Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive231

23.241.10.115 reported by User:Zero0000 (Result: Blocked)
Page: (and others)

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   06:08, 22 December 2013
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  11:02, 22 December 2013

I.e., four identical reverts within 5 hours

In addition, I wish to highlight this editors offensive tone:
 * 1) "Reversing censorship by Islamic supremacist idiot"
 * 2) "Reverted vandalism and defamation by Islamic supremacist idiot"
 * 3) "rv Islamic supremacist disruption and censorship of facts due to Islamic anti-Semitic bigotry"
 * 4) "typical idiotic Wikipedia dumbass with Aspergers reverting as vandalism something he does not understand"
 * 5) "fuck off"

The last was its response to a polite request to stop attacking editors.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This editor seems to have no redeeming features at all. Suggest indef. Zerotalk 14:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . IPs should almost never be indeffed; some believe there are no circumstances in which an IP should be indeffed. This IP is editing from a confirmed proxy server, but not apparently from an open proxy. They have been editing since the beginning of this month, which is why I chose a month as the duration. I agree that the edits are completely disruptive. A longer block would be warranted if they return and edit in the same vein.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Batmansexy reported by User:XXN (Result:Blocked for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Just look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shagrath&curid=2120997&action=history
 * At least 7-8 reverts, by mine and other users, to Batmansexy's vandalism acts. He also reverted our actions.

I notificated few times Batmansexy to stop doing this, but he continue to do "his job". This is a cross-wiki vandalism. On ro.wiki he was blocked 2 times (for 1 day, and for 1 week). I reported user at metawiki, but they haven't undertook any action, no response. XXN (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Cryx88 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Mormons are not Christians"
 * 2)  "Mormons could not be characterised as Christians, mormons can't be named under no circumstances as a Christian denomination, its a mistake to call Mormons as Christians"
 * 3)  "Mormons are not Christians"
 * 1)  "Mormons are not Christians"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

and 3 months ago at User talk:Cryx88 Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Religion in South Africa
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Gsfelipe94 reported by User:The C of E (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Gsfelipe94 has been continuously reverting the number of substitutes on 2013 FIFA Club World Cup Final. I did point out to him that he was breaking the 3RR rule though he appeared to be unaware of it. I wasn't going to report him because of his inexperience but the fact he later reverted again which led to me filing this report.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 12:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I shared my opinion on the talk page and there were people that agreed at first. I reverted 2 edits before, yes. I wasn't aware of that rule and then I followed the procedure used for international tournaments, without reverting the edit. I added new info and then uploaded like that, while we were still discussing. I don't see an edit war here as it is still a discussion. I believe this report was something 100% rushed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It is considered a revert even if you dont hit revert-button but keeps inserting the same material and doing this after a warning should result in a block. QED 237   (talk)  16:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has some interest behind it. I'm sure it would please you to see me blocked. Therefore, I see that we were still discussing the subject and I was following standard procedures. When I didn't do that in other situations, this guy over here complained like the world was ending and know he does the opposite of what I was doing. It's interesting. Well, I believe that we should keep it as a learning experience and I'm sure every part - and that includes everyone that gets involved later - will try to discuss it completely before moving the page from updates to updates. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ., you violated WP:3RR. It was pointed out to you before you did it. Your discussion here and on the article talk page is not optimal. Nonetheless, I'm letting you off with a warning because you haven't restored your version of the article, a fair amount of time has elapsed, and you profess not to understand the policy. I suggest you read the policy carefully. If you edit-war again, even if you don't breach WP:3RR, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer reported by User:Mallexikon (Result: no violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Incivility by Brangifer (profanity; accusations of vandalism):

--Mallexikon (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been no crossing of the 3RR bright line, and no profanity here. This is the second complaint needing WP:Boomerang treatment in the last few days from this user. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, hold on. Since when is "You've got to be f****g kidding!" no profanity? Since when is accusation of vandalism regarding a good faith edit acceptable? Why is Brangifers pattern of trying to intimidate other editors (like User:Herbxue at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine quite recently ) acceptable?
 * And why is Roxy, who is usually applauding Brangifer (like here), the first to comment on this 3RR report, just as he was the first to comment on my recent AN/I report? And why was he so successful in preventing any feedback on that AN/I report? --Mallexikon (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm the first to comment because of good fortune, and as regards preventing any feedback on that AN/I report, I'm not so vain as to think that I had anything to do with it at all. The reason was probably something to do with the unjustified complaint in the first place, much like this one.  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This board only deals with editwarring, and your report should not have been made as the editor had only made 3 reverts before you warned him and then stopped. Note that it isn't warn and report, it's warn, if the editor makes another editor then report, even if the warning was after 4 or more reverts unless of course the editor clearly knows about 3RR. As for the rest of your complaints, ANI is as you should know the venue for them, although you won't get an editor blocked for simple profanity. Roxy has no power to prevent feedback, and you had feedback after Roxy posted from 2 other editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised? I have to leave home for a few hours and come back to find this bogus report. Sheesh! There's some serious deception going on here. Mallexikon stated on the article talk page that they were going to delete a whole list of properly sourced content (even their edit summary noted that when they did it!). I noticed that comment about 8 minutes later and wrote a response, which took a few minutes. In the mean time, only one minute after they made the statement, they actually did it! That takes gall. We know that making any potentially controversial edit, especially deleting large amounts of properly sourced and very old content, should be discussed very thoroughly first.

I immediately reverted them with a BRD warning. They didn't heed the warning and continued to delete. (That's edit warring.) I then restored the status quo version with another warning and also warned them on their talk page. To clearly label the section, I did use the words Edit warring/vandalism in my heading to catch Mallexikon's attention. They asked me: "Are you accusing me of vandalism?" I replied that I was not (yet they then lie above, knowing my answer): "Only if you continue. Then it would be vandalism and edit warring. Anyone who saw such an edit would be justified in thinking it was vandalism, but I know your thinking and had seen your comment, so I knew your intention was not to vandalize, even if the effect was the same. It's also a question of motive, which is why I AGF (see my first comment above)."

We have a clear case of deception, lack of competence, and fringe POV pushing. The lack of competence in this case is fourfold:
 * 1) failure to understand when to report edit warring;
 * 2) gaming the system by doing it;
 * 3) failure to follow BRD after being warned;
 * 4) misuse and failure to understand MEDRS by seeking to apply MEDRS to content which is not covered by MEDRS at Acupuncture, and failing to apply it properly to content that is covered at German acupuncture trials. This is a fringe POV pusher's very selective misuse of MEDRS to seek to delete mainstream, skeptical, opposing POV from Acupuncture, and to include primary scientific research (a violation of MEDRS) which seems to weakly support acupuncture (a fringe POV) in the German acupuncture trials article.

Boomerang does apply here, and with consequences. Mallexikon is no longer new here and knows better. They are obviously here to push a fringe POV, delete or water down properly sourced mainstream POV, and do it deceptively. This editor needs to be sanctioned and topic banned from all alternative medicine topics. They are WP:NOTHERE. This has been going on for far too long. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BR I think you go way too far here. Mallexikon is a responsible editor.Herbxue (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And this new discussion belongs elsewhere, maybe ANI or AN. Having it here really won't have any effect. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 587241084 by Richard BB (talk) "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is ""
 * 2)  "Undid revision 587235312 by Richard BB (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 587207388 by Emeraude (talk) READ THE REFERENCE; IT SAYS CENTRE-RIGHT."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 587167059 by Bondegezou (talk) no reason given."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:


 * . Clear reverts at 16:48, 15:33, 14:46, 07:38. Warned at 15:48 prior to last revert.   Kuru   (talk)  15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 72 hours)
User being reported:

Page:


 * Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:15, December 22, 2013
 * 2) 18:25, December 22, 2013
 * 3) 18:42, December 22, 2013

Page:


 * Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:30, December 22, 2013

Page:


 * Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:13, December 22, 2013
 * 2) 14:29, December 22, 2013

Page:


 * Previous version (includes edits by IP 39.55.x.x)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:11, December 22, 2013 (revert by IP 39.55.x.x)
 * 2) 14:28, December 22, 2013
 * 3) 14:33, December 22, 2013

Diff of edit warring warning: 14:42, December 22, 2013

Comments:

Edit warring at multiple articles even after being warned. Pk041 was previously blocked for disruptive edits at caste/social group related articles. This time also he/she is edit warring in the same topic area. This is an edit warring report and I know about 3RR. -- S M S   Talk 19:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Clear edit warring with multiple editors in articles subject to discretionary sanctions. Kuru   (talk)  15:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Estlandia (Result: Blocked)
Pages: and User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

And here:


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (warned for blanking: )

Endless edit warring against a number of users to include ORish stuff into political party infoboxes and to remove information already sourced (e.g. 3 RR violated also here:, , , ). Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * His case against me doesn't make much sense... For instance, he wrote "If you really think party programmes are to be preferred to third party sources, you have no idea what WP:NPOV should look like.-".. But clearly, if you look at these examples; this (the Socialist Party) and this (the Party for Democracy) they clearly use official sources.. The former infobox on the Party for Democracy page did not make sense, for instance, how can a party be both social democratic, libertarian and liberalist? A reader who just wants to see which party is a member of the new coalition government of Chile (who won the election), will have no clue what kind of party Party for Democracy is. Secondly, its a member of Socialist International and Progressive Alliance, social democratic internationals.. So to simply it, I removed the rest and let Social democracy stand there alone. Another example, the Socialist Party officially opposes capitalism (and seeks to create a socialist society), but is clearly a social democratic party, so I made two sections; Claimed: Social democracy Official: Democratic socialism, Marxism and anti-capitalism (because the party principles and statutes says this).
 * --TIAYN (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are very disruptive because you keep removing sources just based on your gut feeling like here (I haven't edited the page). Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog  (woof!) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My edits at the Social Democratic Radical Party is again a simplification, but (I'l admit, I did not add sources).. But a party which proclaims adherence to socialism in its party constitution cannot by definition by centrist, and again, a party is either centre-left or centre-right unless a party explicitly states in the centre of national politics. This party is explicitly socialist, is a member of the centre-left Socialist International and espouses a centre-left ideology, social democracy... But again, the ideologies in the infobox are again directly taken from the party constitution, because the party explicitly states it supports humanism and radicalism, so this is a simplification measure, since its main ideology is Social Democracy and this is why the party has social democratic in its name and supports officially a vision of socialism... This is called common sense. --TIAYN (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I should note that even AFTER having been reported here, the user continues edit warring, as evident from this revert . Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 14:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This will be my last argument (on the Party for Democracy page), what do you think readers most easily understand, version A) or version B)?
 * A)
 * Progressivism, left-libertarianism, social liberalism, libertarianism and reformism
 * B)
 * Social democracy


 * Having only social democracy is best (or Progressivism) for that matter. Libertarianism doesn't make sense, first since you can't be a social democrat, social liberal (who support certain state-ownership in the economy) and libertarianism who wants to abolish the state.. The party constitution clearly states that the party is only libertarian in the sense that it supports and defends democratic rights, but not libertarian in any other sense of the word. Therefore having libertarian there complicates matters more than it simplifies, and since the article doesn't have an ideology section, the article is unable to explain the readers how and why the party views itself as such. Therefore, for simplicity, calling it social democratic is first of all true, its a member of the Socialist International and Progressive Alliance, but also easy enough to understand. The infobox should pertain basic information, and not be too complex. Having five different ideologies complicate things (secondly, not all readers know what all or any of these ideologies mean).. Making it easier for the readers is my key goal. --TIAYN (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeromesandilanico reported by User:Useddenim (Result: Both blocked)
User being reported:

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  03:03, 23 December 2013
 * 2)  03:18, 23 December 2013
 * 3)  03:55, 23 December 2013
 * 4)  13:39, 23 December 2013

Page:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  03:53, 23 December 2013
 * 2)  13:38, 23 December 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

seems to want to impose his own standards onto the Manilla MRT templates instead of following the WP:RDT conventions.

Useddenim (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Useddenim failing to seek consensus first via the talk page before proceeding with his edit and instead insisted on his edits and edit warred. He even exhibited an arrogant behavior which should be avoided at all times.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sceptic1954 reported by User:Frizzmaz (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Sceptic1954 seems very keen to remove RS material -- journal-published material, in fact -- showing that Nicholas Kollerstrom is a Holocaust denier. Frizzmaz (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be removing that crap myself ... not even written in an encyclopedic manner ... and you're edit-warring to put it back in. Are you sure you're planning this move correctly?  ES  &#38;L  17:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But would you knowingly and intentionally violate WP:3RR after a warning to "prove your point" as User:Sceptic1954 did? That's the issue here. Frizzmaz (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . ES&L is absolutely right. In any event,, if I were going to block Sceptic, which I'm not, I would block you, too, for edit warring. Another user has cleaned up the article. Hopefully, the parties can move on, and Frizzmaz needs to learn what kind of material is appropriate to add to an article at Wikipedia and become familiar with WP:BRD.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Morganmissen reported by User:Reddogsix (Result: declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

See talk page.
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 
 * 
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

The editor has added inappropriate maintenance tags in violation of WP:WAR. The editor has been warned in this article and another concerning warring and appears to understand the concept and limitations set by 3R.(See ) The maintenance tags are inappropriate and that has been pointed out to the editor; however, she fails to grasp the concept of secondary support. Her continued actions are making it increasingly difficult to WP:AGF. I would encourage the reviewing admin to review the editor's other edits for some insight into this editor's actions. red dog six (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ., this looks like almost a private feud between you and . Although Morgan has edit-warred, they have not violated WP:3RR. The first edit was an addition. That was followed by four reverts, but the last revert was well outside of the 24-hour window. This spat between the two of you has spilled over into the Jessica Grose article and its AfD. I don't see how any of this is helping the project. Perhaps you should just seek a consensus about the tags. I realize that two editors favor removal of the tags, and only Morgan wants the tags, but one of the two authors is the creator of the article and might be a smidgen biased.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Apologies in advance for this poor use of resources. I'm not sure what Reddogsix means by "inappropriate." I cited and quoted multiple Wikipedia guidelines explaining the maintenance tags on the Talk page before Reddogsix reverted them without coherent clarification. I asked Reddogsix nicely not to revert the tags and mentioned warring several times, but this editor reverted them twice with an explanation contradictory to guidelines. I submitted an edit war warning to Reddoxsix. I received notification of this report in return. This seems to be personal for Reddogsix, as these reverts are in direct contradiction to exact maintenance tags Reddogsix put on an article I created a few days ago. Here is a very specific example:


 * Search article Jessica Grose's history for the word "primary" to see where Reddogsix repeatedly adds maintenance tags insisting "There are multiple primary sources in the article" (referring to media interviews), then, despite improvements, nominates the article for deletion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Grose&action=history


 * Now, see in article Neetzan Zimmerman's history where Reddogsix insists that this subject's media interviews (and subject's own LinkedIn profile!) are acceptable secondary sources, and the article should not have any maintenance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neetzan_Zimmerman&action=history


 * I used the tags in the precise way--to the letter, including the in-line comments--that this editor did in the Jessica Grose article. As an aside, I'm new to Wikipedia and Reddogsix has made the past week a living nightmare. I feel extremely uncomfortable here, especially because I use my name to edit, and this editor makes reference to my gender (this editor may have an issue with female subjects and editors, here's another example from today on Kathy_Clark_(American_author): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reddogsix#you_could_go_a_little_easier_on_her ) While I appreciate Reddogsix's contribution to Wikipedia, I feel that this experience is closer to harassment than collaboration.  Morganmissen (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that I have not violated WP:3RR. Like I said, I am new to Wikipedia and this is very confusing, especially because I did not receive a warning, and was not the one to revert edits. I'd really just like Reddogsix to leave me alone. Morganmissen (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , first, you should take a look at WP:TLDR. Your posts here and in other places are verbose. Second, I agree with User:Milowent that you "seem well versed in wikipedia lingo despite your very few edits". Here you plead that you are "new" but at the AfD you said, "Wikipedia guidelines are easy to understand, easy to find, and easy to follow!" I, a relatively experienced user, would never say such a thing except in jest. Yet, you toss around policies and guidelines as if you've been editing here for years. Third, you've provided no evidence of gender bias above. The links you provide are WP:COATRACKy. Don't accuse other editors of things like that unless you have solid evidence to back it up. Finally, Reddogsix may indeed leave you alone, but that's not what this is about. You're just as persistent, if not more so, than he is, and you have reverted far more times than he has. You have also failed to follow WP:BRD. You added the tags. Once an editor objected, you should not have reinserted them absent a consensus. None of this so far is blockable, but I think you should pull back a little.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologized above for this waste administrators' time, and I apologize again. Not sure what to make of being accused of being an expert Wikipedia user, but feel free to search my history and IP address if there is any doubt that I'm not new. I'm just trying to be a good editor. I didn't know about WP:BRD or I'd have surely followed it here. Regarding verbosity, I completely agree with you. I've just had be to extremely specific and cite Wikipedia guidelines in every interaction with Reddogsix for reasons like this; as even in doing so, this editor reported me without warning when no violation had occurred. I'd imagine anyone in my position would do the same. Morganmissen (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Declining to issue blocks since no edit warring has occurred in past 24 hours. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Orangemike reported by User:timmccloud (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 23:11, 22 December 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:11, 22 December 2013
 * 2) 18:47, 21 December 2013
 * 3) 22:03, 19 December 2013 reversion by sock 71.139.152.174  Special:Contributions/71.139.152.174

This is the text that is being brought into question: In the first known usage as slang, WWII German soldiers were known to call the Dutch "cheeseheads".

The term "cheesehead" was first used in the 1969 book Papillon to describe the jury that sentenced Papillon to life in prison.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) Open discussion with Mike
 * 2) Unsatisfactory reply
 * 3) Notice of posting on editboard

Original Dispute: Ignored consensus August 2009 Current Dispute: Posted to talk page (with an attempt to keep it light and humorous

Date and history of dicussion: My comment on talk page: Timmccloud (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Revert by Orangemike: 23:11, 22 December 2013 Orangemike (talk | contribs). . (2,785 bytes) (-1,182). . (a work of fiction is not a reliable source)

Reply by mike on talk page: 23:14, 22 December 2013 Note: copied discussion from Mike's page to talk page. Talk:Cheesehead

I don't see how a highly respected, well circulated and repeatedly published work of fiction could be considered "non-reliable" as a source for the etymology of a word. The wikipedia article on etymology states "Etymological theory recognizes that words originate through a limited number of basic mechanisms, the most important of which are borrowing (i.e., the adoption of "loanwords" from other languages)". This is clearly the case here, where the original usage was derogatory use of the word by German's in WWII, followed by the use in Papillon in 1970 as a disparaging comment about the judges, then widespread use in the early 80's by sports fans first as a derogatory word, followed by being adopted as a official nickname. This is well sourced, non-original research of the etymology of the word cheesehead, and I feel it deserves inclusion. I would like to bring it to other administrators review (being that mike *is* an administrator) BEFORE this slides into WP:3RR. Timmccloud (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . I see this as a content dispute, and it's incumbent on the editors not to let a content dispute mushroom into an edit war. I'm not convinced there was a consensus in 2009, but, regardless, the most recent addition of the material was by Timmccloud, and per WP:BRD, when Orangemike reverted, it should have gone to the talk page intead of being reverted by Tim and then a mini edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  Was blocked for this on 19 December 2013 by user

After block expired:


 * 1) "(I'mmmmmmmmmm back!!!!!!! :3)"
 * 2) "(HE IS THE PINEAPPLE KING)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not warned anymore

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts anymore
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Johnnyrockinsac reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Removing file deletion tags on Dj buddy holly. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dj buddy holly. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User deleting CSD Hoax tag, followed by deleted RfD tag &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)  03:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * by . Armbrust The Homunculus 08:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Herr Bundespanzer reported by User:Maurice07 (Result:Both users blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22 December 13:41
 * 2) 23 December 11:56
 * 3) 24 December 09:15
 * 4) 24 December 11:47
 * 5) 24 December 15:27

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Herr Bundespanzer's persistent and uncompromising stance has brought the issue to this point. Also; not declared any opinion on the talk page. . Instead; on my talk page, a threat was realized as IP sock in Turkish language with this edits!! and Provocative comments, poses another side. See: Maurice07 (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Munir hussain1 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff (edit by 202.83.166.99)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 16:14, December 16, 2013 (reveert by 39.41.55.189)
 * 2) 14:34, December 18, 2013 (revert by 182.180.86.10)
 * 3) 16:35, December 18, 2013 (revert by 39.41.147.181)
 * 4) 05:45, December 19, 2013 (revert by Munir hussain1)
 * 5) 18:43, December 23, 2013 (revert by Munir hussain1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

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

Comments:

The maintenance tags were persistently removed by IP editors earlier after which the article was semi protected. This time Munir hussain1 (who earlier had edited the article) continued the edit war. All of them were reported at SPI but the case was closed with a warning to Munir hussain1. I have tried to discuss with the editor but he doesn't seem to be interested. -- S M S   Talk 22:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: It is an edit warring report. -- S M S   Talk 23:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Wissingwm reported by Dialectric (talk) (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 16:18, 16 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586234803 by Dialectric (talk)")
 * 2) 04:43, 17 December 2013  (edit summary: "vandalism thwarted")
 * 3) 18:36, 17 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586446370 by CCS81 (talk)")
 * 4) 15:52, 19 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 586681744 by CCS81 (talk)")
 * 5) 02:08, 24 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587398393 by Dialectric (talk) refe")
 * 6) 16:29, 24 December 2013  (edit summary: "Undid revision 587480495 by CCS81 (talk)")


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Diff of talk page comment: here

Comments:

User Wissingwm has been inserting the same block of unreferenced content into the BLP article Merle Allin since October, at least 11 times by my count, and did not respond to a warning message on his talk page or to several suggestions to discuss the changes on the article talk page before reverting. As IPs were reverting this same content until I requested semi-protection, there may also be an issue of socking. —Dialectric (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:WilliamJE reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Declined)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "You don't put them in an article unless they're serving some purpose. Only one mentions Dunklin and he is the sentence. They're not and two are already used."
 * 2)  "4 of those IC have nothing to do with the sentence."
 * 3)  "Only 1 of the 5 IC mentions Ducklin, the main focus of this sentence. That one is kept, the rest are gone."


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


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


 * Comments:

Is outright removing valid citations from an article because they don't cite the sentence they are positioned directly after, despite repeated explanations that they cite the entire paragraph. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This editor insists on using 5 IC for one sentence when 4 of them have nothing at all to do with it. See my edit summaries and my comment at his talk page.(If they support something in the paragraph, move them to the correct sentence. BTW this is the first time Viper mentions that. ) In fact his history at this article shows a clear history of WP:OWN.. I haven't violated 3RR. Viper on the other hand comes here when his edits are pointless except as an action to keep exerting his control this page....William 05:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, that was an entire paragraph, not just one sentence. However, I just repositioned the refs so they're not all at the end, implying they're only citing that one statement. Additionally, I am not showing ownership of the article; one who shows ownership usually doesn't work with others on the talk page, ensuring that this article doesn't violate WP:HOWTO. But still, you violated WP:3RR. ViperSnake151   Talk  05:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . William is correct in that he did not violate 3RR as he reverted only three times. Technically, ViperSnake violated 3RR, even though his first revert, a series of consecutive edits between 23:20 and 23:26, was not about the dispute. Apparently, ViperSnake has at least partly complied with William's request in his last edit to the article. If that doesn't satisfy William, I suggest that he or ViperSnake move the citations to the "correct" locations. This was a needless dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobby.jennings reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result:One month block for BLP violations)

 * 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 AR Fox. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * I blocked him more for the BLP violation than the edit warring. only (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Carpefemme reported by User:Thomas.W (Result:3 months)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "the links are listed as official. And regularly sourced online to boot. also. you removed images again. bad editing."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 587650445 by Thomas.W (talk) you removed images and links. the links are akin to all other bio pages for living people also. relevant to wiki and valid content"
 * 3)  "please stop removing images. investigate then delete dont do it the other way round. 3RR rule and I shall report for this violation again."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 587642381 by Lady Lotus i sent them to that fan page following taking them. i own them and have released to commons. there is no dispute as to ownership, please leave alone."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 587634652 by Lady Lotus (talk) the images are owned by me."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 587381578 by Lady Lotus (talk) I own the images and added them. They are legit. You have been banned for edited before."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Katia Elizarova"


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

As the user in dispute here I would like to hold that the other party is attempting to remove images I own and have supplied to commons for free use. These have been fully offered by me as owner and the other party is attempting continuously to unfoundedLy remove them from the Katia Elizarova page. Also, they are attempting to remove external links to official pages. It is destructive editing and has resulted in an edit war for which U am protecting the undue removal of content. I appreciate your investigation. Carpefemme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpefemme (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Owning the images, as you claim, neither guarantees you a right to add them, nor exludes you from the 3RR-rules. Thomas.W   talk to me  18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments:


 * for the edit warring and general disruption. only (talk) 18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Chichirko reported by User:Aleksa Lukic (Result: Page deleted)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:


 * +Vandalism after final warning.  Alex discussion ★ 10:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The page has been deleted, so no need for further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:AOnline reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

This page is under 1 revert rule restrictions.

Diff of 1 revert rule violation: Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

It was an act for saving the map from vandalism. "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" (WP:3RR). For the description about consecutive edits by User:Bbb23 see here. AOnline (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

1 - You weren't reverting vandalism, you reverted content I contributed with sources 2 - I made an intervening edit, so you did in fact make two reverts Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

AOnline, I'm not sure what your quoting of Bbb23 is proving here. There were edits between your two reverts according to the page history. Why do you believe that this comment applies here? Sopher99, can you point me to where the 1RR restriction is named for this template? I don't see it at a quick glance and I'm not familiar with the surrounding situations. only (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a notice right here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=edit Sopher99 (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Two clear reverts, not consecutive, and I can find no reason to believe these were "vandalism". Second block for same. Kuru   (talk)  17:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Roguetech reported by User:Inanygivenhole (Result:page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed orphan status; removing self-published status; removing unreliable sources status - reason in Talk."
 * 2)  "Removed vandalism"
 * 3)  "Removed citation flags (see Talk); moved citations to endnote using full cite template for clarity (see Talk); added "Later life" section; added avocation for witch doctors; added "whiting" source; minor spelling; removed year of death missing category"
 * 4)  "Remove orphan status as per Orphan policy: "It is recommended to only place the orphan tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." Article has two links to it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan)"


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

The entire talk page, posting on WP:3O, see also above diffs.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Full disclosure: I am involved with this user, but this has just crossed the line from disagreement to edit war, and something more than WP:3O is needed. Inanygivenhole (talk) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have protected it for the week. Please seek the outside opinions at 3O, and settle this through conversations rather than reverts.  If you settle the dispute before the week is up, contact myself or any other admin (or request at WP:RFPP) to have the protection ended early.  only (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 3O *was* sought a little while ago, and I don't see this working itself out any time soon. That's partly why I posted here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well you were both in violation of edit warring here, so the best solution was protecting rather than just blocking both of you. There really isn't much other remedy that can be done on the administrative end.  only (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sumatro reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result:Blocked 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:


 * I've blocked Sumatro, plus the IP and JanHusCz, all of whom seem connected. I also opened a sockpuppet investigation on the users.  only (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Lihaas reported by User:PraetorianFury (Result:1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Lihaas seems to be aggressively edit warring with several users on the page at once. His recent talk page comments are confrontational and uncooperative. I tried my best to approach this in a calm manner and WP:AGF, but his response was so far beyond reason that a resolution without administrative action seems hopeless.

The dispute involves claims that the entirety of the "international news media" is framing the South Sudanese conflict in the wrong way. I deleted this comment and he has been restoring it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) His second or third revert, but the first within this 24 hour period
 * 2) Here he reverts another user with whom he's edit warring about a seperate issue. And you can see that user's changes being made here and here
 * 3) Here is another revert, simply telling me "it's on the page"
 * 4) This is a revert of what he claims to be vandalism, but that is not "obvious" to me.
 * 5) This is a revert for the infobox, which he is warring over
 * 6) Here he is removing citation needed templates without including any inline citations

Warning - While not a 3RR warning specifically, I did warn him of administrative action. I also tried my best to come to a reasonable solution.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

All I did was ask for a source, I don't see why someone would behave so aggressively unless they were POV pushing. The one source he did provide after I warned of administrative action was an opinion piece. This is a transparent ethnic dispute spillover, he has ignored reasonable requests for verification, and objectively broken the 3RR. Please help me resolve this dispute. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I told him three times that there are references, he refused to go to discussion and then after he does finally he accuses me instead of asking. Yet I went ahead and answered all his questions and showed the citations and STILL I left in his tag for him to approve and remove. Then he accuses me of being confrontational after his first comment was accusatory. That is not AGF and it wasn't calm when he wars over it despite telling him that there are sources. In fact, he expects me to do ALL the work. The consensus discussion requires him to discuss, he did not do it before and I told him the sources were on the page. Which I then answered his query with showing every point as sourced, and as I said I still did not revert him but left the tag and in fact NOTIFIED him for doing so and waiting for his revert.
 * As for the other topics, one can note I have made several discussions on the talk page. I have also shown that I did NOT revert the other issue with links as evidence on the page and that I did indeed revert my addition of 66 without intervening edits.
 * Further to note, he never warned me. He instead threatens me in the very edit he considers to have been discussing and then says I am uncooperative and confrontational. (I think vonversely an attempt to discuss that is threatening is MORE harmful to congenial discussion, confrontational and even condescending) Yet after that I still do NOT revert what he added and instead wrote on his talk page that the tag is there for HIM to remove. And yet im being uncooperative by answering his question AND leaving the content he added. What more should I do on this regard? Not only do I take his threats, I answer them and wait for him to determine consensus and remove the tag.
 * The vandalism was by an IP who reverted multiple times without any reason whatsoever. That is generally considered vandalism by many others around here.
 * As said both issues have been in discussion. I reverted my own 66 in accordance with the discussion on the other issue and then made suggested changes on the issue (which that user did too).
 * Further amongst some edits there aren't intervening edit which is note a war.
 * In sum, Ive made attempts at discussion. Heck, when consensus was against me I even agree and didn't edit. (See Srebrenica massacre and internal conflict sections) Other times I went to talk first to preempt possible wars. (cathegory ethnic conflict section, for one)Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * update still answering all his queries, and moving nothing on the main page. [His] Tags in place too..
 * Incidentally the othe reditor mentioned here is warring to in less than 24 hours, while yet the other editor is not even discussing in talk. At least twith the former were working out and with the latter Ive geiven up for now, but he is not discussing (and elsewhere).Lihaas (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . My inclination is to block Lihaas for violating WP:3RR and to some extent for his disruptive attitude. However, I don't feel I've sufficiently explored his conduct or other editors' conduct to do so, and I have to leave wiki. For the benefit of other admins, of the six diffs (reverts) listed in thie report, there are in fact four. Numbers 1 and 2 are consecutive, and numbers 3 and 4 are consecutive. Finally, assuming Lihaas is referring to the filer when he says that they are "warring to in less than 24 hours", I see no evidence of PraetorianFury even coming close to breaching 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No not referring to the OP, reference to the other editor which he mentioned here.\
 * Also, btw, what disruption of mine? I need to know for future.
 * Nevertheless, am on all discussion as I showed above. And not reverting even his on the main page. See that for the latest. But also wheres the procedure in his civility too? Warning? Diff on "warning" and "attempt to resolve" is the same. See hthat. I too responded in attempting to solve and gave him a heads up of it, that I was not obligated to do. The links are conflating several issues without R3RR on a current event with breaking news and many edits on the page. Its not a gross violation.
 * As of current discussion its established that I don't even know what he opposes specifically. Other than the blanket removal which he did at first, and were since talking, ive at least partly (apparently not fully) shown sources for, Ive just gone and outright asked him which part would he like removed? Were probably now a hair-trigger away from compromise as I just need to know what he wants...and theres only one part of the aspect at the least that I would like to see there. And this is from the discussion page were already discussing.
 * Even, giving benefit of doubt, i redacted my focus to only the content on issue.
 * note now also self-reverted to remove the passage altogether to generate consensus. Fair? I was going to just remove the removal of the cn tag but took it all off to negate now the 6th? That was what he originally did. Alternatively, if it is better to just use the cn tag added back, I don't mind that.
 * Ive done this too, don't know which one is best but don't mind anyone going to the preferred version. Also discussions were taking place before this before filing, as a note
 * Here...Im clearly not digging in and besting in arguement that "im right, youre wrong". Im accommodating to discussion, even in interim, till consensus if found. Isnt that unusual for AN? Should be encouraged, no?Lihaas (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Lihaas has also vandalized the page on India–United States relations by redacting SOURCED and CONTEXTUAL info 91.182.232.30 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I made a single edit there in support of another editor reverting those edits (which the IP popposed) and I went directly to talk to reply there. That is amongst a week of the breaking news edit I had an edit there. I welcome all and sundry oto the history and talk page there.Lihaas (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're fortunate that I don't have the time to deal with this. I don't understand almost anything you've said. I'm done here. Either another admin will take action or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI, he has heavily modified his comments after the fact. This is what I saw which made discussion seem pointless. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked several times in the past for 3RR and warring, so a week is an appropriate length. only (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sunny Xmas reported by User:IRISZOOM (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sepsis II brings up the topic for discussion

Comments: The two first diffs linked above is from Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians (2010-2011), where the dispute started and the last one is from Israeli settlement. Sunny Xmas says he is reverting just because the newspaper and survey uses the word "Israeli sovereignty". While it's true, it's still not acceptable to present it here as an fact that Jerusalem "are under Israeli sovereignty". It would be a different thing write that the question was asked in that way. But my report here is not about that, it's about him reverting (without writing any edit summary, by the way) my change in another article about the wording "Israeli sovereignity". There was no basis for using that kind of wording, not even the source use that kind of wording. It's just him reverting things he doesn't like and again, there was no one using that language (not a newspaper or survey here), so this is edit warring. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . Sunny is a new editor. I've formally warned them of WP:ARBPIA. That said, there's nothing that requires them to use an edit summary; unfortunately, many experienced editors don't. I don't see edit warring in the two articles you cite. Technically, they haven't violated WP:3RR, although they came close.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness_Shines reported by User:Parikhjigish (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [No previous info existed about the movie.]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) A Bollywood movie called The Bastard Child directed by Mrityunjay Devvrat on the subject is being released worldwide in December 2013. The tagline of the movie reads, 'Can we in search of power become animals?'
 * 2) A Bollywood movie called The Bastard Child directed by Mrityunjay Devvrat on the subject is being released worldwide in December 2013. The tagline of the movie reads, 'Can we in search of power become animals?'
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War
 * and failed to notify user (which I've done even though I'm closing this).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and happy new year, when it gets here. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:MilesMoney reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "a rare 3RR for me, only because "minor" is a lie"
 * 2)  "nobody is even willing to defend this fringe nonsense"
 * 3)  "FRINGE, UNDUE, NRA"
 * (days before that)


 * 1)  "if we get any consensus to keep, we can always put it back"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * No warning. Why warn when you can report?


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ removing bolding gthat isnt formatting right"
 * 3)   "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ r"
 * 4)   "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ r"
 * 5)   "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ replies"
 * 6)   "/* On the applicability of WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV to this content dispute */ fixing formatting issues"


 * Comments:

note they admit the 3rr violation in their edit summary Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, you're lying, both directly and by omission.
 * I admit in my edit comment that I'm exceeding my self-imposed 1RR/2RR limit and going to 3RR because I'm reverting an edit that was incorrectly marked as minor. What you're omitting is that, not only did I not cross the bright line, but my edits were part of many, many others over the same material. Rather than edit-war, I requested full page protection.
 * In light of this, singling me out when I didn't even violate WP:3RR seems vindictive. But you have a long track record of stalking and attacking me, so this isn't new or interesting. MilesMoney (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Miles -- a verb sap here -- accusing absolutely every editor you are in conflict with of being a liar is not the best way to conduct oneself on noticeboards.  The definition of "revert" does include what you call any edit which affects any edit by another person - "incorrectly marked as minor" or not.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you agree there was no 3RR violation?  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As GQ said, there is no 3RR violation. My edit comment made it clear that I was not violating WP:3RR, I was reluctantly reaching 3RR due to the dishonest use of "minor". Either Gaijin lied or he doesn't understand simple English; I'll let you decide. Either way, I mostly stick to 1RR voluntarily, with an occasional 2RR if merited. As my comment alluded, going so far as 3RR is rare. I do not intentionally exceed 3RR, though, and I didn't exceed it in this case, either. MilesMoney (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that, but 3RR is not entitlement. This user is constantly edit-warring, and this board is the correct venue for active edit warriors (see the instructions at the top of the page).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a flurry of reverts on that article, and I fixed it by requesting page protection. If we want to block everyone who reverted in the last day, it's going to be a long, long list. MilesMoney (talk) 19:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is fully protected and the person who reported this claimed "note they admit the 3rr violation in their edit summary." This was a false report. WP:BOOMARANG may apply here.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add that they reported without every warning me or even discussing the issue. Between that and the lie about what I said, it's clear that this report was made in bad faith. I request that Gaijin be sanctioned for abuse of process and stalking. MilesMoney (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec)The edit summary appears to have been (a rare 3RR for me, only because "minor" is a lie) which appears to say the person made a 3RR edit. Calling that a "false report" is errant (and I would use a stronger term were it not for ladies being present).   I suggest that you might conceivably be less than neutral thereon.  (adding) Miles -- "verb sap" means your really should note what is said) Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Lying is bad. Lying to protect a liar is worse. What Gaijin said above was "admit the 3rr violation". Now, I think you know English well enough to distinguish between admitting to reaching the 3RR and admitting to a violation of WP:3RR. It is painfully clear that I did not admit to any such thing. I guess that bearing false witness doesn't bother you, then. MilesMoney (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What needs to be understood here is the underlying issue - which is whether Wikipedia content on the Holocaust should include fringe theories - entirely unsupported by any credible historiography - which attempt to directly link Nazi genocide with firearms regulations. The fact that the promotion of this 'theory' (which is frankly ridiculous, for multiple reasons) is being promoted on the 'gun control' article rather than in our article on the Holocaust itself is incidental. It is simply untenable for Wikipedia to be promoting pseudohistorical propaganda on the Holocaust - propaganda which has clearly been concocted for the purposes of swaying another debate, in another time and place. We owe a duty to our readers (and incidentally to the memory of victims of the Holocaust) not to allow this distortion of history to be presented as anything but the tendentious, cherry-picked and decontextualised concoction that reliable sources report it to be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong, but the place to discuss it is the talk page of the article, not this dishonest report. MilesMoney (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, this is not a forum to rehash the debate at Talk:Gun control. Please refrain from commenting unless you have information directly related to the report above. Gamaliel ( talk ) 19:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support block of MilesMoney for persistent editwarring. This is now the third article in a couple days that get protected due to edit warring that involved MilesMoney. Pamela Geller and Scott Rasmussen are the two others. And this is just the last days; there are numerous other incidents; as shown in the current ANI case. The guy is a wandering editwarrior. Iselilja (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This summary is wildly inaccurate. There are ongoing discussions on BLPN about sourcing, but no edit-warring. If there were, why wasn't a report filed? Where are the warnings, even? This is not WP:ANI, so you don't get to vote to site-ban me. MilesMoney (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you are talking about. There aren't currently any edit warring because the pages are protected. And you were editwarring in all of them before they got protected; thus contributing to them needing protection. And no, I am here not suggesting a site ban; however much I think a one year block of yourself would greatly benefit Wikipedia, I was in this particular instance thinking of a much shorter block. Iselilja (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The pages are protected at my request. In any case, this is not ANI, so you're expected to "refrain from commenting unless you have information directly related to the report above". It does not seem as if you do. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . Locked by for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:GSK and User:Grapple_X reported by User:72.72.240.141 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported: and

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:The_Lone_Gunmen_(TV_series)#E-com-con_Corporation]

Comments:

Since I began expanding the sections of the article about The Lone Gunmen (TV series) the two users I am reporting came along and decided to edit war, not only in the middle of my contributions before they were completed, but also decided to section blank old content. The majority of the article was uncited and I was working to clean up and improve the article with the information people were looking for, during discussion both of the users in question made a case of WP:Notability and WP:Primary Sources which was entirely untrue as I had added citations to Alex Jones/Infowars and IMDb and other fan review sites. Also the information in question already exists contributed by other editors on The Lone Gunmen characters page. Also I would like to add the editor User:GSK in question has now decided to my warning to him. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * However, 72.72.x is on the verge of 3RR. By the way, neither Infowars nor IMDb are reliable sources on Wikipedia, which is important to understand. I will protect the article to allow you to discuss your edits and sources with other editors.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:72.72.240.141 reported by User:GSK (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "readding the content from others that was vandalised that i did not add"
 * 2)  "readding the section, the sources were primary sources from Fox Telivision hosted website cache, user also blanked the entire section without even discussing with the other editors"
 * 3)  "readding the octium spoof, it is central to the actual plots of the episodes"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* E-com-con Corporation */"
 * 2)   "/* E-com-con Corporation */"
 * 3)   "/* E-com-con Corporation */"
 * 4)   "/* E-com-con Corporation */"


 * Comments:

is also involved in this situation, but not as an offending party. GSK ✉ ✓ 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

A request for page protection to temporarily prevent additional reverts has also been submitted. GSK ✉ ✓ 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite four reverts, but given the retaliatory report below protection is warranted.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add to this, the above is even more lies, mine was not filed in retaliation and was posted with in a mere few seconds of this report. 72.72.240.141 (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, I did see the IP's warning and did file a report before the IP made their report. However, it does not change the facts that the IP is reaching 3RR (if they haven't already). GSK ✉ ✓ 04:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Frodeno34 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result:Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 587982608 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 587985778 by 62.200.73.61 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on World number 1 male tennis player rankings. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

I am requesting a checkuser on this account. If you check the edit history over the last week (it has been protected twice already) you'll note the same edits by user id's that were just created. Frodeno34, Kobeslam, Tennisfan8787, Mirandaseles, Jerseyboy30, Tennisskatinggymnasticsfan, Findingneverland01. I think all these accounts are being abused by the same person, possibly a former upset editor. The article is now on total protection because of him and anon ip 62.200.73.61. It's been endless over the last week. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You'll want to take this to WP:SPI to investigate the sockpuppetry claims. There's nothing we can do at this page to remedy/address that aspect.  We can only address the edit warring here, which has been addressed by my full protection earlier. only (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Debresser reported by User:PBS (Result: no action)
Page: Template:Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

User being reported:

This is NOT a 3RR report but a report about an editor who seems determined to editwar in that editor's preferred version and has made comments on the talk page that can be taken to imply an intent to continue to editwar in the changes that the editor has made.

Version before edit warring to: as edited by AnomieBOT II at 18:28, 17 November 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23:05, 14 December 2013 "Hide it all. Will improve documentation."
 * 2) 23:42, 14 December 2013 "Undid revision 586112298 by PBS (talk) there are examples. Do not start to revert all my edits"
 * 3) 08:51, 25 December 2013 "Undid revision 586514315 by PBS (talk) Remove error category by adding includeonly tags as usual method. Do not revert, your reasons are not good enough."
 * 4) 15:45, 25 December 2013 "Undid revision 587618288 by PBS (talk) Revert inferior edit in violation of WP:OWN."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] The editor claims to be an experienced editor "I have a lot of experience with templates" and has been made aware of WP:BRD on the talk page of the template (see below).

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


 * I (PBS) reverted the first version with an edit history comment of "Please do not hide it. It is better to display what it looks like here and helps with maintaince" and simply left it at that.
 * After the second revert by Debresser at 23:51, 14 December 2013, I added a new section to the talk page and deliberately included "@user:Debresser at the start of the text so that Debresser would be flagged that I had left a comment on the talk page. I pointed out WP:BRD and the reasons why I did not think the edit appropriate. However I did not revert and waited for Debresser to comment. At  17:01, 17 December 2013 as Debresser had not replied, I reverted the edit Debresser had made.
 * Today Debresser reverted the edit at 08:51, 25 December 2013 and then commented on the talk page "You are right about WP:BRD. And I just now reverted you again, before I checked the talk page. I apologize, but I still think that I am evidently right and that there is not much to discuss." (08:58, 25 December 2013). However having made that comment about BRD, after I made a long comment on the talk page about what there was to discuss, I reverted (on the understanding of what I have just quoted) so that we could discuss the change per BRD, to my surprise Debresser posted to the talk page at 15:44, 25 December 2013 stated in the talk edit history "Ezplain why I will revert." and on the talk page "Sorry, but I will revert. Note that WP:BRD says clearly that it should not be used as an excuse to revert". It seems to me that this comment implies that this editor intends to edit war in their preferred version ignoring BRD which he previously acknowledged as the way forward.

An editor with this much experience should not be revert warring in changes to templates, which can affect 100 of articles, before a consensus for the change has been reached on the talk page or the template. Instead they should follow WP:BRD and [assume good faith in those who disagree with them.

Desired outcome: that the template and its document page are reverted to the last stable version and change does not take place until a consensus for a change is reached through the usual dispute resolution process. -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Debresser:

I agree I am edit warring about this a little: but no more than PBS. But there is discussion on the talk page of this template, in which he and I are the only participants so far. Frankly speaking, in view of the history of this template, I have no reason to assume that anybody else will join that discussion. And all reason to assume that PBS has a WP:OWN issue here! He has no other argument than WP:IDONTLIKEIT! I am trying to remove an error category (more about this here and here, and see also my userpage What I do on Wikipedia). I have shown that another even more experienced template editor than I implicitly agrees with my approach. None of the functionality of the template is impaired, so no need to stress that this template affects 100s of articles. By the way, I regularly edit templates that affect 1000s or 10s of 1000s of articles, that is the way it works with templates. And the examples are now where they are supposed to be: on the documentation page! If not his WP:OWN/WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, he should have welcomed my edit! See my talk page posts and. I have made the same edit to many other templates (e.g., , , and ), and nobody else has seen reason to revert. So when PBS says I am edit warring, I must by logical comparison come to the conclusion that the problem is in him, rather than in me. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments:


 * I'm not exactly sure what the request is here. Both parties have reverted 3 times in the last 10 days (the first edit by Debresser is of course not a revert AFAICS), though no-one has technically broken 3RR.  The normal way of dealing with this is to protect the template.  But given that both parties are, after all, very experienced Wikipedians, is that really necessary here?  You've both been through the BR part of WP:BRD three times, now do the D part. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just locked it anyway. You guys discuss away Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said above "Desired outcome: that the template and its document page are reverted to the last stable version and change does not take place until a consensus for a change is reached through the usual dispute resolution process." -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Black Kite Did you not see this comment and what my request was? -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am also not very content with this outcome. 1. I think there is not much to discuss here. 2. It is unlikely anybody will come to the discussion unless invited especially, since this template was PBS's private project, so to say. And yes, this is an allusion to WP:OWN. 3. I see no further reverts since the opening of this complaint. And not that many to begin with. And Black Kite suggested no protection of the template is necessary. I am therefore surprised that Casliber decided to fully protect the template.
 * As a way out of the impasse, perhaps these two editors would care to solve this issue by visiting the talk page of the template and leaving their opinions as to the issue itself? Debresser (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Debresser: you really should attempt to assume good faith. That no revert took place is due to my restraint from automatically reverting a revert (an ambush tactic I have seen used many times by editors who post to this page in an attempt to get the page locked on their preferred version). Does this statement of yours mean that you are willing to revert your revert and leave the template at the version it would be if you were to follow the WP:BRD cycle and wait for a consensus to develop? Or does you statement mean that you are only willing to refrain from reverting providing your preferred version is in place? -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

User: Sumatro reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previously


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user was blocked for 24hr yesterday for edit-warring on this article; they've returned to exactly the same behaviour today. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Plus, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Sumatro -- Neil N  talk to me  16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * for edit warring while the SPI plays out.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:79.114.75.150 reported by User:NeilN (Result:48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 588089093 by X201 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 588090264 by X201 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 588096683 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 588096954 by NeilN (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. using TW"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Candy Crush Saga. using TW"
 * 3)   "/* Stop adding inappropriate links */ new section"


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

Comments: All the editor has done today is add inappropriate links to articles. -- Neil N  talk to me  18:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:SSA786 reported by User:Ananya 2012 (Result:1 week block)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "marium uz zamani"
 * 2)  "marium uz zamani"
 * 3)  "marium uz zamani"
 * 4)  "marium uz zamani ref added strong of jhems matrix and the rules"
 * 5)  "/* Religion */"
 * 6)  "Added international famous Writer and muslim.com and the rules of holy city Mecca why it dont allow any Non- Muslim"
 * 7)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 8)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 9)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 10)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 11)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 12)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 13)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 14)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 15)  "marium uz zamani ref added strong of jhems matrix and the rules"
 * 16)  "/* Religion */"
 * 17)  "marium uz zamani ref added strong of jhems matrix and the rules of Macca and muslim .com"
 * 18)  "Mrium uz zami added international most famous writer jhems matrix and Muslim women site and the most universal rule of holy place Mecca never allow any non muslim"
 * 19)  "Marium uz zamani added international famous Writer  jhems matrix and Muslim women's info and the rule of Islamic Holy place Mecca why it never allow non-Muslim"
 * 20)  "International writter jhems matrix link add of Akbar the great"
 * 21)  "international blog written by  one of most famous wrriter Jhems matrix"
 * 22)  "i added ref..marium uz mazani converted Islam in later life"
 * 23)  "marium uz zamani converted islam"
 * 24)  "marium uz zamani converted islam"
 * 1)  "i added ref..marium uz mazani converted Islam in later life"
 * 2)  "marium uz zamani converted islam"
 * 3)  "marium uz zamani converted islam"
 * 1)  "marium uz zamani converted islam"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * I've blocked him longer for his (mostly incoherent) rant on his talk page with its personal attacks and insults. only (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Lockean One reported by User:Finx (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(removing pertinent information from lead)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)

(re-re-spamming 'citation needed' when numerous reliable citations were already present, yet more provided and ignored - not to mention that the lead summarizes topics discussed and referenced in the body of the article)


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)

The phrase apparently unacceptable to this editor states that some political currents identifying as libertarian oppose/reject capitalism. Anticapitalist libertarianism has a long history, inching up on two centuries, with everything from Libertarian Communism, to Libertarian Marxism and other brands of Libertarian Socialism thoroughly described in the article. That's the one claim removed repeatedly in all of these, or slapped with 'citation needed' sometimes to mix it up a bit.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)
 * 2)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

Not much to say. Whenever not debating that Noam Chomsky is biased and unreliable on political science or (apparently) arguing that libertarian communists ought to like 'good capitalism' (as opposed to bad "state capitalism"), this editor insists over and over and over that there's no reliable citation, where the article is crammed to the brim full of them; furthermore, doesn't want to identify which part of the claim is actually contentious. Since the conversation is going nowhere, as far as I can tell, Lockean One just wants to string this along and draw it out until everyone gives up undoing those bizarre edits, for an article plastered in anticapitalist history. Finx (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

edit-

Lockean One has also announced intention to continue disruptive editing, no matter how many people roll it back:

Since providing quotes and pointing to relevant references does nothing and this is just going to continue, maybe a topic ban is in order? Finx (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to add here, since Finx suggests a "topic ban" on the basis that "providing quotes and pointing to relevant references does nothing and this is just going to continue", I would suggest that Finx show right here any quote provided anywhere on that talk page that actually supports what the statement in question says.


 * And adding CN tags and removing improperly sourced material after multiple ignored requests for demonstration of proper sourcing is "disruptive editing"? Those are not even reverts, they are good faith justified edits required by Wikipedia policy, as explained in the part of that same post Finx chose to omit in the boxed quote above. Reverting them while refusing honest discussion is edit warring, IMHO. Lockean One (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is just blatant fraud and dishonesty by Finx. If you look at those supposed "reverts", many of them are not even reverts. The first one listed was an editing mistake on my part where I reverted my own edit 2 minutes later. At least a couple of them are edits (not reverts) attempting to replace the controversial statement with one that actually says what the listed sources say. And it is the removal of the "citation needed" tag that is disruptive edit warring, not putting it in, given that after multiple requests of Finx and others to provide a quote from any source that said what that statement said, no one did, and no one has yet. What little "edit warring" is left is (IMHO) very minor on my part, considering the fact that they were to undo inappropriate reverts of my edits by others, mostly my adding of a "citation needed" tag to a statement that is simply not supported by the sources listed, after objections to my removing the improperly sourced statement. (It appears to be a synthesis of different sources which use profoundly different definitions of the term "libertarian", resulting in a very misleading statement, IMO. But it's hard to say for sure without knowing which source says what.)


 * It is obvious throughout those talk sections that I asked repeatedly for quotes from any reliable sources that support that statement, and got none. I got lots of claims that many sources support that statement, lots of claims that the listed sources support that statement, but none would actually provide a quote from any of them that actually support that statement, and still haven't (because they don't support it). Finx (and others) repeatedly reverted my adding a "citation needed" tag, while never quoting any source saying what the statement in question says, despite repeated requests. Finx in particular insists on edit warring while refusing to discuss the issue honestly, for the purpose of violating Wikipedia sourcing policy. Why keep merely claiming that lots of sources say something instead of actually demonstrating that they do by quoting them saying it?


 * The claim that I ever argued anything like "libertarian communists ought to like 'good capitalism' (as opposed to bad "state capitalism")" is an outrageous and despicable lie. It's as absurd as it is dishonest.


 * One of those two "diffs of edit warring/3RR warning" is merely the notice of this accusation on this noticeboard, the other referred to my twice undoing another editor's revert of edits I made in good faith.


 * Those talk page links show clearly (if one can stand to read through them) that Finx has refused to discuss the issue honestly, sidetracked and derailed any honest discussion by others. And I won't even bother counting up the instances where I repeatedly pointed out that I in no way disputed what Finx repeatedly claimed I was disputing.


 * I don't even know what else to say, except that I have not fully explained the situation here, since doing so would be prohibitively lengthy and time-consuming. I can however try to answer any questions. Lockean One (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Question. Why did you ignore all the references you were given, multiple times, over the course of all this abuse? For example:         -- I am assuming, of course, that you've read the article from which you've decided to repeatedly remove the statements you find objectionable, against consensus, nine times by my count, excluding the time you reverted your own edit. It doesn't sound like there's anything too complicated about this. Keep in mind, I have no personal bone to pick with you, so there's no grudge or tangled back story here. We've had nice words on my talk page; in fact, other people have reached out to you very cordially and encouraged you to take part. This isn't a private edit war between the two of us -- I think I've undone, what, one -- maybe two of your battering ram edits before tonight? I was very patient until you decided to demonstrate that you own this article, no matter what anyone else has to say about your endless, unsubstantiated ransacking of one of the most obviously valid and pertinent statements on the page, cited repeatedly in a (lead) section - where it's not even necessary to do so. If you just wanted to discuss what's in IYHO and IYO, I offered to have an exchange of personal political views in a forum that's appropriate, even though frankly I have better things to do. The standard for including material in an article, however, is not whether you think a group's political ideas are personally satisfying and ritually pure. Even if you don't agree with them, even if you're right, even they're wrong, even if you really, really don't like it -- that doesn't change the fact that communists have been calling themselves (and have been called) libertarians for well over a hundred years. Hence, the title of the article isn't "What Lockean One of Wikipedia Thinks About Libertarian Communism". Finx (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you are very confused about what our disagreement is, very confused about what I do and don't dispute, despite my repeated statements that I don't dispute the things you keep claiming I dispute. And you are again misrepresenting the situation here by using a false claim as an underlying assumption for a "question" for me, and making absurdly and obviously false statements about me again above. But this is not the proper forum for a personal discussion. This is the forum to make your case against me to admin. Good luck with that! You might need it if they take the time to read the talk pages and realize the extent of the falsehoods you have presented to them here. Lockean One (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * User Lockean One recently added material to the Libertarianism article which was inappropriate for a lead section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:2602:304:B0FD:19C0:90AA:941F:B0AF:76CF reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result:Page protected)
Page:Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014

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:

He likes to blank out comments on this talk page such as with Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment from Dloh  cierekim  Both parties have 3RR warned each other. Both have violated 3RR. I have protected the page and started an RfC on the article talk. I have informed both that I will be happy to block anyone who edit wars further. Dloh  cierekim  02:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * only (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Bbb02 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See the talk page please. Edit war award should go to 82 edit holder not to a 8 edit holder. JUSTICE EXPECTED"
 * 2)  "Mark Arsten. who is edit warring on this article? User Sitush total edits 82. my edits 7. even still you wish to support your friend Sitush then OK let me agree to Sitush so reverting back to version as edited by Sitush at 20:48, 3 October 2011."
 * 3)  "Refer to talk page where Sitush is targeting Brahmin as a community. This was what i mentioned earlier that he is biased and not neutral. may be he belongs to some schedule cast so maligning  superior classes articles on WP. Neutrality should prevail"
 * 4)  "WP RS & other policies are perfect but U R wrongly claiming them. U cant delete entire article. It could b seen in the history that U R doing so since a long time which creates a doubt that U r nt neutral.U r  breaching  WP NEUTRALITY & WP edit warring"
 * 5)  "Deletion objected"
 * 6)  "there is continuous conspiracy against marcial tribes of indo pak. User Sitush probably from a scheduled tribe (khatri) is using different set of lame excuses to continue vandalism by deleting whole content. Page protection requested."
 * 1)  "there is continuous conspiracy against marcial tribes of indo pak. User Sitush probably from a scheduled tribe (khatri) is using different set of lame excuses to continue vandalism by deleting whole content. Page protection requested."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "assume good faith"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Cheema. (TW)"


 * Comments:

Persistent edit-warring despite intervention from myself and another editor encouraging a change in approach.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - and another rv diff following comment below.  Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok i take my harsh words back and assume Good Faith but Justice should be done to the fact that who is edit warring? 82 edit holder Sitush or 8 edit holder like me. RESPECT for all . Thanks Bbb02 (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This has been going on since around 13 December and I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that you registered an account when that IP was repeatedly reverted. This is despite me trying to explain, eg: with this and in this section, as well as drawing your attention to the first of those threads here. Even now, despite the intervention of two other people, you have continued to reinstate the poor content and show no inclination to self-revert it and discuss in any policy-compliant manner. This article is subject to general sanctions and, to be honest, I know some admins out there who would have topic-banned you already. You can perhaps count yourself lucky that I did not report you here earlier. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus and that is neither a vote nor based on whimsical desires: we reflect what reliable sources say. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * by Someguy1221 only (talk) 12:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Feysalafghan reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Warned at ANI)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 24 Dec

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 26 Dec
 * 2) 27 Dec
 * 3) 27 Dec
 * 4) 28 Dec

Page:

Previous version reverted to: 23 Dec

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 23 Dec
 * 2) 23 Dec
 * 3) 25 Dec
 * 4) 26 Dec
 * 5) 28 Dec

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

Comments:

There have been a number of discussions on this content issue on the article talk and the current version was a consensus version. The user gave this explanation for this change. Also I would like to note that this is an edit warring report. -- S M S   Talk 20:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

He is also doing reverts and is acting like a non-adult i just switched south asia and central asia to end discussions it was a minor edit and two friends smsarmad and nikhilm2002 were reverting this the whole time i just wanted to end the discussions you can look up at afghanistan's talk page that it has many discussions.
 * . This problem was disposed of at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:110.55.1.242 reported by User:Cadiomals (Result: )
Quezon City:

User:110.55.1.242

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:110.55.1.242

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:110.55.1.242

Comments: I attempted to contact them several times via their talk page, they have been non-responsive and have continued their edit-warring.

I originally removed one sentence from the lead of this article because it has no sources or statistics to back up its accuracy. Since then it has been reverted several times by the same IP. At first I politely contacted them (see their Talk page) politely informing them that such information needs sources, linking them to WP guidelines. But they have been non-responsive after warnings and continue to edit war. Sorry this is my first time using this tool and it is somewhat confusing. I just don't want to continue reverting them, it is annoying, they are obviously an IP user with no idea how Wikipedia works and no interest in communicating. Please just block this IP as they have never once made a constructive contribution to this site. It will reduce the burden of me having to revert them every time. Cadiomals (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . The IP has not breached WP:3RR. They have not edited the article since the 3RR warning. If they continue to insist on inserting unsourced material in the article, please update this report. However, large portions of the article are unsourced and tagged for quite some time.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 reported by User:ONITOPIA (Result: Pages protected )
Pages: , , ,

Users being reported: &

Informed of being reported on December 26th, 2013.

This concerns almost all 2013 edits to the pages by numerous users and always reverted by User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996! Too many to have a diff that wouldn't blow anyone's mind. The "shortest" and "easiest" overview might be Talk:Love & Girls where no consensus can be found while the users keep edit warring, breaking 3RR and harass each other.

Summary of the problem in the TALK is the Japanese song title リンガ・フランカ :


 * The Japanese title is the only officially given title by both record companies involved.
 * Romanization of the Japanese title is undisputedly Ringa furanka as long as you keep in mind that R and L are used the same in most Asian languages, so it also very likely might be Lingua furanka.
 * The official English translation of リンガ・フランカ is Lingua Franca which is backed by numerous dictionaries, the context of the lyrics and one of the song's composers.
 * iTunes has the song title listed as linguafranc which causes User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 to undo all changes to the all named (English) pages that give Lingua Franca as an English title.
 * Warnings and threats to report User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 resulted in a discussion on the TALK page to find a consensus.
 * User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 didn't change their mind while everybody else acknowledged linguafranc as being a used title due to iTunes but still wanted a correct English translation, Lingua Franca, added. No consensus since User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 seemingly are not interested in having a consensus that they don't like.
 * Before and while the work for a consensus took place: intimidation for the one with different opinions. Including deletion of numerous official warnings.

Comments: For some common sense, block all users involved and protect the page(s). There will be no dispute resolution, and all future changes will be undone [User:Raykyogrou0]] & User:Sni56996. Even while this is being written User:Raykyogrou0 has undone the very same change (by yet another new user) to Love & Girls (View History) by a user from 112.210.185.52 on December 29th, 2013.

I'd like to point out the repeated harassment by the poster on my and Sni's talk page. I've opened a discussion on ANI about this user. Also, the user seems to confuse this page with dispute resolution. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 18:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

--ONITOPIA (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I post here what I posted on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:
 * Please let me point out the report I announced to do on December 26th, 2013: Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. I felt the need to do so since this Frivolous warnings/harrassment is something I feel done to all users who have a different opinion than User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996, especially in this single case which is the only reason for this dispute User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 are not willing to settle (see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring). This Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seems to only be a result of me announcing my report.
 * User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 kept deleting all warnings directed to them on their Talk pages, so please be sure you check their User Talk page history and their behavior towards all users in the dispute case (see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring).
 * Please make sure to look at the history of all pages since User:Raykyogrou0 and User:Sni56996 like to alter history to make it look better at first sight. Those who investigate are able to see the truth. Thank you!
 * For additional proof for User:Raykyogrou0 & User:Sni56996 behavior see: User talk:DjScrawl. --ONITOPIA (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've protected both Love & Girls and Love & Peace (Girls' Generation album). Please utilize the talk page and other dispute resolution resources to solve this content dispute over the spelling.  only (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Sportfan5000 reported by Roccodrift (talk) (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


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

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


 * 1) 20:23, 28 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Phil Robertson's GQ Interview */ relevant, well sourced, and attributed")
 * 2) 20:27, 28 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "let's not whitewash this")
 * 3) 03:48, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 03:55, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Phil Robertson's GQ Interview */")
 * 5) 09:36, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 09:47, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "")
 * 7) 23:20, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Phil Robertson's GQ Interview */")
 * 8) 23:34, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "perhaps this is more accurate")
 * 9) 23:38, 29 December 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 588282482 by Roccodrift (talk) per NPOV, please get consensus for placement here first")


 * Diff of warning: here

NOTE: This list of diffs was generated by the 3RR Helper Tool and does not reflect that some of these reverts were consecutive. Thus, per the definition at WP:3RR this list actually contains only 4 chargeable reverts.

—Roccodrift (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This editor has been gunning after me for a while now but I think my edits will show they were not 3rr's but instead reverting Roccodrift's poor editing choices, mainly removing content that showed this incident for what it is. This after their failed attempt at having the majority of the content removed. After most of their edits were reversed they started adding POV content that again had to worked on. If they don't like having their contributions editing by others than they should take heed of the fine print - Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. I believe that 3rr is also about reverting the same material again and again which I did not do. I also think interested editors might find the essay POV railroad illuminating. I'm happy to discuss any changes or my edits and if needed we can work towards consensus if there is the need. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A visit to the article talk page shows that there's no consensus for Rocco's massive removal of cited material. Instead, the discussion has shifted towards adding material to other sections as the way to restore balance. Rocco should not be edit-warring to keep material out, particularly as it conflicts with consensus. As for the report, until he fixes the diffs, it's an unintelligible waste of time. MilesMoney (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that Sportfan warned Rocco about edit-warring but the template was removed with "Rv nonsense" as the edit comment. That's not very civil, now is it? It also brings up the question of how much Rocco is guilty of what he accuses Sportfan of. How many reverts has Rocco made to that article in the last 24 hours? Let's compare. MilesMoney (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair I first removed the one he left me citing a description he started with on me - A "POV SPA." I won't link the sock puppet discussion on him but that's where I saw the pattern, including subduing opponents with warnings and the like. I'm happy to have others check things out, I think it will improve the article. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:49.181.56.155 reported by User:Mo7838 (Result: Page 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:

Comments:

User has been invited 3 times to join an active discussion on the article's talk page, but has elected not to. Appears to be the same user using multiple IP addresses as User:49.181.56.155 and User:49.181.200.206 have adopted the same tone. Neither have previously made any posts. Solution may be to impose a temporary block on the ACTION article for non registered editors?


 * Why not ban Mo7838 from ACTION page as well due to his/her ongoing arrogance and refusal to consider anyone else's point of view? 49.181.56.155 (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't think so, see Talk:ACTION Mo7838 (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Fully protected for one week. only (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Kingfrogger666 reported by User:Drmargi (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Editor is also actively reverting with no discussion and no edit summaries on a number of other articles related to individual Doctors from Doctor Who. The reviewing admin may find it useful to review his edit history:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is a sequence of ongoing discussions on the talk page. Editor refuses to discuss.

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

More diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I was uninvolved, but see, , , and [|at least one discussion about numbering issues on talk]. I hope I have done this right.

I hope I have done this right, sorry if I broke something. Mat ty. 007 19:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have reported the same user as, but I will leave this here for the diffs. Thanks, Mat  ty  .  007  19:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This user is edit warring across numerous articles and has become extremely disruptive. If a response to these two notices could be taken ASAP it would be a benefit to the project. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * User is now blocked for 72 hours. Thanks to Barek. MarnetteD | Talk 21:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Bluerasberry (Result: Article protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by JayJay (talk): Rv per WP:BLP. And do not misuse rollback again bud. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverted good faith edits by Bluerasberry (talk): Again. this content is a BLP vio, so it stays out. BLP is not negotiable for gods sake. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Reverted 1 edit by Bluerasberry (talk): Everything is BLP, rv per BLP. (TW)"
 * 4)  "Reverted 1 edit by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk): Read BLP, and stop now. (TW)"
 * 5)  "Reverted 1 edit by Rhododendrites (talk): BLP is not negotiable. (TW)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * warning on talk page


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * on the article itself
 * Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (6th nomination)


 * Comments:

Darkness Shines has a legitimate complaint which ought to be considered but edit warring is not an appropriate channel for doing this. This user is probably right, but still, no edit warring.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP is an exemption, so no vio, I also used the talk page, unlike the others, asked for page pretection and have brought the issue up on ANI Block away and happy new year. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The four scientists on the list that I checked (first one and last three) all have their published positions accurately represented on the list. These positions are available either in the sources used as references or (for one person) on the website the person authors. I'm not seeing any BLP violations here. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Since the article is no exception to BLP, and all the editors rolling back the edits being made to restore what appear to be BLP violations are having difficulty discussing the matter on the talk page, let's protect the article. Darkness Shines needs to focus on discussion along with everyone else. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Article protected. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Protection after article was gutted strikes me as a reward for BATTLE and EW tactics that spit on the arbs' ruling at WP:ARBCC, but your mileage may vary. Various eds are seeking explanation from  at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)  FOLLOWUP, I see you were posting at the article talk page as I posted this tickle here.  Thanks for prompt reply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Moya13 reported by User:Cambalachero (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) December 28
 * 2) December 27
 * 3) December 25
 * 4) November 9

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The K money trail

Comments:

This is an article about a money laundering case in Argentina, involving the presidents Néstor and Cristina Kirchner. The scandal was caused by an investigation of a local TV program, but the article is written mainly with news articles from La Nación, which is an Argentine newspaper of record and has no conflicts of interest involved (unlike the Clarín newspaper, it is not part of the same media group of the TV program). Then, several users wanted to add other sources that say that everything is a big lie. Problem is, those sources are basically propaganda outlets of the Kirchner's government, bought, financed and/or forced by the government to push the idea that everything is fine and all the problems in Argentina are someone else's fault. See here, an article by The New York Times, to confirm that I'm not exaggerating. I explained those things in the talk page. They could not do anything to say that their sources are credible, and resorted instead to basic hollow slogans such as "do not delete information", "sources come from several different newspapers", etc. Moya13 even said that Página 12 is the third most popular newspaper in Argentina, but I proved that it's not even in the top ten. So, I'm working in the article, adding more and more information about the case, and from time to time Moya13 reverts everything back to some earlier revision of the article, including all the new things that I included in the meantime. He never did it more than once in a day, so it never became a 3RR, but it's annoying in the long term. Note as well that, when he does so, he created a whole number of new problems as well: he removed images, external links sections and categories, added link rot references, includes huge translation mistakes (such as translating "plata" as "silver" instead of "money"), and even exact translations that may be considered copyright violations.

And yes, it is correct that the article should include several sources, but that does not mean any sources, nor to include questionable sources just for the sake of variety. The article is still a work in progess, I'm still adding everything noteworthy that La Nación has said, and when I'm done with that I will move to other newspapers or news sources. I do not intend to use only La Nación indefinitely, but for the time being, a single source that is a newspaper of record is better than several varied and unreliable sources.

Note as well that Moya13 is clearly a Single-purpose account, he only edits this article. His edit summary here, "do not delete important facts that demonstrate the falsehood of the 'news' reports" prove that he edits following a pro-Kirchner agenda. The other users that took part in this discussion or the edit war,, , , only made a handful of edits in the last years, all related to this article or the Kirchner's administration. In fact, Moya13 has already been discovered as a sock-puppet account in wikipedia in Spanish, see here Cambalachero (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ., given that it's mostly you against the world, you might consider opening an WP:SPI. You could include Monkeypuzzled if you wish, but I don't see an obvious connection. FWIW, there is a username similarity between Moya13 and Gmoyano. If you do open an SPI, don't fail to mention the Spanish Wikipedia finding.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Moya13 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Thanks for the links. Cambalachero (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Norden1990 reported by User:2QW4 (Result: Malformed report)
insists in reverting a redirect link instead of expanding an article that I created:

 And also on other articles he revertes sourced text related to the war-criminal and anti-semite Miklos Horty.
 * Demographics history of Harghita County
 * see here


 * Miklos Horty


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mikl%C3%B3s_Horthy&diff=588510765&oldid=588509406
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miklós_Horthy&diff=588407432&oldid=588382904

calling vandalism while he actually is deleted sourced information about this war-criminal.

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

With his edits (can be cataloged as anti-semite) reverts sources text about the war criminal Miklos Horty.

And, YES, he was blocked before for edit-war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Norden1990

15:03, 14 July 2013 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked Norden1990 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of the three-revert rule: John Hunyadi)

2QW4 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Other edit-war 3 times edit-war, see Hungarian discrimination against Roma

2QW4 (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1st time https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_discrimination_against_Roma&curid=16371215&action=history
 * 2nd time https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_discrimination_against_Roma&diff=588521778&oldid=588520253

Also using proxy IPs ; 195.89.201.254 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/195.89.201.254 2QW4 (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 *  duplicate report at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Flat Out   let's discuss it   14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm declining this for being malformed, but looking at ANI, looks like we'll be seeing WP:BOOMERANG happening soon... only (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * only (talk) 14:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:182.189.116.34 reported by User:Wtwilson3 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Asin. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Asin. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Asin. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User is not responding to warnings on his talk page and is just reverting. Since it is unsourced content and removal of references, but not blatant blanking or vandalism, I decided to come here instead of reverting again. —    Bill W.     (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 16:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Tdadamemd reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Continued WP:GS/BO violation
 * 2) Revert of removal
 * 3) Revert of removal with edit summary describing removal as WP:VANDALISM https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama,_Sr.&diff=588593139&oldid=588592691

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warnings:    

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

and more (see history)

Comments:


 * They're up to at least 4RR after a 3RR warning. I'll provide the diffs in a moment. Note that this editor's problems go beyond just edit warring; there is a separate report at AN/I - Wikidemon (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Here it is
 * 1. claimed they were restoring a discussion that had been closed; in actuality, cut-and-pasted a duplicate unhatted version of hatted discussion from the talk page archives; also restored material that had been deleted as BLP vio
 * 2. undoes attempt to close discussion; also restores BLP violation (unsourced and apparently untrue fringe material regarding statutory rape involved in Obama's conception)
 * 3. reverts removal of archive duplication and BLP vios
 * 4. - reverts removal material that was deleted for WP:BLP / WP:TEND grounds; calls removal "vandalism" in edit summary.
 * The last one was after a 3RR warning I left. They're also at 3RR (but haven't exceeded it) at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * per WP:GS/BO.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:92.238.171.3 reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (4th revert in 24 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This user is trying to do something against consensus on wikipedia, he was informed of that on several occasions via history. ,

Comments:

This user is making strange edits (of the same type) on several articles:, , , , , , on many of them engaging in edit warring. Also I suspect that this Ip user User:195.89.201.254 is related to the reported user since they make same edits and sometimes even use the same comments (WP:DUCK). Adrian (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:210.6.89.94 reported by User:NeilN (Result: 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "The source is from the respected journal BMJ. How can the editor regard this as an unreliable source?"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 588611640 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 3)  "This is referenced and I don't understand why the editor decided to omit it."
 * 1)  "This is referenced and I don't understand why the editor decided to omit it."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * – 48 hours. The IP is warring to insert some negative reflections on the intelligence of anesthesiologists from an article in the BMJ that seems to have been accepted as a humorous contribution. In my opinion the IP is getting close to a long-term block for disruption. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Paradoctor reported by User:Tweedledee2011 (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=588638556&oldid=588638517

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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=588439193&oldid=588433803

Comments:

Most of my efforts to dialog with paradoctor and avoid edit warring took place in on his talk page here


 * Result: Tweedledee2011 is warned. This article was the subject of an arbitration case and admins are given a big hammer to deal with any disruption. Please limit your talk contributions to proposing specific changes to the article. The talk page is WP:Not a forum for general discussion of the Monty Hall problem. Your own personal deductions about the problem are not notable unless they can be cited to a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me EdJohnston - but why are you warning me without sanctioning the violating party? I proved unequivocally that Paradoctor did 4 reverts. Also, if you bothered to read the talk page or my links, you would see that I HAVE NOT done anything but try to build consensus for the inclusion of an examination of sample space (an integral part of probability theory) into the article. Frankly, I am really surprised at the absurd result of my report. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You were told quite clearly to NOT discuss the underlying theory where you were. You insisted on continuing.  It was rightly removed, you then personally edit-warred to keep the improper discussion there - please feel fortunate that it's not YOU that are blocked.  Let me repeat: your comment was RIGHTLY removed - never re-add when you've been told it was being done in the wrong spot  ES  &#38;L  21:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment which was reverted 4 times, was the final post which brought a lengthy conversation to a conclusion. As such, it should have been left intact. Not only that, but a review of User talk:Tweedledee2011/martin shows that I am genuinely interested to reach consensus on something I am having trouble explaining. As such, this reinforces that my final post on the thread in question, should have been left intact. Not only that, but this shows how, even when I was ultimately proved correct (same talk page, but on a different point)by another user, deletionist naysayers tried leaping into the fray and refused  to honestly address the point I had raised. That type of aggression from other editors seems to be an issue on the Monty  Hall Problem article. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've now had at least 3 people tell you otherwise - including 2 admins. Face it, unfortunately you're very wrong this time.  This is not intended to demean you or to remove from the work you do - just you seem to have taken that discussion far too passionately so that you're unable to see how your commentary was not correct, and you're so inflamed against the other editor that you cannot see that they were doing the right thing.  Time for you to logoff for a couple of hours and have a cup of WP:TEA  ES  &#38;L  21:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words, but you miss the point. I wasn't trying to be "correct". Rather, I was trying to see if anyone else would open their minds and ponder the question I was raising, which is: Is the wiki article doing the readers a disservice by focusing only on the probability calculations and not the verbal logic of the controlling terminology? I think we are, and I think the zeal which has been used to kill off my thread shows the other editor is overinvested in thwarting a discussion which could make the article more accessible to verbal thinkers, such as myself. I do not dispute that 2/3 is correct. Rather, like the MIT professors I cited elsewhere on the talk page, I agree that precise adoption of the Vos Savant premise is required for the solution to work. And any deviance, deviance which might creep in from vernacular-related issues, derails the reasoning needed to see that. That said, once again, thank your for your kind words. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ithinkicahn reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Additions and intro cleanup with sources"
 * 2)  "I wouldn't consider linking to Turkey in the intro of this article to be overlinking, would you?..."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 588581095 by Walter Görlitz (talk) This movement is based in Turkey, so linking a single more VITAL thing isn't going to kill WP:OVERLINK."
 * 4)  "What is your problem? Don't get me to break 3RR because you consider linking to Turkey, the home nation and main focus of the movement, to be an overlink. Here, I removed a less vital link and kept Turkey. Happy?"


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


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


 * Comments:


 * I tried to explain WP:OVERLINK but to no constructive end. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have responded on the talk page. In the middle of writing my (not too long) response, this user reported me within a few seconds. He seems to be overly eager in enforcing WP:3RR on an article that barely has any intro links as it stands, and in removing the home and most relevant country (Turkey) of a religious and political movement. I'd say there are more constructive uses of everyone's time rather than to enforce guidelines as hard law (as it stands, those guidelines on WP:OVERLINK do not even advise to not link to nations); I would say having a link to a nation on this page's intro would be akin to having a link to a home nation of a political party: necessary. Indeed, it appears this user seems to be fishing for an edit war; even one of the few links on his userpage discusses the 'unfairness' with which another one of his apparently overzealous reports to the admins of an alleged edit war resulted in the "perpetrator" not being sufficiently punished to his liking. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reported when you reached four edits within 24 hours. Sorry if you feel that was too soon. WP:OVERLINK is clear and there is no reason to link to the nation. If it started in a specific city, linking to that would be acceptable, and that's what I wrote on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I responded on my talk page. WP:OVERLINK is in fact not "clear" and does not mention the word "nation" once; it says "*major* geographic features and locations". As I explained before, there is plenty of reason to link to the nation; have you read the article itself? It is not centered in any one part of nation, so I see no harm in having one link to Turkey. Like I said, political parties almost always have links to whatever country whose government they are involved in. I would think the same would go for civil society organizations and political movements that are so vitally and fundamentally attached to one country; in this case, the Gülen movement is fundamentally attached to the nation of Turkey in that it sprang from its political system, population, civil society, speakers of its sole national language, and citizens of its government. Perhaps I am doing this argument against this too much of a favor by attempting to prove a point that should be common sense to any passer-by, but I'm in disbelief that someone would be so litigious as to try to follow guidelines as natural law and choose the word of the law over the spirit of the law and common sense. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a nation is not a major geographic location? I'd be happy to hear your explanation for what you think a nation is. Many take OVERLINK to exclude superfluous linking of common cities such as New York, Los Angeles, London and Paris.
 * Besides, the issue is not OVERLINK, it's not discussing and simply changing content without discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say that an article focused so heavily on one country (Turkey) should at least have a link to it in a lengthy intro. Turkey isn't the United States or the United Kingdom; it is not as identifiable to an English speaker. The point is, you seem to be extremely zealous in reporting people for "overlinking", 3RR, and edit wars for simply breaking technical rules. Like I said before, it is obvious that other admins noticed this behavior from you before, for example, where you also reported a user for breaking the 3RR and then complained when the admins decided that his reversions of your edits were done with good intentions and that your reporting was obsessively overzealous. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing up an article where I tried to resolve an edit war and did not participate in it, and instead I tried to act as mediator, to show that I'm a problem. The issue is simple: don't link the nation of Turkey in tangentially related articles, and when someone shows you a guideline, discuss, don't edit war. 09:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Four edits, not four reverts, there's no violation here. Dark Sun (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Each of the edit modified the content of another editor therefore they are reverts.
 * A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
 * Not my words. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ., Walter is correct that you breached WP:3RR. He is also correct that pursuant to WP:OVERLINK, Turkey should not be wikilinked. At the same time, this is not the kind of thing to edit war about, and that goes for Walter as well, who, although he did not breach 3RR, edit-warred. Ithinkicahn, consider this a warning that the next time you breach 3RR, even over something silly, the administrator evaluating the report may not be so lenient. Also, if you wanted to show good faith, you should self-revert your last change.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 588617007
 * 2) 588611342
 * 3) 588602153

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz&diff=588617923&oldid=588617610

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zwarte_Piet#2011_protesters

Comments:

After posting 3RR warning on his talk page, user removed the warning.

GameLegend (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I reverted, but had good reason. Editor was removing a dead link saying that the material was unreferenced and that a primary source said it differently. Well of course the police report wouldn't report the reason of the protest! Reporting editor is also guilty of breaking 3RR:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588592668&oldid=588480888
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588601944&oldid=588601850
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588609465&oldid=588602153
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zwarte_Piet&diff=588615055&oldid=588611342
 * WP:BOOMERANG! Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I just found a university journalism article that supports the material in the dead link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . I blocked Walter for 48 hours because of his extensive history of edit warring. I blocked GameLegend for 24 hours as it was his first block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Krutoi dezigner reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result:Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  His own talk page and Talk:Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16


 * Comments:
 * This user Krutoi dezigner just recovered from a block, and right after the recovery, he started edit warring once again, despite the reverts by Darkness shines, and Lukeno52, this user is really adamant about imposing his own version of page. He has edit war previously as well, same page. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess this can be closed, because the user is banned already. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * the day before this report by User:Georgewilliamherbert ES  &#38;L  12:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:ElKevbo reported by User:108.12.17.157 (Result: Reporter blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=529_plan&action=history

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]

I sent him an email because I couldnt figure out how to respond to him on wikipedia. He did not respond to my email.

Comments:

I am a new user who doesnt fully understand your editing and reporting system.

Anyway I made perhaps 2 external link submissions in compliance with wikipedia's guidelines. The external links where very specific links from a content page on wikipedia, in this case the 529 College Savings Plan, to a list of web resources for 529 college savings plans, on a site similar to DMOZ. The linked page is of higher quanitity and quality than the much outdated DMOZ, and has no pay for placement links whatsoever - all sites are listed at no charge or fee. This editor reverted the link repeatedly and repeatedly threatened to ban me, falsely claiming that I was spamming wikipedia. He did so on a second link on a second content page.

I recommend banning ElKevbo from participating in Wikipedia.


 * Although incomplete, and certainly does not violate WP:3RR, I can heartily suggest that the cheapbooks website sure as hell should not be used as an external link from Wikipedia - period. When it was removed the first time, you were not permitted to re-add it without getting new WP:CONSENSUS through discussion o nthe article talkpage   ES  &#38;L  19:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The reporter's been blocked for spamming. only (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

User:JustBeCool reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result:)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)


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


 * Comments:

Highly obsessed with imposing his own edits, even though they were rejected by other users months ago, which can be seen, but he brought this issue again, while no one still agreed, he started edit warring again. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Albertdaniel222 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

There are much edits with the conflicts of this user, especially the edit-war article of Jenna Morasca, which is already protected. ApprenticeFan work 00:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y60PcnIB6S check time 38:59. Voila! Albertdaniel222 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good job, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yP7mU-Fx7A at 00:30 to 00:31. ApprenticeFan  work 08:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . I'm not sure I understand what anyone is talking about, but it appears that everyone is happy, a rare thing on this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:J intela reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The article is under 1RR as is posted on both the talk page and editing page. The user edits the lead to remove that Gaza is occupied - very well sourced in the body. I revert this as the lead contradicts the body, J reverts me, an admin reverts J, J then reverts plus cuts out a massive amount of sourced text. On the talk page he rants about his view which he thinks is more important than the view of nations, the UN, courts, or NGOs. Sepsis II (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Szekszter reported by User:MezzoMezzo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 11:36, 1 January 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 15:22, 2 January 2014
 * 2) 15:25, 2 January 2014
 * 3) 15:42, 2 January 2014
 * 4) 03:46, 3 January 2014
 * 5) 06:49, 3 January 2014
 * 6) 08:22, 3 January 2014
 * 7) 10:45, 3 January 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:13, 3 January 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a (was requested of the user by one of the three others with whom he is edit warring, he has so far refused to take the issue to the talk page MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC))

Comments:

Special:Contributions/199.68.218.110 reveals only a single edit at 20:06, 2 January 2014. Seems suspect though I'm not sure if it's enough for a sockpuppet investigation. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone. Didn't want to end up in a revert war, at all. My goal was simple. To highlight the diversity of the Somali community and ad diversity to the page(individuals of different views, gender, profession).

I do admit my mistake though. In one instance i was made aware that the hatnote only allows specific information to the group, so I cleared my mistake that until i get better, more specific links and information. But at the same time I realized, even information added that was specific for the page was reverted, without any other reason than the people involved had a personal, maybe politically, or religious issue with the adage. The page is being reverted by individuals that want to make it into a 'one ethnicity one culture one religion' type page. Of which I am not for at all. Regards Szekszter (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * anyone there?Szekszter (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Amitabho reported by User:Kmzayeem (Result: protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 588981482 by Kmzayeem (talk) Do not revert if you do not have a valid objection."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 588976479 by Bazaan (talk) You are launching incoherent attacks on my character to substantiate your baseless nationalist sentiment. What race am I being racist against?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 588968587 by Bazaan (talk) I've been reported for this before, and the admin has thanked me for fixing my collage. Please don't accuse me of racism if you don't know what the word means."
 * 4)  "I agree that there are too many Bangladeshis, but I would suggest you WP:BEBOLD and distribute the spots fairly. I'm afraid I may have contributed to the merit imbalance by adding another Bangladeshi, but I trust you will resolve that excellently."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Tried to solve the matter in the article talk page in this thread, also warned the user for edit warring.  Zayeem  (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

 Response by Amitabho:  The 'consensus' User:Kmzayeem wishes me to appeal to is a transparently biased nationalist cabal of Bangladeshi editors which has apparently decided that:
 * 1) A person whose parents are not both Bengali aren't Bengali,
 * 2) A person whose parents are both Bengali aren't Bengali,
 * 3) and that the infobox must have a 'proportionate' distribution of nationalities, regardless of merit. This is particularly ridiculous, considering that the article is about the Bengali people as a whole regardless of nationality.

I have been accused three times of being a racist (against my own race?), two times of this racism being 'naked' (it's thankfully not appeared in any magazines yet), and once of being an 'imperialist'. I have been threatened with blocks and reports several times, perhaps in an attempt to intimidate me; I have been reported once before. These users have made no attempt to debate constructively and instead have elected first and foremost to resort to personal insults, reverting and pouncing on petty copyright issues without any attempt to fix them themselves. The users which User:Kmzayeem wishes me to reach a consensus with have failed to suggest suitable Bangladeshi personalities when asked. These users furthermore have no grounding in any of the topics which would allow them to come to a reasonable consensus on notability and especially refuse to debate the notability of their national heroes, who are in fact included in the collage regardless. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In short, these users have failed to contribute constructively in spite of my best attempts to compromise. Amitabho Chattopadhyay (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)