ago. Resolution was Tower Transit article being blocked to all users. Despite having been asked again to engage in consensus, user has continued to edit war at Abellio (London & Surrey).

Response of "Please don't tell me what to do, I can edit what I like and your'e not in charge either" at indicates a continued lack of respect for the process and other users.Mo7838 (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)>

Note also scurrilous refactoring of talk-page comments to create false confessions of sock-puppetry. NebY (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - 48 hours for falsifying another editor's comments on a talk page, per NebY's comment above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

User:41.103.68.21 reported by User:Lesser Cartographies (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 06:39, 4 September 2013
 * 2) Revision as of 06:47, 4 September 2013
 * 3) Revision as of 06:51, 4 September 2013
 * 4) Latest revision as of 07:00, 4 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP's response on my talk page may also be of interest:

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ancillary comment — Does anyone know what the hell (s)he means by "irrevocably changes agree"? I'm not sure I've ever encountered such butchered English. DKqwerty (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967 reported by User:jytdog (Result: Someone needs to read 3RR)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Please note that this page in Canoe's Userspace arose from a discussion of "unmerging" an article on Roundup (herbicide) and an article on glyphosate in which Canoe pushed hard for the unmerge to be done now, "so we can work on it" that the initiator of the RfC set up the old Roundup article here in Canoe's Userspace. That discussion is here. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize edit warring against a GANG was not allowed in my own user space. I am trying to work on material in my user space and these two keep tag team removing the whole section. Could admin please ask them to stay away from my user space if they aren't going to be helpful?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Gandydancer and I are rarely on the same side of things. Unwarranted attack and par for the course for this user, who consistently raises ABF accusations.Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 3RR exemption 2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * People should feel free to develop at their own pace in their own userspace as long as BLP or other legal issues aren't at stake. If you want to create your own version off of Canoe's, please copy and paste with attribution and go nuts on your own draft. Leave their draft alone. (comment based on the idea that the draft is being worked on and the expectation is that it will eventually see article space in some form.) --Onorem (talk) 17:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was an article at one time and then redirected and merged. The merge discussion was minimal and lost lots of material that the readers should see. The original article was 50kb and the article it was merged into is only 80kb after the merge. Many are whining that the original had problems but they won't specify the problems nor help fix it. I am the only one working on it with nothing but hostile input and unanswered questions. Details are at Talk:Roundup (herbicide).--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * More of the same ABF accusations. I disagree with the userspace exemption, as Canoe is specifically developing this article to be relaunched as an unmerge, as discussed above.Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be rude, but I really don't care about the specifics. You should feel free to work on your version of an article (unless your version has issues that can't be ignored even during the prep stages. --Onorem (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The relaunch doesn't have to be accepted...but harassing them in their own userspace is not productive. Feel free to develop your own version and then follow policy when it comes to deciding which parts to apply to the article. I'm not at all taking sides for what is seen in article space, but stop f'n with their sandbox draft. --Onorem (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No violation, per WP:3RRNO criteria 2. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry Canoe, I did not realize that it was your own space. I agree that you should be able to work in your own space without other editors making changes.  Gandydancer (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the education. Sorry to have taken up space and time here, and sorry Canoe for the trouble. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jonathan A Jones reported by User:Abesam (Result:Malformed )
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:


 * Looking at the page histories, I can't see any breach of 3RR anyway, but I do see that List of universities in Scotland, for example, had to be semi-protected against an IP adding poorly sourced information, and that JAJ was not the user at fault there. BencherliteTalk 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:DrSeehas reported by User:Gu1dry (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Snapdragon (system on chip)
 * Sony Xperia

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Snapdragon (system on chip)
 * diff1
 * diff2
 * diff3
 * diff4
 * Sony Xperia
 * diff1
 * diff2
 * diff3
 * diff4
 * diff5
 * diff6

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Snapdragon (system on chip)
 * Sony Xperia

Comments:
 * This has been on-going issue of the harassment & editing warring of DrSeehas. The Sony Xperia article was locked by Mark Arsten and 8 hours after the lock ended for edit warring, DrSeehas continued to edit war. DrSeehas continues to edit war after I have linked on several occasions. I have reported the issue to the incident noticeboard, but I feel like there will not be any help there. I just want to improve the articles I work on, but this is starting to turning into more of a headache than it's worth. I know I was kind of brash on the Sony Xperia talkpage, but I was extremely annoyed by the continuation of the edit warring by the user, yet I was the one getting temp banned. I simply do not care to work with the user. They continue to edit war AFTER they reported me for edit warring, I feel they are simply trolling me at this point, and IMO, do not make any real contributions to the project. 「gu1dry」 ⊤ • ¢ 18:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa reported by User:Rui Gabriel Correia (Result: Closed)
Page:

User being reported:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_XP&diff=next&oldid=571338796

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

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

This is the first time I do this, so I am not sure if I have followed all the steps correctly. Whereas I did not discuss the reverts on the talk page, I engaged the other editor via the edit summaries, including asking the editor to discuss the matter on the talk page if the editir was still not happy with my justifications. After all, this a talk page, NOT the article. What I wrote is fair comment - even Microsft has admitted that W8 is a failure! See links below, QUOTING top Microsoft people on Windows 8. So, if it is that difficult to say that on a talkpage, imagine trying to say the truth in an article itself. As it is, despite all the negative reviews worldwide about W8, the article on it in the WP hardly says anuthing! It begs the question of what the role of the Wikipedia, if not to present all sides equally and to allow for fair comment. But you can read about it here from leading newspapers: Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/465194/20130507/windows-8-microsoft-blue-licenses-sold-surface.htm
 * http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/330c8b8e-b66b-11e2-93ba-00144feabdc0.html
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2320676/Windows-8-Microsoft-admits-aspects-changed-Bill-Gates-predicts-iPad-users-switch-tablets.html
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/start-all-over-again-microsoft-admits-defeat-and-brings-back-the-start-button-for-windows-81-8638419.html
 * Retaliatory report, issue is already being handled at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents--v/r - TP 19:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This is NOT a "retaliatory report"!! What is this a kangaroo court? The other editor and I independently took up the matter in separate fora - just because the other one was posted first, does that make this one retaliatory? I posted here, IN THE RIGHT PLACE, about a 3RR violation and it is here that I want the matter addressed. Thanking you. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show in any of your sources that Windows 8 is, per your own words, a "basket of 'apps' for retarded morons", I doubt you'll find much support here or at the ANI thread. -- Kinu  t/c 19:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kimu. That's great to know - from now on, I know I can violate 3RR any time I want to, provided the other party has slipped up on what they said and cannot find proof to back them up. I'll write to the Foundation list to alert them of this new development. You should't keep such hot news under wraps! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This report is closed, please do not post further here. Any subsequent posts here will be deleted. This matter is being handled at AN/I where the whole context can be considered and where, incidentally, there will be a much wider readership than here. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  19:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: both blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (I'm not sure if this is what's supposed to be linked to)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: This is likely related to Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 17‎‎. Also, I freely admit I've been uncivil in my edit summaries, after being hit with incivilities in those of Lugnuts and in comments he has made at Categories for deletion. An admin has previously talked to him about 3RR.———Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You both have gone over WP:3RR. And due to the fact that your edit summaries have included such remarks as "fuck you Lugnuts" you might want to look out.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 15:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I already admitted to my incivilities above. The article history clearly shows my comments were directly in response to incivilities from Lugnuts, which are continuations of his incivilities at Categories for discussion and his previous editwarring at the article, for which he and I were already warned by an admin about. The evidence shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lugnuts is persistently disruptively editing in bad faith—a far, far more serious issue than my pottymouth. Curly Turkey (gobble) 15:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not edit warring. CT posted on the film project talk page asking for help on his article. I've offered my help by making several edits to improve said article. Each edit has been met with revert after revert, with no discussion as to why and a wave of personal attacks:


 * 1) "Fuck you Lugnuts"
 * 2) "Fuck off, Lugnuts"
 * 3) "I said fuck you, and I meant it."
 * 4) "Or develop a cure for cancer, either would be a miracle"

I then posted on this user's talkpage to try and engage in conversation, but I have been met with:


 * 1) "When I say Fuck You, I mean Fuck You"
 * 2) "Fuck you and your "final warning""

How is that acceptable? If an article is going through FAC, why can't any edits be made to it? Turkey clearly has issues with WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL despite my best efforts to copy edit and improve his article.

Looking through the diffs, above, I made all those edits in good faith. 1. Is adding the film date template and other infobox fixes. 2. Was removing a portal link, again in good faith, as these look spammy. 3 and 4 were as per the FA for Mulholland Drive - IE if that is formatted like that, then this should be too (or is MD incorrect)? 5. was a copy edit after adding some categories. 6. Was de-linking a name that is already linked in the infobox (another user has since agreed with me and de-linked it) and tagging for a source. 7. is more overlinking. 8. Was showing data that was hidden (why include it if it's hidden?) and 9. was reverting an unexplained WP:OWN revert. I'm unsure how these edits breach 3RR. Yes, I initially removed some white space a few weeks back (again, in good faith), and was reverted. I didn't continue with the reverts after CT went to Crisco 1492's talkpage (again, I have no idea why he went running there, instead of posting a question on my talkpage).

Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - Both parties are at fault here - nether moved to the talk page or attempted to solicit a third opinion but instead kept hitting the undue button. Additionally, Curly Turkey engaged in personal attacks even after warning. Tiptoety  talk 17:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As Resolute noted, the personal attacks were not one-sided, but in fact were initiated by Lugnuts. In fact, it was initiated by Lugnuts earlier than that, at the Category for discussion I linked to above.  The fact that Tiptoety's summary states one-sidedly "Additionally, Curly Turkey engaged in personal attacks even after warning" has given Lugnuts licence to feign innocence on his talk page, pretending to be flabbergasted that he would get the same length of block as a meanie like myself.  Could the summary please be altered to reflect the empirical facts? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Curly Turkey. Per both standard practice, and my personal practice we do not block users with the sole intent on amending previous block log entries without extreme circumstances being at play. While I agree that Lugnuts's comment "clue=0" was unhelpful I do not consider it at the same level as telling someone to fuck off multiple times. You both received 24 hour blocks, and if people need clarification on the specifics on the blocks they are welcome to investigate the situation themselves. Best, Tiptoety  talk 02:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety: "clue=0" is not "unhelpful", it is an attack. Lugnuts has a history of such incivilities and blocks for editwarring.  Such a summary sets an example for such users: they now know that if they can only provoke their targets into a greater degree of incivility, then their own incivilities can be whitewashed.  Lugnuts is trying to milk that fact. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Chortle.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Does a taunt serve any purpose but to elicit an inappropriate response? Ditto this.  Or this, directed at the person rather than at the argument after an eight-day lull in the "conversation"—to what end?  Followed up the same day with a second (!) edit war at How a Mosquito Operates, prefaced with a personal attack and including an edit he was told by an admin (Crisco) twice just the week earlier to stop making.  I have no confidence Lugnuts has any intention of given up his vendetta, which is why it's important that his infractions not be swept under the rug. Curly Turkey (gobble) 09:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK. Let me know when the porridge has cooled down.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * After a week and a half of your horse manure, and given the continued tone of your comments, the idea that you would finally choose to give this up is about as fantastic as a tale from the lips of Scheherazade. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK and WP:NPA. Again.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:31, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NPA?!? Only more evidence that you have no intention of letting it go, and are intent on antagonizing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, NPA. From the above, it's clear that you have no intention of letting it go.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I will block the next one of you that continues this discussion in this fashion. As you both seem incapable of relating politely to one another, I strongly suggest that you don't continue the discussion here in any fashion at all. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to have my concerns looked into? I strongly believe this is not trivial, and I have no history of being involved in these kinds of issues. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is that this is no longer a matter for this notice board. It deals with the limited area of edit warring and this seems to have gone way beyond that. Your concerns are probably better raised at WP:ANI or even WP:AN. And you do have a history of being involved in these kind of issues, now. Please consider very carefully whether you want to add to it. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  11:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dolliee reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "(TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do"
 * 2)  "(TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda.)Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that un"
 * 3)  "/* History */TO Maurauder40 et al: If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda.Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's t"
 * 4)  "/* History */Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known"
 * 5)  "/* History */Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known"
 * 6)  "/* Papal Approval */"
 * 7)  "/* History */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Dolliee (talk) 18:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * User has been responding to notices on his/her user page, see &mdash; MusikAnimal talk  19:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I FINALLY FOUND AND WROTE TO DAWN AS FOLLOWS

When Can I RE-POST ESSENTIAL and now MORE PERFECTED Additions?

I wrote the following at several places yesterday including the Infant of Prague talk page here and in Czech Republic

No reply

It is my second day with a login and I am not seeking a career here and am busy and just dislike murder rackets

NOR CAN I BE AT WAR WITH ANYONE IN JUST ONE DAY

And anyone who thinks that a movie made in 1984 showing a 1515 Teresa of Avila with a 1650 Infant of Prague can form a consensus to document Spanish origin... just because a Czech put a clip in a documentary in 2011... after Sanctuary violation...

Why not visit the bottom of one of MY wordpress pages where I already told the story of the constant deletion of my simple objective paragraph additions here ...along with two music videos below it that are lawfully protected by fair use and also covered by a Court Order I got when crooked cops tried to stop me. You have to scroll way down past 4 videos to find it and the 2 videos after it:

http://dollieday.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/sandy-hook-notice-of-claim-and-request-for-permission-to-sue/

You can see the other protected videos too, of course. Or else just stay here and read this below and let me know when I can post the 3 caveat paragraphs:

IN RE MY ADDITION TO WIKIPEDIA INFANT OF PRAGUE

My 2 caveat wiki paragraphs did not edit or change one word by anyone but added true perspective regarding the Holy Infant of Prague

THEY WERE BOTH REPEATEDLY DELETED

Here are the 2 caveat paragraphs to which I now add a Papal third:

"History Caveat Wiki – It should be noted that until the late 1980′s this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known origin of the hand-less Icon, a pile of rubble after the Thirty Years War, was later verified and supported in the nineteenth century by the events at Lourdes, France, around a pile of rubble. There have also been repeated fabricated attempts to base this powerful Holy Self-made miraculous Sign-Icon of Prague in Spain, because the timing of its discovery and Hosea fulfillment contradicts the anti-Semitic text then being prepared by Mary of Agreda in Spain solely to try to sell an apocryphal, scandalous, sinfully violative of the first two Commandments and therefore impossible name, “Joakim”, for the father of Mary already 1000 years honorably secured as Levite “Amram” by the Holy Qoran."

"Papal Caveat Wiki (again) – Firstly, it should be noted in regard to the so-called Ratzinger “coronation” that for this event the hair on the Prague Holy Icon was painted unprecedented non-Jewish, non-Jacob (Genesis 25:21 et seq.), red. Also, the September 2009 event itself either never officially took place or could not last because the Sanctuary of The Infant of Prague had been violated in April, 2009. Apparently Ratzinger had not cared to notice this. But when the Czech Republic rightly excluded/deported from Czech territory David Duke as undesirable or even dangerous in late April, 2009, it neither then nor thereafter made any provision for the human rights of Duke (who had actually kept an image of the Infant of Prague on his website the whole time he was getting his PhD), to obtain even a limited and guarded day pass access to the Holy Infant of Prague Shrine Sanctuary, which is not “Czech Territory”. No one has sued the Czech government or the Vatican over this yet."

"(Papal caveat continued): But of course Ratzinger did not notice the April Prague Sanctuary violation as he wormed his way, with his Knight Waldheim, into the Holy Mosque on Temple Mount two weeks later on May 13, 2009. He did not see the Bob Dylan song, “Desolation Row”, copyright chain from the nailed curtains to the broken doorknob, either, nor did he notice that the entire April event coincided exactly with the impossible finding of “probable cause” against Ingmar Guandique for the May 2001 Chandra Levy murder done by the Matt Hale/Knight Waldheim sponsoring FBI. How could he notice these instant replay basics when he never believed how anti-Semitic Mary of Agreda was told off in 1650 from a pile of rubble? Nobody messes with the Hosea 2: 16-17 abstract “Atlas Shrugged” Holy Infant."

YESTERDAY After repeat deletions knowing nowhere to contact I added but will not re-add:

TO Marauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do not NEED to delete “your” lying junk to be understood. It is YOU who delete and call mine “unconstructive”. OF WHAT? Murder rackets or phoney Catholicism?

I was NOT warring but then knew no other reply space

SHALL IT BE:

See how they need to get away with anti-Semitic lies by blocking objectivity!!!

Dolliee (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - Indef, for edit warring and WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Hobbe Yonge reported by User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 4 September 2013
 * 2) 5 September 2013‎
 * 3) 5 September 2013
 * 4) 5 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The reverts are over one word. Hobbe thinks the word is either Gaelic surname equating to the English surname Young, or a Gaelic name for Clan Young. It's neither, it's a Gaelic adjective meaning "young", that is used as a nickname in Gaelic. After a couple reverts I was able to get him to give a reference on the talkpage, but when I noted that it doesn't support his claim, or even mention the surname or clan, he resorted to name calling and reverted once again. So this is going nowhere fast.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to settle this on the talk page. This guy insists on removing the item, while the discussion goes on. He also gave me a reference to a page that says One should not report a revertwar that one is personally involved in. I suspect an over-inflated ego is running rampant here. Hobbe Yonge (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it okay if I revert the article to the 17 May 2013 version. It's the stable version before the recent reverts?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Xkyamie reported by User:Ritchie333 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

(Note : the first two diffs are from an IP, which per WP:DUCK I am assuming is the user logged out, as it is identical behaviour)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done on article talk, user has already been warned on user talk page

Comments: User has a previous history of removing AfD /CSD notices. See, ,


 * for disruptive editing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Nietzsche123 reported by User:JamieBrown2011 (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

This is not the first time this has happened either, Nietzsche123 was edit warring here too:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

I warned the user during our DRN dispute here:

And we had both received a previous warning here:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: []

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor is a SPA who uses this page as his SOAPBOX. He engages in CPOV and TEND JamieBrown2011 (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-involved comment — Just taking a look here. Seems like both editors are engaged in edit warring (both egregiously violated WP:3RR today), and both seem to be single-purpose accounts. I think both editors need to take a breath, engage each other in good-faith, and find some common ground. If incapable of doing so, both should be temporary blocked from editing, with a possible topic ban. DKqwerty (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood WP:3RR: I thought it meant that one should not make more than three reverts of the same material over a 24-hour period, whereas it means that one should not make more than three reverts (whether it's of the same material or not) over a 24-hour period. My apologies: I will not violate it again.  That said, as DKqwerty already pointed out, JamieBrown2011 is also guilty of violating 3RR.  I'd also like to point out that I've warned Jaime of edit-warring in the past for making more than three reverts of the same material.  I'd like to ask on what grounds Jaime makes his above accusations.  He accuses me of pushing a Christian POV since I provided evidence for my claim that a certain journal has a track record for fact checking and accuracy; my evidence in part consists of the fact that the Evangelical Press Association has given numerous awards to the journal in question.  As for the WP:TEND accusation, I ask for specific examples.  The issue that sparked Jaime's post here concerns a journal: Christian Research Institute's Christian Research Journal.  Basically, Jaime questions its reliability.  As I understand WP:RS and WP:Burden I've fulfilled my obligations by accurately citing the material and providing evidence that the journal is a reliable source on the talk page.  The next step, as I understand WP protocol, is for Jaime to approach WP:DSN or WP:RSN, not simply deleting the content because he fails to find my argument on the talk page convincing.  Please correct me if I'm wrong. (Also, I think my last sentence to my most recent post on the ICOC's talk page is relevant: "If you continue to disregard WP protocol, I will bring this to the attention of another editor".  The next time Jaime reverted the content I planned on bringing this to the attention of  The Red Pen of Doom, an editor who has helped advise us of WP protocol in the past.  I see that I should have appealed to him, or some other editor, a lot earlier.) -Nietzsche123 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As evidence of PUSH and TEND we just spent 3-4 months of discussion/disagreement over a large amount of text placed in a few locations on the ICOC page by Nietzsche123 on "Yeakley's research on the Boston Church of Christ", published by 'Gospel Advocate'. After two DRN rulings where Nietzsche123 was warned of coming very close to wikilawyering, [[] Gospel Advocate was ruled as an unreliable primary source and that Yeakley could only be referenced through reliable secondary sources, or possibly directly where the secondary sources had already advanced the information. Immediately following this long, drawn out and very clear ruling... Nietzsche123 goes ahead and inserts links to material in the Gospel Advocate book, that was specifically agreed upon was not allowed to be included . He may claim it was a mistake but it is consistent with his CANVASSING of other users who are ex-members of the ICOC  . I would be happy to walk away from the ICOC page and work on other Wiki projects, if I were not convinced that Nietzsche123 will continue in the future to use this page as his personal SOAPBOX, and attempt to apparently RGW by inserting highly controversial material from SPS, Student Newspapers, and other unreliable primary sources which he has done relentlessly and tirelessly for the last 18 months to two years now.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * JamieBrown2011 misrepresents the opinions of the DRN editors.  TransporterMan  guided us through our first DRN, which concerned whether a certain text--Flavil Yeakley's The Discipling Dilemma--may be be used as a reliable source.  There is some dispute about what  TransporterMan  ultimately advised.  I contend that he advised that while The Gospel Advocate Company is an unreliable source, The Discipling Dilemma is a reliable source since it is cited by multiple high quality secondary sources.  And that because it is referred to by multiple high quality sources, we may cite Yeakley's text directly.  It's obvious to me that JamieBrown disputes the former statement; but he may even dispute the latter, given his description above.  Specifically,  TransporterMan  said that "I'm of a mind that the Yeakley material can probably be used directly as a reliable source in the article, though use of discussions of it in reliable third party sources (especially the Norton one) would be preferred if they cover enough territory".  Where the secondary sources covered enough ground, I used them instead of the Yeakley in my summation; but where they didn't, I used the Yeakley text itself.    TransporterMan  also told us to come back the DRN if we couldn't agree on the wording of the summation.  After attempts on the talk page failed to resolve how to best word the summation, JamieBrown then went to the DRN requesting guidance in how to best word the summation.  Now, during the second DRN request we were told by two different editors that while Yeakley may be directly cited because his text is referred to by multiple high quality secondary sources, neither Gospel Advocate nor the text itself were reliable sources; so we may only refer to it when it is cited by the secondary sources.  JamieBrown was repeatedly made aware of this opinion but he has misrepresented it on multiple occasions now: either he just misunderstands it or is deliberately trying to mislead people.  Specifically, he denies that we may use Yeakley directly as a source.  While I was told that I came close to lawyering on one occasion, JamieBrown plagiarized on two occasions.   And I didn't canvass "other users"; rather, I canvassed one user.  That I will not do again; I didn't realize WP had a policy against it.  Before I arrived at the ICOC page it contained many SPS and other unreliable secondary sources.  Not only that, the page misrepresented what those sources said.  Before I knew WP's policies on such sources I started making the content of the page better reflect what the sources said and I also added content from one additional SPS.  Rather than discuss with me what I was doing wrong, Jamie just undid my edits.  Once I was pointed to SPS and RS I accepted the removal of those sources.  I did add some criticism about the ICOC from a university student newspaper.  But instead of engaging in an edit war with Jamie, I did the responsible thing and placed a RFC.  It was ultimately deemed that university student newspapers were not reliable enough to cite the claims it was making.  I would also like to point out that I placed another RFC over whether editors are responsible for bringing the source to another editor's attention.  Jamie kept deleting content insisting that I need to show him the actual source even though I cited it accurately.  The result of the RFC was that I didn't need to show him the actual source, only cite it accurately.  He obviously thinks I'm guilty of pushing a POV, one that is critical of the ICOC.  But in my edits I have consistently tried to represent both sides when they are presented in a given article.  Jamie, on the other hand, has, in my mind, tends to not balance his edits, deleting only bits of the article that are the least bit critical of the ICOC.  For a most recent example, while he contends that Yeakley's text is not a reliable source and hence that we may not cite it directly, he left in a large paragraph from the text that is positive about some of the ICOC's practices even though he deleted all the negative paragraphs.  I brought this to his attention on the talk page, but he left it up twice now before I deleted it for lacking support from secondary sources. And while I apologize for the length of this paragraph, I'd like to add that Jamie has been guilty of OR and COATRACKING: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Churches_of_Christ/Archive_4 (under Member's Personality Changes).  Now, we all make mistakes; so I don't hold this against Jamie; rather, I expect that once we are made aware of them, won't do them again. And I've only been editing for about a year now, not 18 months or even two years, as Jaime stated.  -Nietzsche123 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:34 - 15:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) 03:16 - 09:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  "added Pakistani Constitution citation"
 * 4)  "replace Muslim with a neutral word or keep this fact. If he is not considered Muslim by law, then how can one call him a Muslim?"
 * 5)  "When Pakistan does not recognize him as a Muslim, the claim of his being Muslim must be accompanied by facts."


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


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


 * Comments:

Persistently edit warring. S M S  Talk 12:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @4th revert: This is not a revert but linking of a word in my own version with CopSuscept (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you would point a diff which is not a revert but an edit over my own version. In that case, you should add all the diffs from that page today and not just 4 to make it look like I reverted more than three times.--CopSuscept (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrected the diff. -- S M S  Talk 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding "while in exile for being constitutionally declared a non-Muslim" is not a revert in my opinion. It is pertinent to the description of his being Muslim when he is not considered a Muslim in Pakistan. I rest my case with these final words. ISI is free to do its research.--CopSuscept (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Note:This user also violated 3RR at State-sponsored terrorism (Diffs:Prev Ver, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th). -- S M S  Talk 14:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . Abdus Salam is borderline (though probably just about blockable); edit warring on State-sponsored terrorism is a clear violation. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * as Sockpuppet investigations/Crème3.14159. DMacks (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Aleenf1 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted edits by Wooccu (talk) to last version by Aleenf1"
 * 2)  "Reverted edits by Wooccu (talk) to last version by Aleenf1"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Wooccu (talk): MOS. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Asian Games. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Alleges a MOS violation, but is opaque on what the violation is. Unfairly considers the edit to be "disruptive". ViperSnake151  Talk  05:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It not just MOS, but it is unsourced material adding into the article. I'm recheck the addition in Official Website, it never found or mention, so it is against the verifiability. Does the sports name need capitalization? I don't see the where it apply in MOS. Clearly reversion is only choice. --Aleen f 1 05:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, i did link the MOS to those editor, however it seems he never discuss or capture the point. So, if we have a reversion to apply the policy, while we have to apply 3RR also, makes no sense at all while the other just come here to mess the things. --Aleen f 1 05:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Cybordog reported by User:Owain.davies (Result: warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was given 72 hour block by User:EdJohnston last week for edit warring and not engaging (in Archive 222). Immediately following expiry of block, has made the same revert again. I have left further message on talk page explaining in detail, but will not engage, and has made the revert a second time after the block expired. Any assistance would be appreciated. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that User:Cybordog intends to keep going forever regardless of what anyone says. In a situation like this one naturally tends to think of an indefinite block. The only alternative is to just give him the Caduceus articles to do with as he pleases. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Januarythe18th: reported by User:GreyWinterOwl (Result:No violation.)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: All editors agree on the talk page, including 2 very experienced ones, that the article in its present form is very biased, using Confirmation_Bias and carefully choosing from the references, only the information which seem negative, odd or controversial while ignoring neutral/positive ones. Despite the huge consensus and much explanation on the talk page, Januarythe18th aggressively reverts the tags so I see no other solution than informing about it here. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Breaking 3RR means making four reverts within 24 hours, please see the policy. You have provided diffs of three reverts, two recent and one from 26 August. Checking the history for myself, I see that that's all there is. Note: the situation at the article is being discussed on WP:ANI. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Thank you for your attention, Bishonen. I never said there was a violation of 3RR. The case is one user forcefully reverting against consensus of all other users to push a non-neutral POV. I still don't understand why my report is not valid. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I declined your report firstly because this board is about edit warring. Since your concerns as you describe them above are wider, they are more appropriately discussed on ANI, and you have indeed already raised them on ANI. I do understand that you're a new user, and that navigating and using Wikipedia's boards is a whole rather labyrinthine and daunting world. For taking essentially the same concern to different boards, however, you might find Forum shopping useful. And secondly, as far as edit warring (=not simply the 3RR rule) on the article is concerned, you yourself have been equally guilty of it. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC).
 * Thank you for clarifying that, Bishonen. Sorry, my bad, I was completely unaware that this section was only for 3RR violations. I was also unaware about the policy of not raising the same issue on 2 different sections for admins, sorry again. I will address this matter on the ANI page from now on. About me being guilty of editwarring, yes I am 100% guilty, but my edit came from consensus and his came from forcing a specific POV. Would that make me a less guilty editwarrior? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really. As the policy says, do not edit war even if you believe you are right. (Note, I'm not saying you are right, I actually doubt it, but that's not an argument for this board.) And no, this page is not only for 3RR vios, but it is only for edit warring, and your concerns go beyond that. Thank you for keeping them on ANI and Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University from now on. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC).

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz reported by User:72.68.5.132 (Result: semi protected )
Page:

Page:

User being reported:

<!Undo revision 571911781>

Previous version reverted to: [trying to maintain researched citations and references from UPI being serially deleted by user]

<!There are 22 reverts since August which apparently fixated fans have been upset about, and who do not understand that UPI is a reputable source fully cited in the text. User:Hullabalo apprears determined to violate 3RR in spite of multiple requests to put any of his/her concerns on the Talk page of Lily Collins. I have tried multiple times.> Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff]
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

<!History of 22 reverts over the last two weeks of apparently fixated fan response, which does not understand that UPI is a reputable source> <!User has been warned and refuses to put anything on Talk page> Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

<!User has been invited to put his comments on Talk and has declined> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments: There also appears to be a spurious account that was set up for the sole purpose to making the deletion of the UPI report and collaborative references which seems to have no history of contribs other than this single deletion:Breelieber (talk | contribs)‎ />

<!After restoring the fully cited and reference UPI text, if a 3RR is seen as overly targeted, then perhaps to protect the page for a few days to protect the UPI citation and give the overly excited fans a chance to take a breath concerning the documented outcome of this fully researched UPI report. 72.68.5.132 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC) -->
 * I semi protected both pages. None of the "sources" provided are reliable for adding information to a BLP. The 3RR exemption in BLP would kick in anyway. HW, I do think you are being terse with the IP. Please try to revert with a bit more grace and clearer edit summaries. Removing gossip fails to explain why the sources are not accepted. Spartaz Humbug! 20:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Prestigiouzman reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 1 week)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Censeorship attempt undone"
 * 2)  "blatant censorship attempt,this user has a fixation on undoing Irish related topics"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571883614 by Nicknack009 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Can you please explain whats irrelevant when the topic is ==Genetics=="

Also at


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid Censorship attempt of warned editor"
 * 2)  "do you have any evidence to say that rawlinson did not write this"
 * 3)  "Revised edit, no direct source of rawlinson quote, previous reference in dispute"
 * 4)  "Please explain whats unhelpfull about highlighting the actual statement of Hincks"

Editor has already been blocked once for edit warring. There has been considerable discussion on talk page about his edits by me and others. Refuses to acknowledge or even discuss a quote from Laurence Gardner that he claims is from George Rawlinson Dougweller (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * – 1 week for long-term edit warring at Irish People. User's talk page shows many warnings; discussion with this editor has not led to any better results. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User:209.162.18.52 reported by User:PrairieKid (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 15:33, 7 September 2013
 * 15:22, 7 September 2013
 * 15:13, 7 September 2013
 * 15:09, 7 September 2013
 * 14:58, 7 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15:36, 7 September 2013 (Other warnings can be seen on the UTP.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor also has dicussed the issue on my talk page, which can be found here. Thanks. PrairieKid (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:2.102.187.12 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 571985444 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) why? you haven't provided a reason why my edit is wrong"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 571983880 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) it's not against the rules to remove sourced statements and information. I listed the reasons why sourcing is inadequate"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571915725 by Elissa Rubria Honoria (talk) only partly sourced, only saying that medicine is a masculine environment; no mention of the "outdated" statement"
 * 4)  "/* Traditional roles */ various minor edits plus removal of a paragraph that randomly focused on a certain area of medicine"


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


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


 * 1) Elissa Rubria Honoria reverts, says "Replacing "stereotype" by "role" is not a minor edit. Rather WP:BOLD and I am reverting and requesting discussion."


 * Comments:

Editor has been asked to discuss his/her proposed changes, but refuses to engage on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no discussion on the talk page. Why should I enter a discussion with you when you revert with reasons that don't make sense/have any bearing in policy? Also, the fourth revert you listed isn't a revert, just a normal edit. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, North is at 3 reverts too on the same article. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite constantly harping on about BRD, to the point of failing to give a reason to revert in the first place, he breaks it just a few minutes later. 2.102.187.12 (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Scoobydunk reported by User:WLRoss (Result: protected)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  11:22, September 7, 2013
 * 2)  19:46, September 7, 2013
 * 3)  04:25, September 8, 2013
 * 4)  04:30, September 8, 2013
 * 5)  04:34, September 8, 2013

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

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

My Talk page Anthony Johnson Talk page   My revert with the comment: (Reverted. Article is being rewritten with references so do not delete unreferenced material until the rewrite is completed in a day or so!)

Comments:

User:Scoobydunk is an SPA editor who supports the minority historical viewpoint on the subject, that John Punch was the first slave and not John Casor and therefor Johnson was not the first slave owner. He was initially very abusive in his posts but calmed down after I warned him for the second time. I informed him that I was rewriting the article and to wait a few days before editing as the article would be a little disjointed until I finished but he kept reverting. I also asked him to use the talk page instead of reverting and while he did start a new thread to put his case he still kept reverting. I then requested page semi protection which was rejected with the comment: "Protection of any sort isn't really appropriate against one editor. Discuss on the talk page, use other WP:DR methods, but if it carries on, then we can take action against the individual." For the main claim that Scoobydunk objects to, I added seven sources for it, books written by authors with history degrees, which he reverted several times. He eventually compromised on this point by watering the claim down based on a single source, text which was not supported by the other references and by adding the word "black" to "first slave owner" which incorrectly implies that he was not the first. I have tried to accommodate his views by including the minority view with due weight which I also intend expanding upon during the rewrite. The reverts to his preferred version are seriously disrupting the rewrite as he is reverting material within minutes of me making an edit. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

{[User:WLRoss|Wayne]} Is the one actually guilty of the violations for which he is reporting me for and misrepresents the events as they happened. He's persistently reverted nearly all of my edits which had been carefully made to present the most historically accurate information. WLRoss even admits this in his report by saying "compromised on this point by watering the claim down", while none of WLRoss reverts and edits have included or recognized the facts I presented on the talk page and provided a number of sources for. His edits are in violation of WP:POV and WP:OR policies as his edits don't accommodate the vast number of historians that say John Punch is was the first man legally sentenced to slavery for life. You can verify in the talk section that I gave him 2-3 days to finish making his rewrite, and I did. It's also curious that WLRoss suddenly wants to rewrite the page when I present conflicting information when he's been active on this page since February. His request that I abstain editing the page appears to be an attempt to hold me off in hopes that I'll forget and lose interest. This is also reaffirmed by the fact that this is the second time he's trying to take administrative action against me, instead of coming to a resolution via the talk page. WLRoss has stopped contributing on the talk page and failed to respond to a number of information, sources, and arguments I listed on the talk page. It is clear that he's hoping I get block or barred since he can't validate his position and clearly wants to be the sole authority on the wiki article in contention. I ask that WLRoss be the one reported for he is the one who instigated the edit war by unilaterally deleting my initial posts and sources I listed supporting the information I added. It's disingenuous that he be the one to accuse me of edit warring, when he was the one who initiated it and continues it. You can confirm this by viewing my edit history and the content of my edits. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * A request for page semi protection is not administrative action. All it would do was give me a few days to finish a rewrite then you would be welcome to discuss the finished article. I am quite willing to work with you but the talk page, where another editor also explained the mainstream view to you, shows that a resolution is not going to be easy as you continued to edit war during the discussion and after the page was reverted to the original version. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * By my count, the complainant, Wayne, has also violated 3RR.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * His violations seem to be more egregious since he is a much more experienced editor (13,184 edits to 49) and has been blocked twice for edit warring in his wikipedia career. In fact,he even has a paragraph on his user page commenting on 3RR.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believed those last three reverts were consecutive as I did not realize that Scoobydunk was reverting me as I was making the edits. As soon as I noticed I disengaged completely despite the page now presenting a minority view of the subject. I will now try DRN to resolve this per the advice of Mark Arsten. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much North Shoreman. I am new and I'm trying my best to become acclimated to the regulations, rules, and vernacular here on Wikipedia. I feel like WLRoss is trying to bully differentiating opinions and I'm relieved to hear that action has been taken against him before for this behavior. I was not aware of what constitutes edit warring, I simply mirrored WLRoss's behavior because I did recognize that he was a more experienced editor, and I even thought he had a higher rank in some sort of Wikipedia hierarchy, but I'm guessing now that's not true. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Yoonadue reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  07:21, 1 September 2013‎ Yoonadue
 * 2)  11:46, 2 September 2013
 * 3)  12:58, 6 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This user has been edit warring in the page, shamelessly, if you read his contribution history, you would find out, that it's actually full of undoing the revisions. Because of his edit warring, pages such as Yoga have been protected indefinitely. He might won't be a active editor, but lacks to provide explanation for his controversial edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I only see a couple reverts, and the most recent was 48 hours ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:XXXVaporXXX reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Ford does NOT own Honsel, Honsel has their own ALUM casting technology FORD does NOT OWN Undid revision 572018346 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
 * 2)  "YOUR VANDALISM HAS BEEN REPORTED. YOUR IP WILL BE BANNED Undid revision 572016805 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
 * 3)  "VANDALISM NEED ADMIN Undid revision 572014972 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
 * 4)  "VANDAL NEED ADMIN. Honsel makes GT500 VERY IMPORTANT INFO. your feelings are NOT!  Undid revision 572014690 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 572007543 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 572006967 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 571852635 by Thomas McP (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 571764218 by Thomas.W (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 571852635 by Thomas McP (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 571764218 by Thomas.W (talk)"


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


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

Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:64.134.147.252 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572018589 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) Edit war. Honsel casting technology does not make Honsel the designer of the Ford Modular GT500 engine. Ford designed the engine."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572018092 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) Edit warring. The engine is a Ford Modular because Ford designed it. Honsel only cast it. This is incorrect."
 * 3)  "/* 2013-2014 Shelby GT500 */ Edit warring. Ford designd this modular engine. Honsel only cast the block, they don't own the design. 11.6L is incorrect. sources improper"
 * 4)  "/* 2013-2014 Shelby GT500 */  Edit warring. Ford designd this GT500 modular engine. Honsel only cast the block, they don't own the modular design."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 572014395 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 572014395 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) Edit waring, incorrect info. Removed incorrect info and citations. Sources do not directly and specifically support the added info"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 572011418 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 572001038 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 572000318 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 571999922 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 571999728 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) The source link, House of Power.com does not indicate anywhere that their superchargers make engine displacement bigger."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 572000318 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 571999922 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 571999728 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) The source link, House of Power.com does not indicate anywhere that their superchargers make engine displacement bigger."


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


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

Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Barney the barney barney reported by User:The Banner (Result: No action )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "repair links"
 * 2)  "restore links"
 * 3)  "pls don't remove links, thx"
 * 4)  "what did I just tell you about removing links?"


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


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


 * Comments:

Asked for an explanation on his talkpage but no reply came. His last reply on my talkpage here was a rather aggressive affair. The Banner talk</i> 22:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . I confess that I don't get it. Barney wants links that go to a disambig page with a disambig tag next to them. You want the unlinked name but still with a disambig tag. Frankly, I don't get why either of you want either scenario. Maybe I just haven't seen it handled this way, and although I started to read WP:DAB, I didn't have the energy to continue, so I stopped. If it were I and there's no article for the person, I'd redlink it somehow or not link it at all, either way without a tag. Putting aside my own views, the disruption to the article is silly, but Barney hasn't breached WP:3RR. In fact he hasn't even reverted thrice in a 24-hour window, which is probably why he told you not to template him (btw, I didn't think his message was particularly aggressive). Why the two of you can't work this out is beyond me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Additionally, stopped reverting after being issued with a warning. As such I am closing this with  taken. If either party continue to edit war, I will issue blocks. That said, I would prefer to see the two of you just work it out on the talk page.  Tiptoety  talk 00:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Noformation (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Ethics and politics */"
 * 2)  "yes it is, did you read it?"
 * 3)  "/* Ethics and politics */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 572148359 by Noformation (talk)  No, this section is about ethics and politics"

diff
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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


 * Comments:

User is attempting to add an irrelevant citation that appears to be trying to push a WP:FRINGE POV. Basically, the sentence is dealing with anti-fluoride literature on the internet and is sourced to a reliable secondary source; the user is attempting to add a citation to the word "IQ" that does not deal with anti-fluoride literature. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that I have asked the user to self revert, both on his talk page and at the article talk page but to no avail. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  05:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * - Especially given this statement. Tiptoety  talk 05:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that was ridiculous. I am restoring the status quo version and am happy to discuss changes once CotA's block expires, assuming he adopts a more collegial attitude.  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  05:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is fowl. The template:Syrian civil war detailed map is a consistently changing template that involves usage of sources to alter the map. It is normal for it change on a daily basis, in which the changes are more often than not revisions of earlier works. Please take a cold hard look at the 500 edit history of the page to see for yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a live map is that it constantly changes - and if news for a particular city is constantly being produced, the status of the city would be constantly changing, inevitably meaning reverts. Sopher99 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Second of all diff 3 is not a revert. Sopher99 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * . If you think that not violating 3RR is tough, what will you if you're not permitted to violate 1RR? See Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions. As for diff 3, it looks like a revert, but I don't understand the import of the change, so I can't be sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The map is a template made to be updated regularly, not an article. This is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Maps_of_territorial_control . Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The sanctions don't apply only to articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Revert 3 is a revert because it continued removing the red dot on the same geographical location. That makes it 4 reverts in 24 hours.  Pass a Method   talk  10:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * . The last revert was by Pass a Method on September 7. Sopher99 has not restored their version.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dailey78 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Restriction)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reframing the discussion.  Diop was a scientist and a scholar.  Not an Afrocentrist.  He does not deserve this slur that he never embraced."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 572116303 by Aua (talk)This has already been discussed at length.  See previous versions of the article.  Melanchroes is translated as black in most books on Ancient Egypt."
 * 3)  "It is not true that the discussion of Ancient Egypt as a black civilization started in the 20th century."
 * 4)  "Volney and Champollion the Younger discussed Ancient Egypt as a black civilization in the 18th century.  There was already a controversy then."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor has been warned before for 3RR (eg ) and has given other editors 3RR notices. He should be well aware of this. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My post on the talk page to refute the absolutely false opening statement of the article before my bold edit:

Although some editors would like to use the word Afrocentrism in the opening paragraph to distract the lay reader from the real issues, Afrocentrists did not start this debate. Europeans were arguing over the race of Ancient Egyptians before any scholars that view Africa from Africa's point of view weighed into the debate. This article's monstrous falsification of history keeps pretending that this debate started in the 20th century, when there is plenty of evidence from peer reviewed secondary sources that the debate actually started hundreds of years before that.
 * Count Volney discussed the race of Egyptians and the sphinx in 1785, which led to responses by Champollion the Champollion brothers
 * Rienzi discussed the race of the Egyptians soon after
 * Champollion the Younger (died in 1832) discussed the race of the Egyptians in his letters to his brother Champollion Figeac
 * A quote from Champollion in 1829, "The opinion that the ancient population of Egypt belonged to the Negro African race, is an error long accepted as truth."
 * Marius Fontanes said "...these red men would probably be Ethiopians modified by time and climate, or perhaps negroes that have reached the halfway mark between blackness and whiteness...Lepsius' canon gives...the proportions of the perfect Egyptian body; it has short arms and is Negroid or Negritian...The Ancient Egyptians were Negroes, but Negroes to the last degree."
 * As you can clearly see, there were proponents and opponents of the Black Egyptian theory much earlier than the 20th century. This idea that 20th century Afrocentrists started this debate is a lie and I will not allow this falsehood to be imposed on the public.Rod (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, there were numerous different types of edits about different topics within this period. View the entire article historyRod (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. I warned you about 3RR in September last year. User:EdJohnston confirmed that warning. I warned you again in February (a warning I retracted), and you warned another user the same day. The reason for your edits is irrelevant, and you've had ample warning. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Dailey78, you qualify for an edit warring block, but you may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise to wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, he already got his way with the article, so no need for him to do any more edits. This is really frustrating and he should self-revert should he want to avoid sanctions. All I'm asking him is to discuss before making a bold edit to the lead of an article on ArbCom probation.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 18:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest waiting a reasonable time to give Dailey78 a chance to respond here before a block decision is made. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is the kicker for you: Rod, above, is daily78. He just signs with a different name for whatever reason.
 * Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I support an edit warring block in this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree to abide by the Wiki rules and I hope others will, as well. I actually opened the changes up for discussion on the Talk page at the same time that this 3RR notice was being created.  None of the other editors have attempted to discuss my changes on the talk page before reverting my edits.  Initially, I made many edits at once and they were reverted in full.  Then I tried to edit a passage at a time and all of the separate edits were reverted.  The other editors will not allow any changes to the article and aren't discussing their reasoning on the Talk page.  We ALL have to follow the rules.
 * When I sign four tildes, you get "Rod." My username is "dailey78."  It always has been and always will be the same account.  What is your point with the "here's the kicker" comment?Rod (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, I count only two reverts and my other edits are various changes to the article. The changes are not all the same.  The changes address different sentences.  All of my changes were undone by Aua without any discussion on the Talk page during the same time period in question.  Why is there no edit warring notice for Aua, as well?Rod (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Reset Indent - First point, you can change your signature by going to your preferences. You are not required to, but it saves all of us the confusion. Second, when you have articles under ArbCom probation, you must be careful. All your edits get reverted because a number of editors disagree with you. Once you are reverted, you should start discussing on the talkpage. It's BRD, not BRDRRR. Third, when you change a significant part of a probation article (in this case the lead), without much advanced warning, you're almost certainly going to be reverted. Fourth, "undone with discussion"..erm, what? How about this? or this? And that's in the past 24 hours (for which you're getting the block). Finally, I have been on Wiki for close to 7 years. My best advice: talk to us. We're happy to discuss things. Edit warring is not good for anyone. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 20:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And I reminded Aua about 3RR, but the difference is you went to 4, he didn't. Your other changes undid other editor's work. The fact that you haven't carefully read warnings you were given or that you gave to other people really isn't a good excuse. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't have a problem with Ed giving Rod a chance to agree to certain conditions to avoid a block. That's a discretionary call and often works for the benefit of the editor and the project. However, Rod's vague, perfunctory response ("I agree to abide by the Wiki rules") followed by blaming others and defending an indefensible position is not a satisfactory response to Ed's statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I intend to proceed with a block unless Dailey78 specifically agrees to "wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians", as stated in my proposal. The page also has an Arbcom banner on it and there is the option of a topic ban under Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann if we can't persuade Dailey78 to actively work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians.Rod (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: OK, closed with no block but with a voluntary restriction. Dailey78 will wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:71.51.183.13 reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Semi)
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:

Note that in this last edit summary, IP editor appears to state intention to change IPs to keep at it:  "look at arb decision 2009 ... stop the biased references and rah rahing for a site that is so controversial with sources that are made up ... and do you know what change dynamic IP address means", semiprotection may be warranted. 12:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one month. User has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quackwatch&diff=prev&oldid=572184356 hinted] that he plans to continue to edit war on this article using a dynamic IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed.   14:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This user has already been abusing the system, so keep an eye open for more dirty socks:



See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 71.3.101.247

Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)