Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive230

User:79.117.186.162 and User:Acornboy reported by User:2Awwsome (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

For 79.117.186.162 (just four recent ones, too many in the 24 hour period to list them all here, see the history):


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

For Acornboy (again, just four recent ones)


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

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

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

Comments:

2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 12:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * JodyBtalk 13:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * i'm out of here. you support edits made by IP users instead of supporting editors that works their ass off in the last years. well, let them update the pages, because it was the last time I write something for free.Acornboy (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Alchewizzard reported by User:99.245.191.227 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&diff=584759650&oldid=583654391

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&diff=next&oldid=584959093
 * 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Involuntary_celibacy&diff=next&oldid=585102862
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AInvoluntary_celibacy&diff=585078746&oldid=583684760

Comments:

I've made comments on Alchewizzard's talk page (as well as documenting on the article's talk page), but he doesn't respond, he just continues to revert and claiming legitimate edits are vandalism. The difference between the article as it stood before these reverts and the version it's being forcibly reverted to are dozens of edits.
 * . It looks like a content dispute among IPs and inexperienced named accounts. That said, two reverts, one on December 5 and one on December 7 does not an edit war make.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:76.92.127.29 reported by User:SandyGeorgia (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported: Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 10:16 Dec 7
 * 2) 1:01 Dec 8
 * 3) 2:01 Dec 8
 * 4) 00:47 Dec 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: IP repeatedly inserting new primary research after two editors have explained WP:MEDRS

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . The IP did not breach WP:3RR as the four reverts were not in a 24-hour window. However, there has been a pattern of edit warring stretching back a little further than the first diff above, and he was warned and counseled.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:70.112.2.185 reported by User:Niabot (Result: Protected/blocked)
Page:

User being reported: aka  (previously indefinitely blocked), including newly created sock

Previous version reverted to: More or less the entire recent version history.

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and following sections.

Comments:

At the moments it are two IP users which constantly revert the article, from which the reported user is the most active. -- ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼ 署名の宣言 02:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I am the user in question, having just registered an account less than an hour ago. I am not a sock puppet, which I note is an accusation that Niabot brings up against essentially anyone who objects to his contributions to the page in question. That said, I am NotHelpingMatters, and only re-joined because I realized I was no longer blocked from editing and assumed the ban had been lifted. The reason for my edits are that the image is unprofessional, of poor quality, harms the page's credibility, conflicts with the intended professional tone of Wikipedia, serves little if any functional purpose in the article, and is needlessly pornographic in nature. Niabot, who created the image, has been consistently adding it whenever removed by myself or other users. The page's text itself is quite biased as well due to his contributions, but my main concern is the image. I originally became aware of the article through a link on another website, where it was cited as an example of a low-quality page that had been hijacked by an editor with a conflict of interest. The image needs to go. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe in coincidences, but i strongly doubt that this is a coincidence. You seem overly familiar with WP from the start... That aside; i seriously do not want to introduce any bias. Please mention the particular sections of the article which are biased, introduced by myself and not or falsely sourced on the discussion page. You did not touch or discuss any content, but you rigorously removed the image. If you have better sources, so let me know. I wrote the German article a while ago and i would like to see what could be improved. -- ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼ 署名の宣言 03:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The primary example of this bias is your image here.

The others are minor and I prefer to ignore in favor of focusing on this main issue. Additionally, here is the article I linked, as someone removed it. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, this professional anti-wikipedian-page -directly associated with the "nice" guys at wikipediocracy-, which quotes me and others out of context. In this case i defended an not (yet) convicted* user against personal attacks. I don't think that i did anything wrong in this instance, but i guess it is good material to make such an silly story out of it. (*We still don't know the details)
 * PS: And as i had to assume. You have little to no interest in the article itself. You are just on the mission to remove the image. The article and quality of it's content was never in your interest. Well played and lied. -- ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼ 署名の宣言 03:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The image itself is all the reason needed to remove the image. If you're actually interested in improving the article, then the German version you linked to is a good source of better material. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not an endorsement or condemnation of the present version. Also, concerns about sockpuppetry should be handled at WP:SPI. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User blocked for other reasons as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for catching that. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Judgejoker reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Warning, semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision "Lucky Louie" Promoting film/fridge sources and potential vandalism. User should be banned on this page."
 * 2)  "Its referred to as Brimsdown . It is not a village."
 * 3)  "Reverted back to version from the revision history which is correct."
 * 4)  "Undid a unhelpful revision. The edit is correct and numerous sources confirm"
 * 1)  "Undid a unhelpful revision. The edit is correct and numerous sources confirm"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Enfield Poltergeist. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Following 3RR warning, switched to IP sockpupppet account Special:Contributions/86.6.111.196:  Ruby   Murray  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The IP posted to my talk page saying "Hello i have asked many (well 2) users and no one seems to give a straight answer so i will try my luck with you!! You put in your notes thats i should be blocked for RR more then 3 times but im just protecting the Original page which has stood that way for the best part of 10 years, now all of a sudden it has loads of references to American journalists as if we believe them?? why?? they had nothing to do with the case. I have put up many completely verifiable sources for them to be taken down. This new version of this page is a complete falsification of events and not verifiable at all. Why are you proliferating these false accounts?? are you getting paid to do so?". The Judgejoker account is at 6RR (counting successive edits as 1 revert), more than that including his IP address. When the IP refers to 'i should be blocked' he's referring to his Judgejoker account. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

If this is where the REAL admins are then fantastic. I am new to Wikipedia but i would Humbly ask you revert the Enfield Poltergeist page to November 3rd version and lock it temporarily. I have studied this case for well over 3 years and know all there is to know about it, not from my own POV but from verifiable sources. over the last 10 days it has been Hijacked by a number of users who want to portray a false past. A typical example of this was that i put up a national Radio show article 'Talksport" which goes out to the Entire country which was hosted by British Member of Parliament George Galloway on The Enfield Poltergeist (In the further media coverage) section for it only to be erased!! This is completely and totally Verifiable, its completely appropriate and yet a number of user (Mainly the one who has made the comments about me here) say that this is not relevant/correct.

It seems that number of users want to change the History of this Wikipedia page, If you look back just a couple of months they were no where to be seen. Another Example is they keep on referring to "Brimsdown" as a village, its not a village at all, that sounds like something an american would say when talking about a quaint little place in England. There is not a single UK map which refers to "Brimsdown" as a village, i should know i live here. I may of used some on the functions incorrectly as im new but my intentions are truly in line with what Wiki stands for, these new contributors are proliferating an Americanized version of History which isn't true. My final example is that in their 'Americanized" version They say the first police officer on the scene didn't know what or how the chair moved. This is completely false. "Caroline heeps" (they don't even know her name) swore on a british affidavit that no human could have moved the chair. Please look into this Travesty of justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs) 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Would also like to point out that the Source "Joe Nickell" had absolutely nothing to do with this case. The Only Paranormal Investigators that the United Kingdom reconises as a citable source is Guy Lyon Playfay and Maurice Grosse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgejoker (talk • contribs) 08:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Judgejoker warned, article semiprotected. Judgejoker may be blocked if they revert again prior to a talk page consensus. Please read WP:SOCK for our policy on using multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Waqbi reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


 * November 29 (Previous version for diff # 1)

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) November 30
 * 2) December 4
 * 3) December 5
 * 4) December 6 (partially similar)
 * 5) December 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Is he Kashmiri, Is he Rajput

Comments:

User is repeatedly replacing sourced info with the one that the article already mentions in the same section (and same paragraph). He/she has been told the same on the talk but I am not sure if there is competence/communication issue or the user is deliberately trying to force his/her preferred version. -- S M S   Talk 14:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for long-term edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:79.182.136.188 reported by User:Jinkinson (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 585338406 by Jinkinson (talk) this is not the crank website RationalWiki. the last edit is completely not wikipedic"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 585334198 by Alexbrn (talk) gorki made an assumption by doing a google search. the original sentence is enough. stop being such a dick head as you are usually are"
 * 3)  "/* Bill Maher */ reverted edit . undue weight and over the top"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* December 2013 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  "/* Maher, Gorski and Anti-vax */ new section


 * Comments:

Has been involved in a dispute with regarding the wording of a sentence in the "Bill Maher" section  Jinkinson   talk to me   What did he do now?  21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected one month. Two different IPs with the same geolocation have been reverting the H. Hugh Fudenberg article. is from the same place. I take no position as to which side is correct about these edits, but one person using multiple IPs in an edit war violates WP:SOCK. Good-faith IPs can use the talk page to make their case. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Arizona3876 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "changed redundant sessions band sentence and added his current work as saxophonist with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band on the Wrecking Ball Tour. added member of Robert Cray Band and founding member of  Bruce Springsteen with Seeger Sessions Band"
 * 1)  "changed redundant sessions band sentence and added his current work as saxophonist with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band on the Wrecking Ball Tour. added member of Robert Cray Band and founding member of  Bruce Springsteen with Seeger Sessions Band"
 * 1)  "changed redundant sessions band sentence and added his current work as saxophonist with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band on the Wrecking Ball Tour. added member of Robert Cray Band and founding member of  Bruce Springsteen with Seeger Sessions Band"
 * 1)  "changed redundant sessions band sentence and added his current work as saxophonist with Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band on the Wrecking Ball Tour. added member of Robert Cray Band and founding member of  Bruce Springsteen with Seeger Sessions Band"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ed Manion. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Ed Manion */ please stop removing the same references you are in breach of WP:3RR"


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


 * Comments:

attempted to help here, here, and here.

I think I exceeded 3RR myself and have therefore undone my latest edit. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Both warned for 3RR violation. The reverts did not continue after the 3RR warning. Arizona3876, you can't use edit summaries as a substitute for discussion on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Salmanse reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * – Two weeks by User:IronGargoyle for vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner reported by various IPs (Result: Semiprotected)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:

Four reverts in a single day. Claims to "revert sock" however the issue is deeper rooted and more malicious or promoting some kind of stealth POV than anything constructive; the revision continuously being restored is so inferior to the unfavoured revision that its restoration would be deemed vandalism by any admin/recent change patroller had an identical edit been carried out by an IP or a new account, or even a different experienced editor. Quite simply, the version being restored contains grammatical flaws including verbiage, destroys the demographics layout, removes sourced information along with the source itself, and worst of all removes the article title and its Cyrillic spelling from the infobox. If reverting sockpuppet edits is such a requirement, I contend that it can be done manually and not so abruptly as to vandalise the page. To give some background information, Kosovo is a sensitive subject and often there is dispute as to whether the article title should represent the Albanian or Serbian name and spelling. However, what is not in dispute is that the main space will observe and report both spellings in naming sections including the infobox.


 * 1st (compare left and right revisions, pay attention to first notable change which is removal of article title from infobox so as to display the Albanian name in stand-alone format, compare this to Peć, Pristina, Uroševac and the rest)
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th
 * Current

Please note that (on the naming issue), genuine vandalism reverting took place here, here and here.

During the course of edit-warring, Bbrynr was warned here. His reply was this followed by the 4th revert. Please also note that just in case anybody argues that removal of those names forms part of a consensus, I draw your attention to the first removal and inform you that what we have today is a legacy of that precise contribution.

Prior to any admin decision, can I ask the person handling the matter to take this into consideration. Can I ask that the person dealing with this also inform the accused party of this discussion after deciding whether to take the case on, otherwise the accused party will without doubt skirt the issue by removing this entire block. I ask that admins remember that the purpose of this project is to write an encyclopaedia and this could mean questioning what is more important out of playing the bureaucrat for the sake of obiding by the book or applying common sense and casting out non-constructive edits on negligible grounds. 92.40.106.11 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * I have notified Bobrayner of this. Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is a frivolous/malicious/revenge report. The first four reverts Bobrayner made were reverts of User:The Next Timelord, a now indefinitely blocked confirmed sock of User:Evlekis (see SPI file), and thus don't count against 3RR, and the fifth revert is of the exact same edit, made by the IP who filed this report. An IP who has not only continued Evlekis' edit war on Đakovica but also on Jakova, making WP:DUCK come to mind. Thomas.W   talk to me  11:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In ordinary circumstances yes. This however is an instance of blatant vandalism. Don't believe me? Scroll down to the bottom of the accused party's reverts and see that he has introduced a false category (containing a red link). Experienced editors would be required to engage in fact-checking before insisting so tirelessly on one revision over another. Bobrayner is renowned for being an experienced editor and highly respected by the community, it must therefore be accepted that he endorses the revision he is given which removes the correct category and replaces it with a false (non-existent) title. 188.29.97.186 (talk) 11:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Utter BS (by another loudly quacking IP geolocating to the same place and writing in the same style as Evlekis) . Edits made by socks of banned/blocked users can be reverted "free of charge" without fact-checking, because indefinitely banned/blocked users have forfeited all rights to edit Wikipedia. So any and all edits of yours can be reverted. Period. Thomas.W   talk to me  11:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Evlekis is sock or whatever you call it, but I have to agree with him. He compromised himself, but some of his comments (like the one above) actually point to the persistent......do not know how to call it........."misinformation". You can block the sock, yes, but please check his claims anyways, not all is black and white. TaaTaa 212.178.225.61 (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, also, (to Thomas W - no quacking, I cannot help if my number changes every 5 mins) here is an edit from an alleged "confirmed" sockpuppet. Yes you can revert it and yes 3RR does not apply whenever the so-called "confirmed sockpuppet" restores his revision, however, in doing so you take full responsibility of the version you are restoring. 188.29.97.186 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

 * Using socks to edit-war with an adversary, then going straight to this noticeboard, is standard procedure for Evlekis-socks. Revert, block, ignore. Reverting socks does not count towards 3RR, of course, and a good thing too; otherwise Evlekis' crap would have spread much wider.
 * It would also be a good idea to block : Another sock whose only purpose is to follow me to other random articles and revert my edits, another Evlekis hallmark. I'd caution the blocking administrator that they may get the same treatment from the next batch of socks. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thomas.W and Roxy, thanks for your help :-) bobrayner (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They haven't helped you, they have simply declared their support for you. Only you can help yourself. Naturally an admin may decide that the accuser's status may not be used in evidence, or he may decide to adjudicate on the issue at hand. If it is the latter, you will need to explain why the thirst for one poorly written revision with errors and instances of blanking over the other, and the excuse "rv sock" won't suffice there. 188.29.97.186 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Unclear on what happened here, but when none of the IPs who signed above (or left their comments unsigned) actually edited the article it's hard to take this seriously. Semiprotected the article two months. Use the talk page. Open a report at WP:SPI if needed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is already an open SPI - at Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis - but that may not always be practical for the more obvious (and numerous) Evlekis socks. bobrayner (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Red and black partisan reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result:Blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:    

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (08:38, 5 December)
 * 2)  (09:13, 5 December)
 * 3)  (09:42, 5 December)
 * 4)  (11:08, 5 December)
 * 5)  (20:00, 6 December)
 * 6)  (21:14, 10 December)
 * 7)  (21:18, 10 December)


 * 1)  (19:48, 25 November)
 * 2)  (19:36, 4 December)
 * 3)  (21:52, 10 December)


 * 1)  (15:25, 10 December)
 * 2)  (00:31, 8 December)
 * 3)  (01:17, 7 December)
 * 4)  (10:10, 15 November)


 * 1)  (21:47, 10 December)
 * 2)  (21:43, 10 December)
 * 3)  (21:30, 10 December)
 * 4)  (19:39, 10 December)
 * 5)  (11:17, 5 December)
 * 6)  (14:23, 4 December)
 * 7)  (20:55, 2 December)
 * 8)  (23:45 26 November)
 * 9)  (21:45, 10 December)
 * 10)  (21:28, 10 December)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All that really need to be said was said here and on ANI. Constant edit warring, constant violation of rules such as WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR. Before someone jumps about lack of communication - this problem isn´t with particular article(s), but with user. Communication was tried and ignored on the main article talk page, on ANI and on recent edit war report made by user:Lothar_von_Richthofen by both me and him. He either cannot comprehend simple thing about what is reliable source and what is not or he simply chooses to ignore him. And after getting only wall of texts that only raises blood pressure or no response at all I am sorry, but communication is not an option anymore. Admin inaction in cases of ANI and recent report just strengthens such position. I admit that today I violated 3RR, although I simply did not notice it. I will gladly accept block, I broke the rules after all. I have no problem with taking responsibility. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm blocking indef until this user chooses to communicate and stop edit warring. John Reaves 22:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cogsipeacre reported by OhNo itsJamie Talk (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:36,  6 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 584864178 by Acroterion (talk)")
 * 2) 20:02,  7 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 584971363")
 * 3) 16:13,  8 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 585082307 by Abdelrahman93 (talk)")
 * 4) 21:04, 10 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 585157062 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)")
 * 5) 21:05, 10 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 585480755")
 * 6) 21:19, 10 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 585490069 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)  se talk page")
 * 7) 21:38, 10 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 585492652 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) again se talk page")
 * 8) 21:57, 10 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 585495753 by Flyer22 (talk)again se talk page stop your Edit warring")


 * Diff of warning: here

—OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 2 days by User:Acroterion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Odioeternoalfutbolmoderno reported by User:Brayan Jaimes (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa_Primera_A&diff=585187207&oldid=585186792]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa_Primera_A&diff=585228910&oldid=585209437]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa_Primera_A&diff=585329982&oldid=585292236]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa_Primera_A&diff=585544003&oldid=585345759]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odioeternoalfutbolmoderno&diff=585292181&oldid=585291340]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Odioeternoalfutbolmoderno&diff=585292181&oldid=585291340] and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categor%C3%ADa_Primera_A&diff=585209437&oldid=585187207]
 * . No breach of WP:3RR, but the edits themselves are disruptive on top of the warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:122.56.234.211 reported by User:Jack Greenmaven (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Its either secular or non secular, and in this case its clearly non secular."
 * 2)  "it *IS* non secular distro!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Non secular? */ new section"


 * Comments:

Repeated attempts to add a phrase. More than 3 reverts. About three editors have agreed that this phrase is out of place. Greenmaven (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

User:93.32.174.228 reported by User:Enok (Result: )
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Diffs of the IP'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 the IP-user uses the edit summary to write falsehoods ("Sourced material removed", "Disruptive edits", and similar things).--Enok (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . As far as I can tell, everyone is edit warring. You failed to notify the IP; I've done so. I'm also concerned about the relationship between Francotti and the IP, so I've added Francotti (who joined the fray) above and notified them as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:B Lynn33 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 7 December
 * 2) 7 December
 * 3) 9 December
 * 4) 12 December

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The page was protected after B Lynn33's third revert and Bgwhite (the user who reverted him/her) explained the removal of those unused sources on his/her talk, but soon after protection expired B Lynn33 again reverted. -- S M S   Talk 23:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:63.251.123.2 reported by User:14.198.220.253 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)  (now 63.* tried to compromise with "science", notice that "scientific method" is removed as 63.* compromises.)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned on edit summaries

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Science Talk:Scientific_method

Comments:

The war begins with the lack of talk on 63.*'s first revert, "Peer review is a reasonable subcategory of scientific method." as stated by 63.*, while the initial edit precisely bases on the idea "Peer review is not a reasonable subcategory of scientific method.", so he/she negates an argument, i.e. "I say yes" "you say no", and it does not make his/her explanation. 63.* carefully evades the essence of revert trolling by stating a POV which looks like an explanation.

Consequently, I tried to prove the obvious that 63.* apparently refuses to understand, Talk:Scientific_method. 63.* then tried to compromise with "science" in-place of "scientific method", which I disagree and thus consider controversial. On top of that, there is still no counterargument from 63.* against "scientific method" so far, without which he/she has yet to justify his/her revert trolling. Anyway, the consequence discussion over Talk:Science is ongoing, that's why his/her proposed change has yet to pass. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to have additional users review the history of the interaction between 14.198.* and I. A few weeks ago, after 14.198.* accused me of "wikihounding", I wrote up an explanation of why I have been monitoring their edits here. 14.198.* appears to have a history of attempting to water down statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus), presumably in relation to their views on Serge Lang's activity as an AIDS denialist, as that was where it started. They also consistently misunderstand WP:STATUSQUO. Nevertheless, if other folks here feel that my actions have been problematic, I'm happy to change them. 63.251.123.2 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad that you are willing to link my talk page, as I explained to you that your POV "14.198.* appears to have a history of attempting to water down statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus)"
 * is just a matter of fact that peer review doesn't have to do with science, science doesn't have to do with peer review. If you disagree, then this is just opinion and you said right out that my edit is disrupt, did I say "you appear to have a history of attempting to obfuscate statements about the connection between science and peer review (and scientific consensus)" on you?
 * It is just your imagination and your loaded tone "water down" "eliminate" that makes me your enemy, WP:AGF applies to you. If you disagree, then you just challenge my argument, so, you still insist that peer review is defining characteristics of scientific method? --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I have to clarify what you said is also largely inaccurate.
 * My edit on Serge Lang only changes the word from "scientific consensus" to "argument", which I can understand and if you later find his book Challenges, I doubt he actually uses or even agrees with the word "scientific consensus" and "AIDS". The editor there basically puts up the arguments which he refuses to use or even interpret, thus this just makes the arguments in that article untrue and rude. Anyway, that is for Serg Lang's page, this should explain your trouble. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . I've semi-protected the category for two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, my edit ends up being locked. Bbb23 I guess (with your lack of explanation) your reasoning is that while 63.* reverted my edit for 7 times I reverted his/her reverts for 6 times, and it cant be immaterialized.
 * I understand but as you can see on Talk:Science and Talk:Scientific_method, not only I have done my part and 63.* has yet to explain his reasoning on his vandalism, that is, how does "peer_review" supposes to be the defining characteristics of scientific method, if he/she refuses to discuss or self-revert his/her edit disrupt, then what do you think a regular editor should do? After 2 weeks I end up see you on DRN. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vikram kumar84 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * ., next time please file the report correctly. Also, although the user's edits were so promotional as to be vandalistic, it would probably be better for you to report the problem earlier before edit warring yourself in the article. I've taken the unusual step of removing the material from the article in addition to blocking Vikram.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MrOllie reported by User:Fromthestretch (Result: Fromthestretch warned)
Page:

User being reported:



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



Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=next&oldid=585876136
 * 2) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585825670
 * 3) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585741102
 * 4) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585739422
 * 5) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=585508821
 * 6) [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ripoff_Report&diff=prev&oldid=582663346



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

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







Comments:

Fromthestretch (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you start by reading WP:YOUTUBE. Regardless of any other issues, we never link to YouTube and similar websites unless it is entirely clear that the video has been uploaded by the copyright holder - which is clearly not the case here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . I have warned the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Vanthorn reported by User:Frietjes (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AGolden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=585955208&oldid=577099727]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Golden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=585455767&oldid=585425574]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Golden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=next&oldid=585570687]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Golden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=next&oldid=585951387]
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Golden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=next&oldid=585954813]
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Golden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=next&oldid=585955365]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVanthorn&diff=585954885&oldid=566868092]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AGolden_Globe_Award_Best_Motion_Picture_Musical_or_Comedy&diff=585955251&oldid=431952057]

Comments:

This user just want to change the template layout without providing any plausible reason for that and with any kind of discussion on the talk page. He just started to discuss it now after beeing alerted by me.  Vanthorn  msg &larr; 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. Another editor removed the decade split, and you restored it. There has then been a tug-of-war between you and that other editor + Frietjes--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sasata reported by User:Mark Marathon (Result: Protected)
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:

This user has been persistently, blindly reverting all my edits to this article for the past two days. As you can see he has already broken the 3RR for previous reversions, which I did not report. At this stage he is refusing to discuss anything on the talk page. This persistent and automatic reversion of every single edit I make, forcing me to spend days to add a simple tag to the article has made if effectively impossible to edit.Mark Marathon (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The tag appears to be incorrect Mark. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've protected for three days to allow discussion in talk. Hopefully that is all that is needed here. --John (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Artpop - volume 2 reported by User:IndianBio (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
 * 2)  "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
 * 3)  "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album) */"
 * 4)  "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
 * 5)  "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"
 * 1)  "/* 2013: Beyoncé (album)*/"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * I had just warned this user about their potential edit-warring, especially after I opened a discussion in hopes of the user to involve themselves. However, it appears this user be have showing potential signs of *owning* the article to show their own point of view and may be considered for some kind of discipline.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. It's almost 24 hours since their last revert. If they continue to revert about hidden tracks, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Aerecinski reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Warning, Semiprotection)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 586128460 by FactStraight (talk) - Plse respect other editor's work and stop agression"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 586097683 by Kansas Bear (talk)  STOP contemptuous and antagonist reverting"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 585966731 by FactStraight (talk) -plse  stop harassing revert"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 585820644 by FactStraight (talk) - stop harassing and senseless reverting - respect work of others"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User is not stopping despite 3RR warning. Edit-warring against two editors. Possible use of IP socks as well: Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just gave them a 3RR warning (not relying on the one from more than a month ago). If anyone (Aerecinski or an IP) reverts the content back in I'd be willing to block for edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Callanecc. I just had an edit-conflict with you, as I was about to add that this edit-warring by the reported user has been going on for a long time: November 2013, July 2013 and extends to other articles as well: including attacking edit-summaries: . Overall not a pretty picture. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις   09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm responding here to the allegations that have just been brought to your attention about my violating the WP.3RRN. The problem revolves around the systematic deletion of a paragraph I wrote over a year ago as part of Philippe II duke of Orleans' article. FactStraight and his wiki friend Kansas Bear seem bent on entirely deleting my edit although this paragraph is well referenced and relies on serious historical sources.

There has been no attempt of any kind of dialogue by FactStraight who merely keep deleting the paragraph every other month or so as the editing history clearly shows. Over the past days the party seem decided to upscale the problem into a full scale editing war but again without any dialogue. Kansas Bear merely left an agressive warning on my talk page, while deleting an edit I left on his page last night through the agency of a sock puppet (editWarrior) who merely justified his deletion with insulting comments.

A "new" editor has just surfaced: Dr.K again deleting my contribution to Philippe's biography and leaving an agressive title to his editing which I ask you to consider removing. Actually I start to wonder if Kansas Bear and FactStraight are not the same person... I do not understand the rites of agression that seem to characterize this editor's attitude in this after all very minor matter : we are talking about a long dead figure of French history (17th-18th centuries). And the party doing the reporting is the one actually eager to escalate a minor difference of opinion concerning what should or should not be included in a dead person's biography into a full scale editing war. Aerecinski (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Aerecinski, you do realize that according to WP:BRD, if you add a paragraph and it gets removed, you may never re-add it until you have discussed and obtain new WP:CONSENSUS for it ... no matter how wonderful and sourced it might be? YOu have to discuss your reasons for adding it ... not the other way around  ES  &#38;L  11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Result: Aerecinski is warned. If he reverts the article again to restore his material (before getting consensus) he may be blocked. It does appear that he is using the article on Philippe II as a WP:COATRACK to insert negative material about his daughter Marie Louise. The scandals about his daughter are already well-covered in our article on Marie Louise Élisabeth d'Orléans. Aerecinski has [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Charlotte,_Princess_Palatine&diff=prev&oldid=501524369 also been coatracking] at Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine, our article on the grandmother of the unfortunate Marie Louise. To forestall more IP edits to insert Aerecinski's material I've semiprotected Philippe's article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Katcheic reported by User:Tco03displays (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Edit Differences

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: His whole talkwage is filled with warnings of various degrees and 2 bans.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office

Comments:

Please refer to the whole Talk:Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office to see warnings and attempts at discussion with user.

I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.

All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,

Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.--Tco03displays (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Extra note: I follow politics in Greece, and I write and checkout mostly political articles on Cyprus and Greece. This is beyond a simple difference in opinion or perspective of editors (as it happens in Turkish vs. Greece articles like the Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus), but clear motives of propaganda and restriction of information. For example, after I reverted the user's vandalism in murder of Pavlos Fyssas, the user went on to translate content from the Greek article (as asked from the appropriate tag). But he translated ONLY information that indicated that the murder carried no political motives, which reduces Golden Dawn's responsibility and moves the article closer to Golden Dawn's statement that it was a murder based on a disagreement on football. Which is false, based on the evidence and the statement of the murderer and the eye-witnesses. It is a given at the moment that the murderer was a Golden Dawn member, and that he was called to go to the area with the purpose of killing a political opponent. The whole case has been incorporated into the accusation of Golden Dawn for being a criminal organization, and has been added to a long list of accusations on manslaughter, violence, future goals of the overthrow of the democratic constitution, with gigabites of data being included in the court case at the moment. I'm only stating all this to get you further to understand with what we are dealing here and what the user's edits eventually accomplish even if they are not fundamentally out of the rules. There is an agenda here, and a very dangerous one as well. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, it is also the world's largest free database. That is why it is useful for propaganda, and control of opinion, in this case, for affecting the views on non-Greek speaking readers, and this is why from the article's creation I still follow it closely and try to eradicate such elements from it. --Tco03displays (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please Read: Since it came unfortunetly down to this, refer to User:Tco03displays reported by User:Katcheic (Result: ) underneath. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep goning on to attack on me while i'm acting and talk objectively about a simply wiki-policy, your political extreme left propaganda is confirmed --Katcheic (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not understand the neutral point of view. Thankfully admins understand it. Again, you accuse me of leftist propaganda, when I have provided no propaganda in Wikipedia, I have added only views on a controversy from both points of view on the debate by notable organizations and individuals, backed up by references, written in the appropriate style as explained by the neutrality policy. You went on to remove only statements from the one point of the controversy. Really, you are only exposing yourself every time you comment.--Tco03displays (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one seems to not understand the wiki-policies, except your propaganda.--Katcheic (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. User:Tco03displays uses the wikipedia as political podium evening to move toward specific political direction Violating the Rules of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. I have already informed the ensuing debate in. --Katcheic (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have little understanding of the rules of Wikipedia. I have in no way compromised the neutral point of view. The section you copied from refers to the language, statements and expression of the article itself when it does not state the origin of the statements made. The Neutral Point of View policy states clearly that in the situation where a topic is controversial, Wikipedia does not take a stand but reports what has been said on the controversy by various individuals/organizations. I provided to you a link to the policy. Now, we both agreed on the issue of controversy on the proposal with merging the article with Terrorism in Greece. We both agreed that the merge should not happen because the attacker's motives and the attacker's identity is controversial. These are your words. When I added statements (clearly defining the individual/organization who made them) on the controversy, all backed up by reliable references, you came up and removed ONLY what indicated that Golden Dawn's view might be fault.
 * What I added was discussed on the talkpage but you did not engage in the discussion and as soon as your ban was removed you deleted what disliked you with NO attempt at discussing it in the talkpage. This is called edit warring, the reason you have already received 2 temporary bans. You removed the content without allowing anyone time to respond to your comment in the talkpage. You have thus 1) again compromised the neutrality of the article, and 2) promoted Golden Dawn's views by selectively removing only the points of view that contradict their view. For the record I added information from the police, Golden Dawn and 2 notable journalists, one of which has his own Wikipedia entry. I specifically asked in the talkpage for further help in adding MORE viewpoints to further improve neutrality. You have received warnings in the past over your insistence in promoting a particular viewpoint, and compromising the neutrality of the article again and again. I've made clear to you your mistakes again and again, I've provided links to policies, Wikipedia guides and even other talkpages of Wikipedia articles so you can see how we handle things and reach consensus and decisions over controversies. I  do not think you've checked them out, if you have, you are ignoring them. It has been made clear from your edits on this article, from your attitude in the talkpages, from your conscious ignoring of warnings and advice from editors and admins; and from your vandalism in murder of Pavlos Fyssas that you are have as a motive the promotion of a particular point of view and the exclusion of other information that contradicts it.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ιt is clear that Wikipedia isn't a podium of opinions. That is the base issue which are active. The proclamation, of Golden Dawn is a legitimate reference that must be referenced, associated with the issue in a first instance as an answer. So you 're just invalidity in this point--Katcheic (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your obvious statement on Golden Dawn. I was the one who added Golden Dawn's response. You have again not understood what I said above, and have not responded to the agreement we reached that the topic is controversial. If it is, opinions must be balanced. All my additions are notable as well. I had found a number of responses from blogs and social media, but of course rejected them on grounds of notability and unreliably of sources. In addition,User:Callanecc clearly stated that changes in the article must be discussed in the talkpage. You did not do that, but continued your edit warring. Even now, you have removed the material again with no discussion and no actual response to my comments in the talkpage.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Υou edit warring I explained you the legality about the wiki policies for the neutral point, what is not understandable? We don't not make political propaganda. Is it what you want, Wikipedia is not a podium of opinions. --Katcheic (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You explained nothing. You posted a part of a policy on the talkpage you seem not to understand, and then you immediately went on to remove content without waiting for a response or allow enough time (a day for example) to pass so other editors can have time to comment. Now that I have responded, you keep on repeating yourself with little indication that you understand what neutrality really means on Wikipedia.
 * You had added a copyrighted photoshoped poster of Golden Dawn in the article (Link), with the Greek flag in the background connecting the two victims with the "nation" and the word "Heroes" under them promoting a subjective value judgment of them! I wasn't even the one who removed it. Other editors and admins have been notifying you and reverting your problematic edits for weeks. And you have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda for adding statements of 2 notable individuals on a controversial topic while I added statements by 2 institutions on the other side of the debase as well? Only the Gods of Wikipedia know what would had happened if we had left this article to your hands. Not to mention your total misrepresentation of sources ("worldwide reactions"), the fact that you had cited sources to text that did not contain any such information and your selective cherry-picking from sources. When me and other editors clearly explained to you that this kind of information cannot be tolerated, and will be removed because of your inability to cite correctly your statements with reliable references, you accused us of acting as in North Korea and that we are criticizing ideology and not the references as sources in relation to the text you've added. You also clearly expressed anti-leftist sentiment and pro-right wing sentiment, which would not matter at all in Wikipedia, had that not affected your edits and had you not accused me and other editors of being leftist totalitarians for following the Wikipedia policies on referencing. Since you decided to bring this here, this is beyond discussion between you and me dear editor, it is up to the admins which will see all this information and arguments and judge accordingly. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that you don't understand the policies, by using the wiki as a podium for leftist (or other) opinions and it's also you that remove content or conflict edits without waiting for a response, allowing enough time. example Let the admins to judge it --Katcheic (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted, dear editor, your own removal of material, and contributed to the talkpage explaining AGAIN to you not to remove information without discussion. For the record, lets go over some rules:
 * A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant. - NPOV_tutorial
 * The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. In-text attribution to sources should be used where reliable sources disagree, not where editors disagree. Note that citations are a different matter: adding a footnoted citation to a fact or an opinion is always good practice. The text in the article, however, should mention the source only if the matter being described is an opinion, not a fact - Neutral_point_of_view
 * The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail. - ASF
 * Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight - NPOV
 * Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. - Reliable_sources
 * I've told you before. You do not seem to have any idea what neutrality means on Wikipedia. You haven't bothered trying to learn, because I did provide you with links to the NPOV article. Yes, Wikipedia accepts opinions. It is fundamental in achieving NPOV. I have done nothing wrong, added no propaganda, and have reverted your own vandalism. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No response, no argument, and a childish personal attack on my ability to read English with no support of evidence for that? I'm certain you have a good case going on here. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Learn the english laguage first. You are exposing. The rules that you copied and set here to me, act against you. To the WP:NP please. Wikipedia is not a pedestal. Wikipedia is not podium speeches, battleground , or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to sections , categories, templates, talk pages , and user pages . Therefore , the content hosted Wikipedia is not: Propaganda , recruitment or defense of any kind , commercial , political , religious or other. Of course, a word can refer to such things objectively , as the attempt is made to describe the subject from a neutral point of view. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly hot topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view). Wikipidia is not opinion pieces. see also:

WP:Notability-pedium --Katcheic (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Katcheic, Katcheic. I added information on a controversial topic (agreed on the talkpage). On the controversy, I added the Greek Police and the Golden Dawn statement by name on the one side of the argument, and then added two notable journalists on the other side of the argument, again; by name. The name indicates that it is an opinion. Stating opinions is part of Wikipedia (I'm surprised I even have to explain this, it is all over the Encyclopedia). The statements I wrote clearly expressed that it was the opinion of these actors. I posted in on the talkpage, and it was discussed, alterations were made because another editor was kind enough to notice mistakes. Then the information was posted on the page. I openly asked for help in adding further opinions, and in fact, I asked specifically for opinions that belonged to the side of Golden Dawn and the police to be further added by anyone interested (that it was a terrorist organization, in GD's case a leftist one). Read the the above. NPOV indicates: reporting all possible notable opinions on a subject matter, especially if it is controversial. Indicating by name that these are opinions. Trying to weight them accordingly (that is why I asked for further opinions to be included, especially on the side I saw lacking them). This is what means, describing a dispute, but not taking sides. You accuse me of propaganda. Having noted the opinions by name, and including opinions from both points of view, precisely means that I have not tried to propagate, but reach neutrality. Now, removing information from only one point of view, and insisting on it to the extend that you do, even after all this information I have added here, precisely indicates the promotion of one point of view only, and an intended biased article. You could have added more points of view, you however insist on removing existing ones. I simply am waiting for an admin to read all this we have been discussing, I am sure it will be interesting. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer is about exclusively party's official reaction (Golden Dawn) that involved in this case. We do not set other opinions to formulate a political opinion or a point of view, because wikipedia is not a podium for this. --Katcheic (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See? You yourself say it. You want to exclude any other opinion but the party's. You then have just stated that you consciously want to restrict, control and remove any other opinion on the matter. From the link you sent me yourself:
 * Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. - Neutral_point_of_view--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You sir, are breaking the rules knowingly (it has been indicated above that you've been on the NPOV page), wasting everyone's time and trying to promote only one point of view and censor other views.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case. Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left".
 * For the sake of the admins/editors viewing this, the following is the text that I had added and that has brought this havoc! The last paragrapgh, indicated by the bold letters starting it, is what Katcheic wants so much to remove:

Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack .--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Be gentle with policy. Wiki as an opinion-podium is irrelevant. WP:Opinion podium --Katcheic (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no point discussing with you anymore. Now I am not to follow the policies because you interpreted a particular point in a way that makes all of Wikipedia's policies on opinion, dispute, NPOV and handling of controversies as irrelevant.--Tco03displays (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To sum up. The controversy is the following, in Katcheic's words, taken straight out of the talkpage of the article in regards to the murderers: "Since nobody is not sure about this murder how are we going to characterize it as a terrorist attack? So we can not merge it at this. anywhere - not many users agreed --Katcheic (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)". When it came to actually describing this controversy, I added multiple notable opinions by name, which expressed contradictory views, in accordance with NPOV policy. Katcheic stated above that only one opinion is to be allowed on the article, and that is of Golden Dawn - all other opinions contradicting it were removed by Katcheic. Not only this is a violation of NPOV, it is also a clear and conscious attempt to make the article biased and censor views that do not attack the far left. This is Golden Dawn's statement, an opinion: "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". It is clearly subjective, attacks Greek leftist politics and the International left, but that is ok, it is perfectly fine according to Katcheic, as long as no other views are expressed; which might actually challenge it. All this, on a subject deemed by the very same editor as controversial. The editor has accused other editors as leftists, including me, only because we followed the referencing and the NPOV rules, and has expressed favor of right-wing politics, especially in the talkpage of the article. I am thus more than justified in saying that Katcheic is knowingly trying to compromise the article's neutrality, turning it into a pro-Golden Dawn article by censoring other relevant views, and wants the article to semi-conclude that the murderers were far leftist terrorists, even though he himself acknowledged that this is indeed very controversial. The editor is violating fundamental rules again and again (NPOV), from the begging of the article's creation (as indicated above and in the article's talkpage) to promote a specific point of view, wasting everyone's time in the process, compromising Wikipedia's reliably, and thus knowingly affecting the reader's access to information outside of his own preferred point of view. I indicate this clearly: I could care less of Katcheic's political views. If he had added material on the page according to rules (something that took us a long time to convince him to do so, including warinings, removal of material and bans), we could have had some aspects of the article's subject added, while we filled in the rest. But Katcheic removes, censors and has now reported users who do not add material that fit his point of view. I rest my case. This is the only editor that holds the article back and acts against the rules. Please, someone sort this mess out. --Tco03displays (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news about current issues. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia has many encyclopedic entries on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated recently with accurate information. Although current issues and politics can root about passions and entice people to support passionately visual angle, Wikipedia is not a means to it. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly hot topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.

Αs we know some opinions of what you set, are from far leftists or caracterized by politically propaganda and could be used for recruitment or defense of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other. Although details about the personal lives and thoughts can occasionally provide important or relevant to the topic, most often the authors include it as shocking or amusing sentences, or why personally find the most interesting gossip from the real object of the article. We will not break the rules. --Katcheic (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Αs we know some opinions are far right or characterized by politically propaganda blablabla..." When are we removing the Golden Dawn quote? See, your logic is that simplistic and subjective. You decided that the far right is more reliable than the far left (and for the record you have still to prove that these individuals belong to the "far left", not that it even matters on Wikipedia anyway), you decided that Golden Dawn's insults to the left are more reliable than observations and comments of notable journalists, to the point that the whole neutrality of the subject you stated to be controversial, has to be compromised. And you call me the one who breaks rules. You think the question of the existence or not of a new organization in urban guerrilla terrorism in Greece is actually gossip? The statements I added were clear opinions to a controversial topic, not used as sources for stating facts in an article. You still fail to understand the basics. You think your opinion on the far-left matters? Do we have to go over this again? Your subjective opinion does not matter. Get over it. I'll leave you with a quote in relation to Wikipedia editing, from someone who I doubt you know of: "The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks". - Jimmy Wales--Tco03displays (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Watch out your speak behavior. To create overly abundant links and references to entries journalists is unacceptable. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly strong topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. More over, the authors of Wikipedia should try to write entries that will not fall quickly into disuse. Wikipedia is not a podium speeches, battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising of journalism/jornalists. It applys to sections, talk pages, templates and user pages. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Read also carefully WI:NO --Katcheic (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "To create overly abundant links and references" - where are the abundant references? I fail to see them. I have only used 2 and I have used no links. The WI:NO clearly states in the first paragraph that "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". This, my dear editor, refers to the decision of creating or maintaining an article, and by no means excludes notable journalists' opinions, or the far left, or any other notable source of opinion for that matter; from being included in a controversial and disputed topic. Further on, "represent a neutral point of view" means precisely all the jargon of information I've been posting here. No matter how much you copy-paste from other Wikipedia policy pages, you won't be able to undermine the NPOV policy, nor your statement that your intentions are to censor information. That's because you are simply wrong on this; and what you are doing right now is trying to twist Wikipedia policies to support your claims. It won't work. It can't. The people viewing this play the Wikipedia rules in their hands.  --Tco03displays (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Watch out your speak behavior." - Don't misunderstand, I tried to make clear to you through Jimmy Wales's quote the insignificance of political ideology in the logic of Wikipedia. The intention was not to insult you, had I wanted to I would had done so, and it would had gotten us nowhere. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has clear rules whatever across the spectrum and on this issue you're wrong. Υοu are not refuted any argument that I set you but you continue to see the case/article from the perspective of journalists and this is a mistake. Onother one I remind you that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news about current issues and everyone know this. --Katcheic (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not. You took your information from "What Wikipedia is not". You again neglected the paragraph which sets out the context of the rule, and it is this "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The whole argument relates to the creation and maintenance of the article itself and not for what is allowed to be included in a controversial/disputed topic under NPOV. I do not see the article in "view of journalists" - or maybe all the information I have added and you decided to keep is the "view of journalists" too? You clearly lack any understanding in the distinction between primary source and opinion piece, especially in the context we are discussing. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, we've been going on for hours, I'm out for now. Post your reply if you want to, add your arguments and information, and let us let it be until the admins come and sort out the dispute. I think there's more than enough discussion above for them to reach a conclusion and decide. You and I can decide nothing and let's be honest, we are not reaching a consensus and we keep repeating ourselves. Adios for now; Katcheic.--Tco03displays (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jornalism/Jornalists incorporate-encloses in defending or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other advertising beyond the objectivity of the article, through the pedestal of the wikipedia. So the common conclusion is that it is arbitrary the reference on their ideas and beliefs. --Katcheic (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . If you folk think that any administrator wants to read this wall of text, you're mistaken. Sepaking for myself, I don't. This discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, not on this board. There haven't been that many reverts lately by either of you, so keep talking ... elsewhere. If you can't resolve your differences, use dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Born on Setons reported by User:Oosh (Result: Semi-protected)
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:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Comments:

Pretty sure the this user is behind the IP reverts linked.
 * . Semi-protected for three days by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Til Eulenspiegel (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is discussed at Talk:Queen_of_Sheba

Comments: Open and shut case, That user reverted identically four times in a short period of time, against the other editors, continuing after being warned at 3RR. That user is also known as User:Kendite, but no real abuse of the multiple accounts. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

So the real result is, just ignore it and look the other way until sufficient time passes, then marks it "stale"?

This is not my negligence. I did everything I was supposed to do. What more can I do? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Til: Consider opening a WP:Request for comment. The article has been bouncing around. It was reverted by several different people since 1 December. You yourself have reverted four times in that period. Now that the article has been reported at the edit warring board, if people continue to revert without discussion they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jahbulon-13 reported by User:WegianWarrior (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

Keeps reverting to material that bumps against WP:BLP and fails WP:RS. Similar behaviour in other articles as well, but not broken 3RR on those so far. WegianWarrior (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All I have done is state a fact that is difficult to dispute: Martin Short did make that allegation and he did publish it, as the RNLI article says.Jahbulon-13 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * for breaching WP:3RR at Royal National Lifeboat Institution and edit warring in other articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

has been accused of being a sock of banned user on behavioural issues. They were recently blocked here at WP:ANEW for Beta-like edit-warring over an NFC enforcement issue (pretty much the only editing either of them ever did). An SPI has been opened at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacommand.

This SPI has progressed slowly. CU has been refused as "too stale". Diffs were reasonably requested, to address the behavioural issue. These have been provided. Werieth has now 4RR removed these diffs, from an SPI in which he is the chief suspect. Despite being 3RR banned just last week, Werieth still clearly believes that 3RR doesn't apply to him, as he has right on his side (tm).

One complexity is the origin of these diffs. It has been alleged that they were posted by a banned user, by a user discovered by checkuser to be a sock of a blocked user, and probably by an editor guilty of insufficiently enthusiastic applause during the recent Arbcom elections. These are untrue: I posted these diffs, under my own name. I am an editor of some history and I believe in good standing within the community, and also the instigator of the SPI.

As I have always made clear, I was supplied with these diffs via my talk: by another editor (not currently having the spare time to do such legwork myself). This editor is a new account with a substantial knowledge of WP practice. As such, they are generally assumed to be a sock. However AGF still applies, as does the greater good of exposing what I believe to be a major and harmful socking by Betacommand. I can certainly understand why any editor wishing to invoke the ire of Betacommand (if you're unfamiliar, it's a nasty history) might wish to do this from behind the shield of an anonymised account! More to the point, we have no idea who else is behind this user:Arnhem 96 account, and what their standing is otherwise. It is quite wrong to assume (on zero evidence) that anyone acting against Betacommand (who is thoroughly banned) must also themselves be subject to a ban.

3RR is, per our policy, wrong and unacceptable. Werieth appears to have almost free rein to ignore this though, having many breaches of it to their name (18RR?!). 4RR in such a clear case of self-involvement as an SPI against the warring editor is certainly not acceptable. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Werieth might not be right on many of his 3RR violations, but he's bang on the policy on this one. Andy, you were previously warned by an administrator to cease proxying for a blocked/banned editor.  Which part of this is the bit that you don't understand? Black Kite (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you going to note for the passing reader just how much involvement you have with the defence of Betacommand's socking? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, nice, accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Do carry on with that one, won't you? The Arnhem 96 account is blocked, regardless of who is behind it.  You are proxying for a blocked account. QED. Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet more harassment by Andy Dingley. Werieth (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So yet again, 4RR is just not applicable to Werieth? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:3RRNO, case 3. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rqasd reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

1RR violation. See Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not certain this editor, whose English is very poor, actually understands Wikipedia guidelines or the admonishments I have given now multiple times to avoid this repeated-revert behavior. That's not an excuse, obviously... -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User warned regarding Syrian Civil War general sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:107.214.30.15 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (I also tried to compromise by adding several reliable sources, per WP:PEA, and still the user ignored the guideline and reverted, removing those reliable sources)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

In addition to edit warring, User:Toccata quarta has also removed several reliable sources because they do not conform to his/her POV. S/he has also ignored WP:PEA, the very guideline s/he relies upon: which requires only that you "use facts and attribution to demonstrate (that) importance." All because this user objects to a single word - "legendary" - which, in this case, is supported by several notable and reliable sources - like the official, government-sponsored, National Endowment for the Arts website; the Bangor Daily News; the Baltimore Sun; and the Metropolitan Opera, among several other less notable links I could have added, like: here, here, here, here and even the among so many others. But despite all this, and even after I've conformed to the requirements of the MOS: guideline, the user still insists on continuing to edit war and remove reliable sources. This, in addition to being disruptive, uncivil and non-collaborative. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Bbb23, as you can plainly see here, semi-protecting the BLP only blocks the reporting IP (and other IPs), but does nothing to address the edit-warring user who was actually reported. And who continues to edit war and remove reliable sources, undeterred - even after semi-protection! My goodness. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Oldhand 12 reported by User:Jack Greenmaven (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Several editors are now attempting to discuss this editors reverts. He is making large changes to statistics and expressing unverified opinions about the actions of Western nations in the famine. Greenmaven (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet blocked and user warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User: reported by User:108.70.59.213 (Result: Nothing to see here)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9zFpuxRvjwwJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_Shopper+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Notice it's being pulled from Google's cache.

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

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

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

Comments:

This type of content is very offensive and irrelevant to the title/content of the original atricle.


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. Please link to actual Wikipedia pages, not mirrors hosted by other websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TheFallenCrowd reported by User:HelenOnline (Result: No action needed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Undid revision 586200204 by TheFallenCrowd (talk) redundant - please integrate into Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and African tour: 1961–1962 section

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15 December – Undid revision 586200856 by NeilN (talk) How can Mandela's membership of the Communist Party's Central Committee be "redundant"?
 * 2) 15 December – 1) Removed reference to Communist Party Membership, replaced it with expanded new section later in article which contains the newspaper article and the full quotation from the SACP journal and spokesperson. 2) This is a new section which expands and replaces the older reference with full quotes from the December 2013 SACP journal and spokesperson. Mandela's SACP membership deserves its own section, as it is historically significant.
 * 3) 15 December – Referenced section removed: Please do not remove references or quotes
 * 4) 15 December – This is a significant NEW (Dec 2013) development which certainly deserves its own section. Please stop removing it.
 * 5) 15 December – Re-created deleted section. Please do not delete -- see my comments on the Talk page.
 * 6) 15 December – 1) Re-inserted section about Mandela's Communist Party membership. This section is continually being vandalized by politically -motivated censors. 2) Removed reference to Communist Party Membership, replaced it with expanded new section later in article which contains the newspaper article and the full quotation from the SACP journal and spokesperson.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 15 December after revert #5 above

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1) First discussion 2) Second discussion

Comments:

TheFallenCrowd has repeatedly ignored consensus regarding the placement and prominence of information related to Mandela's Communist Party membership, accusing others who reverts their edits of "political censorship" and "vandalism". Helen Online  07:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HelenOnline has, contrary to Wiki guidelines, taken it upon him/herself to arbitrarily remove referenced sections concerning Nelson Mandela's membership of the South African Communist Party. These referenced sources are: (1) Nelson Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom; (2) the December 2013 edition of the Journal of the South African Communist Party, Umsebenzi, and (3) South Africa's largest business daily newspaper, the Business Day in Johannesburg.
 * The topic of Mandela's Communist Party membership has been the topic of major news source coverage for a number of years, and the new information confirming his Central Committee membership of the South African Communist Party is of great historical significance.
 * HelenOnline's continual censoring of the new developments shows obvious politically-motivated bias and should not be tolerated.TheFallenCrowd (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And how is your edit-warring justifiable as per WP:EW or WP:3RR? Even if you're right, it's not an excuse.  We have WP:DR for a reason  ES  &#38;L  15:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As discussed on the article talk page, I and several others (NeilN, Midnightblueowl, AndyTheGrump) have not removed this information but kept it in the relevant section supported by consensus instead of making a newspaper headline out of it. I was actually the first editor to add the recent confirmation of this information. Please stop repeating your lies and personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with you. Helen  Online  16:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

As a major contributor to the Nelson Mandela article, and one of the two users responsible for bringing the article to GA status earlier this year, I can confirm that HelenOnline's assessment of the situation is correct, and that TheFallenCrowd has repeatedly behaved in a manner that requires disciplinary action. They have repeatedly removed referenced information on Mandela's Communist Party membership from the relevent sections and insisted on piling it all together in a newly created, and poorly authored section at the end of the article that comprises largely of quotes from other sources. They have no consensus for this, and have repeatedly resorted to wild, erroneous accusations against respected editors who have tried to revert their actions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that TheFallenCrowd's claim that "the new information confirming his Central Committee membership of the South African Communist Party is of great historical significance" is entirely unsupported by evidence. Unsurprisingly, given that it is hardly 'news' that at the time of the trial, Mandela had at least close links with the SACP. If the latest 'news' (sourced to the SACP, which has its own reasons for wishing to associate itself with Mandela) is 'historically significant', we should wait until historians tell us so... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

According to TheFallenCrowd's latest talk page comment, they do not believe their behaviour constitutes edit warring. I am not going to try explain it again (last try here) and would appreciate an administrator resolving the situation. Helen Online  10:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I second Helen  Online 's statement here. Administrative intervention would be greatly appreciated to prevent further disruptive editing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * They haven't edited the article since the 15th so I don't see a need for admin action regarding them. Given the high profile, changing nature of the subject I'd really rather not full protect it. If specific editors breach the edit warring policy or 3RR please re-report. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * They haven't edited since then because we have left their new section in while trying to resolve the situation here. Can I go ahead and remove it? Helen  Online  13:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Given they haven't responded on the talk page I don't see why not. If they revert you, ask them to take it to the talk page and continue discussing it with them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MythoEditor reported by User:GB fan (Result: Blocked 24h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 586315976 by GB fan (talk) As already said sources used here are not reliable and not academic sources."
 * 2)  "/* Significance */"
 * 3)  "As already none of the sources used in the article were reliable sources and they were also not academic sources."
 * 4)  "We do not describe a tv series as successful. It is a praise and praise words should not be used on Wikipedia. Also I am going to propose this article for deletion and request the administrators to review this article for deletion."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 586301065 by Redtigerxyz (talk) It's actually just an opinion. Opinions cannot be regarded as sources let alone be RS."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 586300172 by Redtigerxyz (talk) Sorry but according to WP:RS only academic sources like books can be used as source for articles about mythology."
 * 7)  "Removing unreliable sources. Padma Purana is actually a main scripture. Also Nahusha married Viraja daughter of Pitrs not daughter of Shiva."
 * 1)  "Removing unreliable sources. Padma Purana is actually a main scripture. Also Nahusha married Viraja daughter of Pitrs not daughter of Shiva."
 * 1)  "Removing unreliable sources. Padma Purana is actually a main scripture. Also Nahusha married Viraja daughter of Pitrs not daughter of Shiva."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:DMB112 reported by User:Ryulong (Result:Blocked 14 days )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 586354947 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 586357032 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 586357441 by Ryulong (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* December 2013 */"
 * 2)   "/* December 2013 */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football
 * User talk:DMB112


 * Comments:

DMB112 has added massive tables to all NCAA Division I conference articles despite a consensus against him at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football but this is clearly a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on and he refuses to let the sections be removed. —Ryulong (琉竜) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have argued my point, through and through. Other members of the community have stopped arguing. Ryulong insist on reverting my edits. On the talk page, you will find a great deal of compromise. The tables add important information for the reader about member universities of the conference. Ryulong is being quite aggressive. I am currently creating a separate article for academics of all institutions, an the tables will be the only notion on the main articles. I will add a "main article" tab above the table in due time. DMB112 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement that "other members of the community have stopped arguing" is the exact definition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is no compromise on the talk page. It is just massive amounts of essays from DMB112 and voices of opposition from several other editors who say that the academic measures of a school have nothing to do with the athletics teams.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Note that edit warring has also taken place at and .—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring has also taken place at. DMB112 communicates but continues to revert on these other pages because I did not use them as the examples in this report, which is even more disruptive.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have self reverted on the three most active pages but I doubt that will be of much help to my case.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, you broke 3RR and kept going and if EXPECT to be blocked for this, why do you keep breaking 3RR and outright edit warring. You went to Arsten directly about this full well knowing you again broke 3RR. You have breached 3RR 4 times this month alone, that I've counted. You got blocked for it twice - why do you keep on insisting to edit war with different editors all over Wikipedia! You never listen to other admins or me; I've said you should be on a 1RR restriction and I've tried to help you overcome your seemingly compulsive edit warring, but if anything both of you deserve to be blocked. This constant edit warring is completely unacceptable. You are right to expect to be blocked for breaking 3RR - you are fully aware of it, yet you continue to edit war. I may be trying to help you maintain and work in the area, but I said before that continued edit warring with other editors will drive me away. This edit warring, all of it, is your doing and you simply show no restraint. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am aware of what I said to Mark Arsten and I am willing to receive the consequences for my behavior. I have made multiple attempts to discuss the issue with the other editor but he is as stubborn as I am. I expect exemplary behavior from other editors but I never see it. I inform them of WP:BRD and they ignore it. I have found a consensus against DMB112 in this case and he ignores it just as he ignores my requests on my talk page, his talk page, and the project talk page. I do not know what to do with editors like him anymore. I don't know what I am to do anymore. This is tiring and pointless and I know what I've done is wrong and I've attempted to remedy it but there's no point now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd say agree to a Wikipedia-wide 1RR on the matter as I've suggested thrice before. Its one thing to admit you are stubborn and expect better of other editors, but shouldn't other editors expect the same of you? Anyways, this is not my conflict, I've tried to help you and you still seem to be avoiding my suggestions including the RFPP for Tokusatsu articles. This is the fourth time that I've witnessed breaking 3RR within the month and its the same story as it was last time. I did not ask for your block the last time and it did not come to AN3, but I did state the situation and mention that you should be on 1RR at User_talk:Mark_Arsten. Frankly, I'd like to see you agree to it, because otherwise increasing block duration is likely the only thing to work to control it. Anyways, I'm out, this is not my battle, but I would like all of this edit warring across all these spaces with all these different editors to cease. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:DMB112 (Result:Blocked 14 days )
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1)  "Undid revision 586354947 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 586357032 by Ryulong (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 586357441 by Ryulong (talk)"

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   "/* December 2013 */"
 * 2)   "/* December 2013 */"

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Section_break

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

Comments:

I'm sorry if this report is broken. I am not sure on how to report this user. DMB112 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a retaliatory report to the one directly above this section and is an entirely malfomed copy of my report against him.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong & User:DMB112 reported by User:Above others (Result:Both blocked 14 days)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Ryulong
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)


 * 1)


 * 1)

DMB112


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

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

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

Comments:


 * Both were blocked earlier for 14 days. GB fan 22:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Artpop - volume 2 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User doesn't talk.

Comments: The user has been warned by another administrator, same article, just a couple of days ago. I tried to counsel the user about their edits at Matthew Perry, which is what makes me WP:INVOLVED, but that went over like a lead balloon. And perhaps the user's worst sin is using "gonna" in encyclopedia articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A couple of more things before I go off-wiki. The user twice violated copyright in the Perry article, even though I warned them after the first time. Also, another editor tried to counsel Artpop about the Beyoncé edits on Artpop's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

– 48 hours. Second report about Artpop warring on the same article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:98.142.251.120 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It goes to the objectivity of HTC's statements which is in dispute. By only show only HTC's view, the article isn't neutral. Also, some of the sources were not forums, but the forums and youtube sources prove extreme magnitude of issue."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Definite article and camera issue */"


 * Comments:

Edit warring poorly sourced content with multiple IPs (98.142.251.120, 98.142.249.141, 98.142.248.161), assuming to be the same user due to similar editing behaviour. Due to Twinkle's limitations, only one revert is listed (see history) ViperSnake151   Talk  06:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (semi, 4 days) since a rangeblock would be less than ideal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:72.219.246.53 reported by User:Jianhui67 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 586475168 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 586475072 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 586474989 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 586474925 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 586474855 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 586474664 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 586474496 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 586474413 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 586474277 by Denisarona (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 586473862 by Denisarona (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Virtualtyper reported by User:Goodsdrew (Result:Both users blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Virtualtyper has been engaged in confrontational behavior on a variety of articles dealing with Portugal and the Portuguese people. Three other users (including me) all agree that his removal of content from this article is inappropriate, yet he persists in reverting, and has reverted more than 3 times within 24 hours. I've attempted to discuss issues on the talk page, but the user has generally ignored my attempts. When he finally did respond, he removed one of MY comments on the talk page to make it look like I hadn't waited over a week (which I did) to allow time for discussion before making any change. See diff here:. When it comes down to it, the user justifies his contentious behavior because he finds various edits as being offensive to his Portuguese ethnicity (examples of such "offensive" edits are listing someone of mixed African and Portuguese ancestry as being Portuguese (see here: ) or including Jews from Portugal and Brazilians in an article about persons with Portuguese ancestry {see here: []). This user's behavior has to stop.Goodsdrew (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See also Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3.
 * You are also edit warring Goodsdrew. So I am going to block both accounts for 72 hours. -- John Reaves 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:AffeL reported by User:STATicVapor (Result: Blocked indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Discography */"
 * 2)  "/* Discography */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 586529737 by STATicVapor (talk)"
 * 4)  "/* Discography */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on R. Kelly. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Has made four reverts related to the same content (six in total) in less than an hour quickly and effectively violating WP:3RR.  STATic  message me!  19:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ThisIsaTest reported by User:Wbm1058 (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]

Comments:

This editor needs to be blocked by User:EdJohnston! Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * – Testing Wbm1058's new scheme for including permalinks in the block log, so you can identify which 3RR complaint led to the block. More explanation is at User talk:EdJohnston. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Niabot reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:Both blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 586555518 by Darkness Shines (talk) Article Vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 586552209 by Darkness Shines (talk) please refrain removing content without reasoning. "shitty image" is no reasoning."
 * 3)  "expanding history section, more to follow"
 * 4)  "addtion"
 * 5)  "expanding"
 * 6)  "expanding history section, more to follow"
 * 7)  Another, which also gives me another.
 * 8) And another, again this gives me one more also. While I belive I am exempted from 3RR on legal and child protection grounds I fully expect to be blocked if I am wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Futanari‎. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Futanari. (TW)"
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Futanari. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I myself have broken 3RR here, but I believe the image is lolicon, which are illegal under US law, and as such we cannot have them. I will also point out Niabot is a SPA, whose sole purpose on wiki is to promote this shite, the image in question was created and uploaded by him. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a previous consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive230#User:70.112.2.185_reported_by_User:Niabot_.28Result:_Protected.2Fblocked.29
 * All you did was going against that consensus with a first edit and this comment: "Remove shitty image". Great start to improve an article or to start a discussion? I guess not.
 * In the meantime i expanded the history section of the article which you removed as well. Nice work, I'm proud of you. We need more editors like that. -- ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼ 署名の宣言 22:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: You play the copycat nicely: -- ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼  署名の宣言 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You calling me a sock? What a fuckwit. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I never did. I just said that you jumped on the same train as the previously blocked sock holder, related to the same article and subject. -- ／人 ◕ ‿‿ ◕ 人＼ 署名の宣言 22:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Both user are blocked 31 hours. Darkness Shines for personal attacks at this page and Niabot for edit warring. -- John Reaves 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Even after the "Controversies" section in Thuppakki was accepted by the GA reviewer, he continues to condemn it and tries to eradicate it every time. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Diffs Please Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Two reverts in a day on different content isn't enough to warrant action. I advise that you discuss this on the article's talk page. Warn then properly re-report if it continues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:‎Tobyepic reported by User:Antoshi (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

 Comments:  This isn't really an edit war as much as it's a revert war. Tobyepic posted a rather poorly-written chunk of text with WP:NPOV and WP:YOU problems and is insistent on keeping it on the article. Antoshi ☏ ★  17:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:24.14.141.232 reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:GeoJoe1000 reported by User:Tvx1 (Result:Already Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1)  "→‎Signed teams and drivers:  I have a source from SAUBER that says Sirotkin is not their second driver yet. Sauber trumps all other sources on their own drivers. There is no more consensus on Sirotkin."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 586202655 by Tvx1 (talk) There is no consensus for that either."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 586265813 by Tvx1 (talk) It's December. You have no right to claim a consensus."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:2014_Formula_One_season
 * 

The user reverted the article three times within 24 hours despite an ongoing discussion on the talk page which has not reached its conclusion yet. The page is now under full protection.
 * Comments:
 * If the article is protected, there is no reason to block anybody. -- John Reaves 20:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But the user has still broken a wikipedia rule. And the protection of that particular page does not prevent the user to edit any other page he wishes and display the same behavior again. Tvx1 (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Editting blocks are not an automatic penalty. You filed this 3R report less than three hours after GeoJoe1000 received a clearly worded warning about the consequences of 3R behavior. You should not assume there will be continued bad faith editting after receiving such a warning with such a short lead time. As you are the editor most directly involved in edit warring with GeoJoe1000 (having reverted two of the three edits) it would have been better if someone else had made this report. Please do not make this dispute personal with each other. --Falcadore (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no intention to make this personal by any means. I filed the report because no one else bothered to do it. Additionally I wasn't aware of the warning on his talk page until after I filed this report when I went to his talk page to post the mandatory notice on there. Tvx1 (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I learned my lesson. Do not worry about me doing this again. I know it will only go nowhere. GeoJoe1000 (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky reported by User:Lvivske (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: December 4

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Background:
 * 1) September 25 vs. User:Iryna Harpy (undoing requests for citation)
 * 2) September 25 vs. User:Iryna Harpy (undoing requests for citation)


 * 1) September 27 vs. User:Iryna Harpy (undoing requests for citation)


 * 1) December 14 vs. me (undoing requests for citation & grammar corrections)
 * 2) December 15 vs. me (removing 'unreferenced section template, "No single idea what you mean with your objections. Are you familiar with the Russian language anyway? Please explain on the discussion page!")


 * 3RR:
 * 1) December 17, 12:41 vs. me (complete revert, including inline tags and req for citations / OR, "Reverted complete destruction and distortion of the content. Please describe all your objection on the talk page first.")
 * 2) December 17, 14:43 vs. me (complete revert, "Lvivske practices WP:Disruptive editing by removing lots of my sources.")
 * 3) December 17, 15:54 vs. User:Volunteer Marek, ("My sources were removed first.")
 * 4) December 18, 9:03 vs me (revert/ section blanking, rev requests for citation, clarification, "This is not representative")
 * 5) December 18, 9:37 vs. User:Iryna Harpy (rv requests for citation, section blanking clearly marked with 'disputed' tag, "See discussion!")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: disruptive editing warning not to revert / WP:OWN Dec 17, 14:43

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk Entire talk page is ongoing discussion of points he was reverting, including content requesting citation and content I tagged as under ongoing dispute. He doesn't care that things need to be handled via consensus or collaboration. This is textbook "discuss with me, and if I approve it, I will allow you to edit" mentality.

Comments:

I think when you request citations under WP:V and get responses like "Iryna, I start to lose my patience towards you. You are vandalizing the article with a flood of requests most of which are absurd and trivial. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Harassment and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing." which include spurious accusations of bad faith (harassment/disruptive), and "A perfect method to annoy your opponent. Throughout Wikipedia, there is no such rule that every single statement has to be sourced." we are walking into an issue. The diffs show that there was an ongoing ownership of the article against at least one other editor back in September, and then again on the 14th/15th. On the 17-18th there are 5 reverts against 3 editors (including myself). Virtually all reverts have to do with removing requests for citation or verification (ALL sources of his are in Russian) but also grammar edits and other small maintenance work gets reverted as well. There is also a lack of understanding and respect for consensus ("your situative numerical superiority doesn't replace arguments and doesn't camouflage that you avoid clear answers.").

After I warned him, his response was "Don't blame me of your own practice. It's you who removes large text sections, including lot of serious sources. If you want to add something, do it in a correct way, combining the content." The accusation that I "removed large text sections, including serious sources" was repeated on an admins talk page - but this never happened and failing to assume bad faith, I have no idea why he would accuse me of this other than as a smokescreen to onlookers of what was actually going on.

Regarding WP:OWNership, there is something to be said about one who leaves 'in use' templates up indefinitely. In the case of the page in dispute, one was left for hours after he had finished editing.

He has been made aware of the Eastern European discretionary sanctions and was already blocked twice, on the 28th, and 29th and doesn't appear to want to play by the rules, if I can be frank. --Львівське (говорити) 16:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, how much time did you spend collecting all this? Historical facts that I described in my articles must be extremely inconvinient to cause such an anger, hysteria and mobbing. I would like to draw the attention of the administrators that my edits were always accompanied by arguments on the talk page, something that can't always be said about my opponents. Also the diffs that Lvivske presented here show different non-identical reverts. I hope, it is obvious that the motivation of Lvivske to do all this here is strong political dislike. --Shervinsky (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.--Львівське (говорити) 01:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Shervinsky clearly violated WP:3RR. Lvivske stopped just short of doing so, which is why I didn't block them as well, although they should be careful. Another factor that played into my decision not to block Lvivske for general edit warring was that other editors were also reverting Shervinsky's edits. The length of the block is because of the editor's unfortunate history of edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Master Troll Rocks reported by User:DVdm (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: through edit summaries

Comments:


 * Favonian (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

User:ChocolatyBoy reported by User:Ctg4Rahat (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours for vandalism. Inserting factual errors about the number of casualties and adding garbled opinion to the article. What are [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=586816393 "Dead Revokoning Memories Of Bangladesh War"]? If this continues, an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, is what he meant. However Bose is the only person who says that only 45k were taken as POWs, she is very fringe. All other sources say 90k POWs from East Pakistan following the surrender. The guy also went to the talk page and did not go over 3RR. Could you lift the block please and just leave a warning. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If they acknowledge the problem on their talk page and offer to edit differently in the future they might be unblocked. WP:Competence is required. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:65.95.122.31 reported by User:Bill william compton (Result: stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I would have discussed the matter on the talk page but this IP seems to have already made up their mind that "[E]nglish people do not want to accept their responsibilities [during the British Raj]". Their edits clearly violate neutral point of view policy. undefined — Bill william compton Talk   16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . I agree the edits are disruptive but speculation about the outcome of a discussion is no reason not to attempt it. Also, with your experience at Wikipedia, you would think that you would notice that your report here is malformed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for any kind of action to be taken against the IP, but rather an involvement of other user who could help them understand. Maybe, I haven't chosen the right platform. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   05:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Desildorf reported by User:212.186.170.67 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

212.186.170.67 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Note - f.w.i.w. I have inserted a section header for this obviously malformed entry. - DVdm (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been reported for persistently removing the following reference

"The American Temperament Test Society conducts tests every year on thousands of dogs to determine the soundness of their temperament. These tests measure various aspects of temperament such as aggressiveness, friendliness, stability, as well as the dog’s protectiveness toward its owner. ATTS breed statistics show that American Staffordshire Terriers consistently score above average for all breeds tested."

From the ATTS description of there test " Aggression here is checked against the breed standard and the dog’s training. A schutzhund trained dog lunging at the stranger is allowed, but if an untrained Siberian husky does the same, it may fail." .

As I'm sure you can see comparing between breeds is absolutely misleading as each breed is held to a different standard. The current article has gone through inconclusive dispute resolution that has not addressed this issue.

Thank you.
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:New.era.player reported by User:Airborne84 (Result: blocked for 36 hours)
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:

The article version before a significant POV article change by New.era.player was the result of long discussions and consensus (see lengthy discussions on article talk page). User New.Era.Player made Bold changes, which I reverted to the consensus version and invited discussion on the talk page IAW WP:BRD. Response was to revert back to non-consensus version. I reverted again and warned the user, and the response was simply to re-revert. I decided to not get into an edit war and report here at that point. Another user NiteShift is trying to make a non-related edit which is not related to the consensus material. Thanks for your attention. Airborne84 (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Added note: there is a FAQ on the talk page which more concisely illustrates the existing consensus. I don't think New.era.player has visited the talk page or the FAQ, but it may be useful for an admin. Airborne84 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * - normally I would not block with so few reverts; but their comments attached to the reverts, as well as their comments on subsequent formatting cleanups, makes clear that they have no interest in discussion and were displaying ownership and edit warring behavior. Hopefully the block will get their attention so that they will choose to discuss their concerns with the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ripanm reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: This editor is edit-warring across multiple articles to change references to the "Penn State child abuse sex scandal" to the "Jerry Sandusky child abuse sex scandal." Several editors have reverted his or her edits and placed warnings on his or her talk page to no avail. This issue has been discussed extensively in the Talk page of the main article; he or she is welcome to raise the issue again or contribute new information but edit warring against consensus to force the issue is unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've notified Ripanm that their conduct is being discussed here.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I overlooked that (although I'm puzzled that we still require this with the new notification system). I apologize, Ripanm. ElKevbo (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User did not notify me of this report. I received one warning after this report from an outside source. I will let name change go, but ElKevbo is removing information I have added that is pertinent to the article. Ripanm (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You were warned before your most recent edit by me, and you were warned as an IP about your edits at Graham Spanier, which have continued with this account.   Acroterion   (talk)   05:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Didn't see the warning from the IP -- I've been signed in since then. My most recent edit had information from hours' worth of work added into it. If you want me to change the name back, fine, but the information belongs there. Ripanm (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:EDITWAR: you don't get to edit-war against consensus just because you think you're right, Several editors have expressed concern about your edits. You need to be willing to convince other editors that you're right, not to try to force your preferred version. This noticeboard is for discussion of editor conduct, not for content debate: please use the article talkpage to make your case for content.  Acroterion   (talk)   05:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

The complaints are about changing the name & that is the only concern. Case in point -- the only edits I made on Graham Spanier that were reverted back is the name "Penn State child sex abuse scandal". Ripanm (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BigGameFish reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Long story short, yesterday I saw a review for an interesting film and decided to write an article about it. Shortly after it was created, User:BigGameFish created their account and began making a series of selective edits, all of which were to change the tone of the article to be more positive. His edits were reverted by several editors. Right now what he's doing is trying to add the official movie synopsis to the article, which I've tried to explain to him is copyvio from IMDb. I've asked him to re-write it or fill out a full synopsis. I did ask him if he had a COI, as his edits seemed promotional in nature, which he has denied. The reason I mention that is because BigGameFish has accused me of editing with bad intent here and on the article's edit summary. He's also accused me of being part of a group that is apparently bashing the film. Needless to say, I am not. I'm reporting him because BigGameFish does not seem to have any intent on workign with anyone. He's accused me of skewing the reception, as there are apparently more positive reviews than negative. I've asked him to supply these reviews and explained that not all reviews are usable per our WP:RS policy. He hasn't done that and his behaviors seem to be escalating. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

As stated before the film in question has gotten overwhelmingly positive reviews, 8 out of 10 critics gave it positive reviews on IMDB, 2 our of 3 on Rotten Tomatoes, and 13 out of 16 overall. Tokyogirl admits to not seeing the film and has filled the page with inaccurate information that she has shown a very clear intent of keeping inaccurate. The post is skewed to make the film's reception look much worse than it is, there is nothing mixed about 13 positive to 3 negative reviews. 92% fan response on Rotten Tomatoes. She put in marketing and plot details that are not true. I her section on film reception she picks 2 out of the 3 negative reviews to showcase while pulling an out of context statement from the worst positive review. I have been a supporter of the project for years and have seen people as herself try to discredit the film as it has angered a lot of media outlets because the production fooled them into thinking the film was real. It is clear as day as to what she is doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGameFish (talk • contribs) 08:26, 20 December 2013‎
 * I'm reporting on the sources we can count as usable per WP:RS. The problem with the sources (I left a bigger explanation on the talk page) is that many of them are things such as the user ratings on IMDb and non-critic ratings on RT. We can't use those. Some of the sources added were blogs and the one source that might be usable (HorrorMovies.ca) is somewhat dodgy because we can't verify that it was a random review added or one by a staff member or at least edited and vetted by a staff member. If you can show proof for that, please do so. I also would like to add that accusing the negative reviews of being negative because they were duped is original research (WP:OR). We can't assume that they were negative because of that. Unless you have proof of that, you can't automatically say that they were because of that. We can't even say definitely that they were duped, as many outlets just report things verbatim as they receive them. A reporter reporting on something doesn't mean that the reporter believes something or shares a sentiment. That also falls into original research territory. The problem with stuff like that is because someone from one of those websites could turn around and sue the bejeebers out of us or at least make our life pretty miserable. I've seen it happen. Like I said on the talk page, if we were to have something along the lines of Jason Cole saying that the negative reviews were a result of them being unhappy over being fooled then we can use that as a response and include that. Otherwise it's OR and we can't use it. And again, I am not affiliated with any of the websites in any way, shape, or form. I have no reason to have edited the article to be positive or negative. Also, at no point does the article say that the reception is negative. I said that it was mixed and it is mixed. Even the more positive reviews still have a lot of criticisms about the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've edited this to show the user's remarks and my response. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Tokyo2001 reported by User:Nug (Result: Blocked 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 11:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 12:14, 18 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586620591 by H2ppyme (talk)")
 * 2) 12:28, 18 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586629934 by Sander Säde (talk)")
 * 3) 08:06, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586744664 by Lipik (talk)")
 * 4) 14:08, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586761866 by Jaan (talk)")
 * 5) 15:07, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586790313 by Lipik (talk)")

Page:
 * 1) 12:14, 18 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586620568 by H2ppyme (talk)")
 * 2) 12:28, 18 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586629891 by Sander Säde (talk)")
 * 3) 08:07, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586744663 by Lipik (talk)")
 * 4) 14:10, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586765062 by Lipik (talk)")
 * 5) 15:06, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586790319 by Lipik (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:

Tokyo2001 has already been blocked twice for 72 hours for edit warring these same articles, in fact looking at his history he appears to be an SPA. --Nug (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Saltlakecityjazz reported by User:Gagnon88 (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on Significant Other. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Nookie (song). (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Significant Other. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This user account seems to exist for the sole purpose of introducing genre changes to heavy metal articles, especially Limp Bizkit related articles. I have given at least 2 warnings to the user on his talk page, and he was warned by another editor. I understand that the three revert rule has not been violated yet, but he has already introduced genre changes twice to several articles without taking the issue to talk (for instance Limp Bizkit, Significant Other and Nookie (song) ) and ignored every warning. Gagnon88 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not an edit warring issue per se, I suggest WP:ANI as a better venue. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The editor seems to have stopped for the moment, I will let it go for a while. Gagnon88 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:189.30.251.78 reported by Josh3580 talk/hist (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 17:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 17:07, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586973753 by DrKiernan (talk)")
 * 2) 17:08, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586972732 by DrKiernan (talk)")
 * 3) 17:33, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586979838 by DrKiernan (talk)")
 * 4) 17:35, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586980279 by DrKiernan (talk)")
 * 5) 17:38, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586980539 by DrKiernan (talk)")
 * 6) 17:48, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586981130 by DrKiernan (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Josh3580 talk/hist 17:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Phailin1 reported by User:Ryūkotsusei (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:


 * User being reported:

Template:Metal Gear:  
 * Previous version reverted to by others:

Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game): 


 * Comments:

Refusal to read guidelines Multiple warnings given. which only results in this behavior. Along with pointy edits.,   « Ryūkotsusei »  19:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * indefinitely for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Wikidwarf123 reported by User:69.183.117.173 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Many

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 talk page:

Comments:


 * Wikidwarf123, Rickyarconti, and 70.41.77.165 (sockpuppets? Keith Neubert's agent?) have repeatedly removed reliably sourced information (chiefly birth place and birthdate) because "out of respect for Keith, this is more information than Mr. Neubert would like on this page" and "He would not want that up on the page". All have been warned on their talk pages. 69.183.117.173 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You may wish to report to WP:COIN though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Markedwalla reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Semi-protected)
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:

Comments:

I'm reporting this along with a SPI here, as I believe that this is a sockpuppet of a user (User:BigGameFish) that was blocked yesterday for edit warring. Long story short, yesterday BigGameFish came onto the page to make selective edits to the page to re-add copyvio and to change the review section to make the reviews almost entirely positive. I explained the issue with sourcing from blogs and whatnot. Today two new users have come on and edited the page in a similar fashion, trying to change to a more positive review section. One user in particular (User:Markedwalla) is currently doing the edit warring, although User:BuckeyeSteve22 is editing in a similar fashion. The edit summary shows similar personal attacks against me. Part of the issue is that they want to quote one review from AICN as entirely positive when it wasn't, and they claimed that the words I used weren't in the review and they were. I tried to compromise by changing the review comment somewhat, but they're still edit warring.


 * Plus users blocked as sockpuppets. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sajjad Altaf reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:
 * ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ItsZippy It was an edit warring report not a specific 3RR violation report. -- S M S   Talk 17:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:76.69.116.46 reported by BlueMoonset (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 14:50, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586076157 by BlueMoonset (talk)")
 * 2) 17:03, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587111181 by Discospinster (talk)")
 * 3) 18:09, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587115477 by BlueMoonset (talk)")
 * 4) 18:11, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587115477 by BlueMoonset (talk)")
 * 5) 19:25, 21 December 2013  (no edit summary given)


 * Diff of warning: here

Comments:
 * This user, under this and several other IPs, has been attempting to add this Care Bears info—along with incorrect director and writer names—to this article and others, since early November. (November 9: 174.91.129.253; November 15 and 18: 174.95.201.175; December 7: 184.148.91.202; and now December 21: 76.69.116.46).


 * The same sorts of vandalism are being made on related articles, this time including Glee (season 5), Russel Friend, and The Care Bears' Big Wish Movie.

—BlueMoonset (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Ajh1492 reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned today for OR violations

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (explanation why the user's edits are OR and unacceptable); warning the user concerned for OR violations  (to no avail)

Comments:

Whilst not formally violating the 3 RR yet, endlessly edit warring on an article to introduce his original research/synthesis that this is somehow a 'progressive conservative party. I've explained numerous times that he would need RS for such a description, as the scarce Western sources available describe the party as hardcore conservative, even far-right. The very user who is now engaging in blatant OR POV pushing, removed such sources from the article a couple of days ago by edit warring,. This is a patent case of edit warring to push a particular POV into an article with ZERO sources supporting that view. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC) Another, related issue I resent is that just a day after I first had a dispute with that user, he/she started to follow my edits and revert me. This constitutes stalking and harassment. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Estlandia reported by User:Ajh1492 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Prior actions on the same article:
 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Prior attempt at resolving the dispute in the article talk page:

Comments:

User:Estlandia has been conducting an edit war on the United Poland article twice over the last 4-5 days. Myself and a number of other editors have been attempting to resolve the issues, but Estlandia keeps pushing a POV opinion using unreliable opinion page sources. Uncivil and snide edit comments are given on his edits. Looking for Admin intervention please. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See the section on the very user concerned above . Whilst performing 3 reverts today, they were all removals of OR/SYNTH and as such lamentable but justified, given that the user concerned did not respond to warnings concerning posting OR into articles. See my explanation above. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not OR when one is merely linking to another EN:WP article (and a source) that describes the rest of the paragraph. The rest of the paragraph was originally written by another editor. Estlandia has been conducting an ongoing edit war on this article even while two other uninvolved editors were helping to try and engage with Estlandia. The above referenced ANI is merely a nuisance brought up by Estlandia to cover for his own edit warring. Estlandia is also leaving non-constructive edit comments such as: They're a bit over the top. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) @ Ajh1492 - removing sourced stuff and replacing it with unsourced propaganda? Very constructive indeed!)
 * 2) Stop adding unsourced agitprop!
 * 3) General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on United Poland.
 * 4) Rv absurd edit. a 2000 (!!!) source for a party founded in 2012? .
 * 5) would like to see a source for that, though credible. some of the items like ban on pornography gave me good laugh to be honest :D
 * 6) please stop unjustified removals. taking an english course instead of wasting your time on edit warring might be an idea to consider, too


 * As far as edit summaries are concerned, well, if you don't like to be opposed for OR pushing, then do not insert OR ad nauseam into articles. And adding a 2000 'source' when prompted to end a OR crusade for a party created in 2012 (!!!) is a way over the top, too, wouldn't you agree?Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Estlandia is also conducting another low-level edit war on BLP article Anna Sobecka. An ANI:BLP has been raised here. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The two other editors attempting to resolve the discussion on United Poland are Lvivske and Volunteer Marek. Talk page discussion is available here. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Barney the barney barney (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Article is under 1RR sanction. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: at talk:Rupert Sheldrake. There is a persistent attempt by various editors on the talk page to subvert WP:FRINGE on this article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I saw this was under 1RR protection after my second revert, but even so BLP explicitly allows such reverting in this sort of case. The statement in question is being supported by a book by Sheldrake where he does not say this and a book that makes no mention of Sheldrake. Per BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." Such removals are explicitly exempt from the policies on edit-warring. When an editor on the talk page noted the sources did not support this statement I noted this as the basis for removal and called on the editor to provide sources. Barney reverted with a completely meaningless edit summary that did not address the lack of sourced support for the statement and my second revert reiterated the lack of sourcing for the statement.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * has explained why. I agree we need to use language carefully.  What you suggest isn't particularly careful. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Josh's explanation is a classic case of interpreting a primary source in a manner that constitutes original research. Josh is personally saying that these things are facts and thus Sheldrake questioning them means it can be said that Sheldrake is questioning facts, even if this is not said in the source itself. The source, mind you, is Sheldrake's own book so this is reinterpreting Sheldrake's words the way Josh wants and then using that reinterpretation against Sheldrake.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's plain daft. Sheldrake doesn't say "I think others should question the law of conservation of energy", he says "I question the law of conservation of energy".  Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is disputing that he questions or advocates questioning it and that part of the material was kept as anyone can plainly see. The issue is describing these things as "facts" as a way of saying "he is questioning the facts" and that is not supported by the source. When saying someone is "questioning facts" you are essentially accusing that person of denying reality. Using his own book, where he does not say this, to make this accusation is contrary to BLP.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well some people say some remarkably stupid things. The fact that he said this remarkably stupid thing doesn't mean we all have to pretend that he didn't say it because we don't like WP:FRINGE.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue, again, is not the article saying he questions conservation of energy and the impossibility of perpetual motion devices. He clearly does question those things in the book. Where we have a problem is inserting that he is "questioning facts" by doing this, because he does not characterize himself as questioning facts nor is a source provided that does say he is questioning facts. Sheldrake clearly describes himself as someone who is questioning long-standing scientific principles, but that is not the same thing. In fact, that seems like a decent middle-ground description.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well this seems difficult for you to grasp, but just because Sheldrake doesn't call it a fact, doesn't mean it's not a fact.  Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that it is not up for editors to interpret what he said based on their own ideas, but should be based on what reliable sources say about his views. No reliable source was provided that made this claim.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Complaint
So, where to begin... I wrote this article Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer on February 5, 2012 and decided to come back to it today just to discover that all my subsections were removed without explanation. I asked him on his talkpage to explain me the reason behind it with his reply was Standard. So, I went back and reinstated it but I brought him two arguments (which were legit), , and on that he responded with complete removal of the plot (which constitutes vandalism) and wrote this:  Currently I reinstated it with an under construction tag as my copy editor is on a break. As that wasn't enough, he did the same with Art of Murder: Cards of Destiny But I afraid that he might remove the plot line again before anyone will copy edit it. I request a solution to the problem!--Mishae (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you mean by "my copy editor?" Are you associated with the game in any way? JodyBtalk 20:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with removing almost all of the "plot" section. It's ridiculously long and goes into a totally inappropriate level of detail. Your preferred version of Art of Murder: Hunt for the Puppeteer has a plot summary section of 3000 words (!) - for comparison, the "plot" sections of Citizen Kane, To Kill a Mockingbird and Hamlet run to 560, 580 and 1300 words respectively. Mogism (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. User Ironholds, a member of this project, have agreed to help me with copy editing but is on a break right now. Sorry for any confusion. As far as long plot, why anyone should remove it if it summarizes the article? If is too long, do some copy editing. I don't know how to do it, but removing the entire plot is, in fact, vandalism. Its as if I will remove the plot from say any of the James Bond films and put plot expansion tag instead!--Mishae (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Fuck me Bb, learn to use a comma mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is this whatever it is on this noticeboard?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No need for a comma, DS; they're overused, especially at Wikipedia. I'm surprised you didn't use a comma before Bb and another comma after comma. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess because the OP is accusing the rest of Wikipedia of edit-warring with him to enforce WP:PLOTSUMMARIZE. Sure, it's the wrong venue for a debate on the merits of extended plot descriptions, but it seems to me this is a situation where it's easier to explain why "someone keeps reverting my edits" isn't a synonym for "edit warring", than to direct him to have the exact same discussion somewhere else. (If "User Ironholds, a member of this project" gives any advice other than to quit making spurious accusations of edit-warring when people tell you how to write correctly, I'll be shocked.) Mogism (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd rather it be somewhere else. I would've tossed it out had it not been for Jody's and your responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I could post it on vandalism section then if its nothing to do with edit wars, considering the vandalic actions from his side.--Mishae (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh my, too late, you already posted at AIV. You were told to take it to WP:ANI (contrary to your response there, that's not this board). I haven't looked at the merits of any of this, but my guess is you won't do well at any administrative noticeboard. After over 50,000 edits at Wikipedia, how can you possibly think that what you're reporting is vandalism? Don't you even glance at the noticeboard instructions before launching into a report? I'm shutting this down here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:76.64.17.49 and User:62.200.73.61 reported by Armbrust The Homunculus (Result: both blocked 24 hours)
Page:

Users being reported: and

Time reported: 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Edits by 76.64.17.49
 * 1) 21:03, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587141737 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 2) 21:05, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142091 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 3) 21:07, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142335 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 4) 21:10, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142657 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 5) 21:14, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143130 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 6) 21:16, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143433 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 7) 21:18, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143657 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 8) 21:22, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143904 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 9) 21:24, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144134 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 10) 21:26, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144340 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 11) 21:27, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144589 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 12) 21:29, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144805 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 13) 21:34, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145072 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 14) 21:35, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145522 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 15) 21:38, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145784 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 16) 21:41, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145981 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 17) 21:43, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146433 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 18) 21:45, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146691 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 19) 21:50, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146993 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")
 * 20) 22:08, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "/* 1913–present */")
 * 21) 22:12, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "/* 1913–present */")
 * 22) 22:14, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587149774 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)")


 * Edits by 62.200.73.61
 * 1) 21:05, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587141859 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 2) 21:07, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142173 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 3) 21:09, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587142394 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 4) 21:13, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 5) 21:16, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143252 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 6) 21:18, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143480 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 7) 21:20, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587143705 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 8) 21:22, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144080 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 9) 21:24, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144302 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 10) 21:26, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144496 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 11) 21:28, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144673 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 12) 21:30, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587144945 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 13) 21:35, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145411 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 14) 21:37, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145586 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 15) 21:39, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587145892 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 16) 21:42, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146241 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 17) 21:45, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146498 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 18) 21:47, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587146753 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 19) 21:53, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587147275 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 20) 22:12, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "")
 * 21) 22:16, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587149885 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)")
 * 22) 22:18, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587150174 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)")
 * 23) 22:19, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587150443 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)")
 * 24) 22:21, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587150616 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here and here

—Armbrust The Homunculus 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Kuru   (talk)  22:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:71.135.109.84 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "It is incorrect (and very confusing) to refer to the GNU operating system by the name of one of its kernels.  Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.  Calling it GNU/Linux is already a compromise."
 * 2)  "Regardless of "consensus," it is inappropriate to refer to the operating system as "Linux", especially the GIMP, of all programs.  GIMP is named after the GNU operating system, not after the kernel."
 * 1)  "It is incorrect (and very confusing) to refer to the GNU operating system by the name of one of its kernels.  Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.  Calling it GNU/Linux is already a compromise."
 * 2)  "Regardless of "consensus," it is inappropriate to refer to the operating system as "Linux", especially the GIMP, of all programs.  GIMP is named after the GNU operating system, not after the kernel."
 * 1)  "It is incorrect (and very confusing) to refer to the GNU operating system by the name of one of its kernels.  Linux is a kernel, not an operating system.  Calling it GNU/Linux is already a compromise."
 * 2)  "Regardless of "consensus," it is inappropriate to refer to the operating system as "Linux", especially the GIMP, of all programs.  GIMP is named after the GNU operating system, not after the kernel."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on GIMP. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Please see talk page for resolution initiatives Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Straight forward 3RR, was warned before last revert. Kuru   (talk)  22:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Thargor Orlando reported by CartoonDiablo (talk) (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 15:14, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 586600980 by VictorD7 (talk): Discussion is available at talk for those interested in defending their inclusion. (TW)")
 * 2) 13:35, 20 December 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 586797891 by Thargor Orlando: Restoring consensus version of article that has stood for nearly a year, removing ELs yet again due to policy and talk. (TW)")
 * 3) 19:51, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 586947691 by Thargor Orlando (talk): Rv.  No consensus for any of these additions.  Take it to talk, WP:BRD, etc. (TW)")
 * 4) 23:18, 21 December 2013  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 587133627 by Thargor Orlando: Go to talk and explain why these need to be added.  And stop with the tables, you haven't had consensus for almost a year for that. (TW)")

—CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

Large wanton removal of content despite objections from me and other editors. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not wanton removal at all. It's the WP:BRD process not being respected. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then why are multiple editors telling you that it is your removal that is violating BRD? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean reverting my initial removal is. Regardless, I'm not having a content discussion here.  Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:62.200.73.61 reported by User:Dreth (Result: blocked per report above)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 587151121 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 587150838 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 587150616 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 587150443 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 587150174 by Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 587149885 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 587147275 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 587146753 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 9)  "Undid revision 587146498 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 587146241 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 587145892 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 587145586 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 587145411 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 587144945 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 587144673 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 16)  "Undid revision 587144496 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 17)  "Undid revision 587144302 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 18)  "Undid revision 587144080 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 19)  "Undid revision 587143705 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 20)  "Undid revision 587143480 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 21)  "Undid revision 587143252 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 22)  "Undid revision 587142394 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 23)  "Undid revision 587142173 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"
 * 24)  "Undid revision 587141859 by 76.64.17.49 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Silver Wolf Voki reported by User:Surfer43 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 587011360 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 587014602 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 587015359 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 587018581 by 108.82.5.224 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 587162364 by DemocraticLuntz (talk)"
 * 6)  "Fuck you"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * He has moved on to vandalism and insults, see WP:AIV. Bluefist  talk  04:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * indefinitely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)