Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive235

User:Jackmcbarn reported by User:88.104.24.150 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * For one, 3RR doesn't apply in your own userspace. Also, I made it clear that that was the wrong page to edit. Thirdly, the warning link was ME warning YOU. Finally, you started undoing my regen of the page, which is clearly blatantly unconstructive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, AND the first two reverts were by, not me! Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:3RR indeed doesn't apply to a user's own userspace, and it also doesn't apply to reverting clearly disruptive edits, such as 88.104.24.150's removal of a name that belongs on that page per its inclusion criteria. Huon (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Huon,
 * Can you please educate me, and show me that specific policy?
 * And please note that the diff you showed was just me undoing this  where Jackmcbarn undid the edit from Aircorn - not me. Thanks. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aircorn never edited that page. I added his name to the list in . You undid my edit for no reason in . Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Read | 3RR exemptions, it clearly states it. AcidSnow (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow already pointed out where the exceptions to WP:3RR can be found, and Jackmcbarn pointed out that he didn't revert thrice anyway. Regarding Aircorn, he supported proposal 1, which by the rules laid out at the top of Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014 counts as an implicit oppose to proposal 4. Jackmcbarn added them to that column of his list; 88.104.24.150 removed them with an edit summary that rather clearly shows that 88.104 didn't understand what they were doing, and reverted a second time for good measure. Both the original report and 88.104's reply here contain so many falsehoods that it's almost comical. 88.104.24.150, you may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Huon (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:The sun2013 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Vandalism page vevo free encyclopedia in English, This page needs to be protected from the clowns that erases information or enter false data to generate controversy among the fans of the artists."
 * 2)  "Vandalism page vevo free encyclopedia in English"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 593317551 by ViperSnake151 (talk) WTF WHO THE PEOPLE?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Do not restore the "Certified" list. */ new section"


 * Comments:

Constantly restores content that was removed as a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE; editing pattern and conduct seems to imply "ownership" behaviour ViperSnake151   Talk  22:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:The sun 2013 is warned not to again [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vevo&diff=593318350&oldid=593317551 restore] the 'certified list'] that was [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vevo#Do_not_restore_the_.22Certified.22_list.complained complained about on the talk page] unless he obtains consensus first. Another admin has imposed semiprotection for a year and we'll see if that helps with the turbulence on this article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Oda Mari reported by User:STSC (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 04:57, 1 February 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 08:56,  1 February 2014  (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 592667818 by Mogism: The description of the source is unreliable. Besides, there's no mention on Japan in the source. Please provide RS with evidence like the source #37. . (TW)")
 * 2) 06:32,  2 February 2014  (edit summary: "Reverted 3 edits by 54.199.150.33 (talk): Though it's cited, there are no evidence in them. (TW)")
 * 3) 08:44,  2 February 2014  (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 54.199.161.4 (talk): The evidence is the photograph of the forein aircrafts and their identification. See talk page. (TW)")

Comments: These are unjustifiable disruptive reverting purely for personal nationalistic reasons.
 * ., don't make accusations without evidence. I don't even understand your involvement (or uninvolvement) in the dispute. The IP addresses, btw, all come from an Amazon corporate account. There's been no WP:3RR violation and the reported editor has opened a discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Anil Singh Pokhriyal reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593605262 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593605262 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593605262 by Roxy the dog (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. using TW"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Ayurveda. using TW"
 * 3)   "pointer"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is adding quasi-spam to article. See User_talk:NeilN  Neil N  talk to me  20:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Even though no discussion has taken place at article talk page, NeilN has been involved in a lengthy discussion at his own talk page (thread linked above) about verifiability and related policies. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also started one at the talk page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy says "The person should be noticeable" and the author of the books is very significant person in India then how can others mark it as spam without verifying that. All the books are original and written by Rajiv Dixit himself based on Ashtang Hridyam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil Singh Pokhriyal (talk • contribs) 21:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds like you have a content dispute with other editor(s) and need to resolve that at the article talk page. Edit warring is not an acceptable means to resolve the disupte. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * User made yet another revert to the Ayurveda article, in spite of all the advice above and requests to discuss on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:Msnicki (Result: Warned)
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:

Winkelvi has been attempting to scrub any mention of the syringe found in Hoffman's arm from the article, reverting 3 different editors' attempts to insert the mention based on the NY Times article, offering only the excuse that "newspapers say a lot of things." Msnicki (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Scrub" is an unfounded and simply untrue accusation. My feeling? Msnicki is seeking punitive rather than preventive action and is ticked because I objected to his un-encyclopedic edits.  I started the talk page discussion on the disagreement in content, explained why I felt what he was adding didn't belong, and he didn't like what I had to say.  It was then and only then he placed a 3RR notice on my talk page, and then threatened filing this report on the article talk page.  I admit I was probably too over-zealous in protecting the article, but I never had any intention of edit warring, and I still don't see how Mcnicki thinks adding unproven and speculative content is appropriate.  My comments at the article talk page regarding his inclusion of certain content are thus: "Who were these "investigators"? Newspaper people? NYPD detectives? The Medical Examiner? "Investigators" is pretty vague. As far as what the NYT says: newspapers say a lot of things. Just because it's said doesn't make it fact, even if it is from what Wikipedia considers a reliable source. There is no deadline in Wikipedia and we are not newspaper reporters trying to "scoop" one another. We are supposed to be supporting the writing of content in an encyclopedia. Hypodermic needles, envelopes, and the like reported by unnamed "investigators" just isn't encyclopedic. We can do better than that".  I still believe we can do better than the content Msnicki was putting in.  For me, it's not personal, it's about the content.  -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓  22:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ., you violated WP:3RR and there's no exemption for your reverts based on, for example, a WP:BLP violation. However, I'm willing to accept that you acted in good faith and that a block at this point would be punitive. However, I strongly urge you to leave the article alone for a while lest any edit you make, even if it's about different subject matter, constitutes a revert. There are a lot of people editing the article, and I'm sure it will get along just fine without you. Also the stuff about doesn't seem to be supported by any real evidence, particularly as you reverted several users. You are, of course, welcome to contribute to any discussion on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Point(s) taken, Bbb23 and will do. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593570058 by Faizan (talk) it was not supported by consensus Do not edit war, take it to talk page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 593542650 by Brewcrewer (talk) no consensus"
 * 3)  "undo trivial edit by Mikrobølgeovn"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Clear violation of 1RR rule within 24 hours. Spotted this violation earlier too, warned the user several times, but still another case of edit-warring. The diffs have been provided, the user is edit-warring with several experienced editors, as evident from the article's history. He did three reverts in 24 hours. Fai zan  12:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not supported by consensus

We've had this discussion it was not supported by consensus--Ersroitasent (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * And that's an exception to edit-warring? In addition, 3 separate people seem to be "against" your edit - that looks like better consensus that you think  D  P  12:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . take care, you were only 3 hours outside 24 hours yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure Callanecc, thanks. Fai  zan  12:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,, being 3 hrs outside of 24 is usually considered gaming the system, and should also have led to a block D  P  13:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whatsoever, it was not a 1RR violation. I don't have an active editing history in that article and I am not an edit-warrior. I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time, then how does it mean that I was gaming? Fai  zan  13:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:113.52.17.67 reported by User:Sekicho (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: Anonymous user keeps butchering this article about a current Japanese political candidate (Tokyo gubernatorial election, 2014). Did the same edit for a fourth time after being warned of 3RR. Not sure why they are so obsessed with this guy in particular...

Sekicho (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. Removing sourced content with no explanation. It doesn't make much sense to add a notability tag after you've removed the sources that show notability, while giving no reason for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:50.67.92.94 reported by User:Underbar dk (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seaquam_Secondary_School&diff=prev&oldid=592276842

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: IP has been reverting content to his preferred version without responding to the concerns raised on the edit summaries and his user page. He has also took to WP:STALKING my edits to revert them, such as here and here on my userpage

_dk (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 week for disruptive editing. Two different IPs are revert warring to add WP:PEACOCK language to Seaquam Secondary School so I've applied semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned)
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: Talk:Sodastream

Comments: This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. Sepsis II (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:Underlying lk (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
 * 2)  "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
 * 3)  "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
 * 4)  "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"


 * Comments:

Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on Talk:Turkey where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate WP:OWN. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a fifth time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * He always violates WP:OWN and makes changes against the decisions that we made on the talk page, all the time. I give my support for it. And he recently filed a complaint about me to Administrators' noticeboard, but it didint approved, it got rejected.KazekageTR (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * and User:Underlying lk warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.27.233.95 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593772711 by DMacks (talk) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
 * 2)  "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 593777695 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 593779411 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 5)  (No summary, but same reversion)
 * 1)  (No summary, but same reversion)


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


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


 * Comments:


 * . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:92.11.xxx.xxx reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: 28 March 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts: No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.
 * 1) 12:16, 2 February 2014
 * 2) 16:03, 2 February 2014
 * 3) 20:24, 2 February 2014
 * 4) 14:56, 3 February 2014
 * 5) 18:35, 3 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 92.11.202.180, 92.11.192.215

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: initial post by Denisarona, entire discussion to date

Comments: The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - semi for 4 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 13:16, 2 February 2014 (removed identification of the Jazali group)
 * 2) Revision as of 07:27, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
 * 3) Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
 * 4) Revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2014 (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User violated 3RR over content dispute on Yemen. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator User:Materialscientist. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This user has admitted formerly being User:Kendite. Back on December 15 this editor was also [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive230#User:.D9.8A.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.81_.D8.AD.D8.B3.D9.8A.D9.86_reported_by_User:Til_Eulenspiegel_.28Result:_Stale.29 reported at this noticeboard] for warring at Queen of Sheba, and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * May I add there is a problem with this editor please see the comment and its racial overtones. no plan of discussion with "Africans"--Inayity (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the Yemen article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAcidSnow&diff=593698550&oldid=593650042 the edit] mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemen&diff=593698795&oldid=593698477 here]: 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity is quite right about the racial overtones. Accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi (c.f. the related Sheba debacle here with the non-African User:Til Eulenspiegel). Kendite/يوسف حسين also uses antiquated, derogatory epithets like "Negroes" with no compunction. Elsewhere, he also claimed to be reluctant to engage in discussion because he was "tired". Apparently not tired enough to revert war with several editors on two pages simultaneously, though. Additionally, the user has serious WP:OWNership issues and threatened an editor ("just stay away from any Yemen related article" ). Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Capricornmanager1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 2)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 3)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 4)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 5)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 6)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 7)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 8)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 9)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 10)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 11)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 12)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 13)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 14)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 15)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 1)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 2)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 3)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 4)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 5)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 1)  "/* 1913–present */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. All editors are expected to abide by consensus. If this behavior continues, Capricornmanager1 can be blocked with no further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "back to original version"
 * 2)  "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
 * 3)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
 * 2)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "/* Belgium */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* French Fries */ please stop"
 * 2)   "/* French Fries */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I gave sources that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --Wester (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting things like this which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.


 * In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--Wester (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are being disruptive to prove a point. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be biased to take sides and to choose one is original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like this are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: see this. It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --Wester (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is character assassination. I am active on Wikipedia since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --Wester (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.
 * Wester has never been blocked on the English Wikipedia, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.
 * As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious.  Oreo Priest  talk 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you knew Dutch you would see that that block was a mistake and not sock puppet use. So that doesn't count. Second: that edit you mentioning is made in January 2014. So not 'over a year ago'. Barely two weeks ago. It was an anonymous edit that I reverted. And no: there is no actual debate between France and Belgium who invented fries. I find that only in American sources. Probably since it's named 'French' fries. --Wester (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we put this on WP:LAME? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium.  Citations are everywhere  ES  &#38;L  19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article.  Repeatedly.  Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says).  (S)he was edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Wester is warned. If they continue to revert at French fries without getting a talk page consensus first they may be blocked without further notice. If you intend to participate in controversial articles, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wester&diff=593764246&oldid=593761229 clearing all the messages from your own talk page] does not suggest a willingness to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that suggest that I do not feel my talk page should be used against me like EvergreenFir did. A talk page is a private thing.--Wester (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:41.96.7.179 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

There's an ongoing discussion on talk page, editor is ignoring it and has reverted 5 times in two hours despite invitations to talk and 3rr warning. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Indef)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Again he has violated 1RR. Earlier he was reported too and was blocked for a day. But his disruptive edits and edit warring continue even after the block. I request a strict action to be taken. He is edit-warring with four users on the article, and moving without consensus. Instead of discussing it on the article's talk, he keeps on reverting others' edits. After this severe violation of 1RR just one day after the block ended, it seems that now a more strict action is needed. Thanks. Ping, am I gaming the system now? Fai zan  03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * nonsense claim! There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk  nonsense claim by User:Faizan What disruptive edits...... What.....

the edits i reverted was not supported by consensus stop your disruptive edits Do not edit war, Instead take it to talk page--Ersroitasent (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion, but is not seeing your active participation. You have no material or reliable sources in support of your your claims. This diff explains your disruptive behavior, is this discussion? Besides you have clearly violated 1RR. Fai  zan  07:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * i DID Not have any claims to support i reverted No consensus edits stop cite misleading information--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This diff There's an active participation What......... an  argument!!!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your argument was discussed and proved wrong in an earlier discussion. I'd be more than willing to discuss if you provide a serious argument on why we should remove sourced content from the article, but so far you have only unspecifically denied the validity of the information. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i reverted No consensus edits the countries that sent troops are in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section and Not in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . The return to the identical edit after a block for that edit, and full-bore lack of willingness to discuss shows longer-term protection of the project is unfortunately required  D  P  09:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Precision123 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Warned again)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Content is clearly related to the IP conflict (and under WP:ARBPIA 1rr restrictions) as it regards a research paper looking at the bias in reporting in the Israel Palestine conflict. Editor has been repeatedly ignoring the 1rr restrictions on IP related topics, and has been previously warned about this behaviour. For previous recent example see e.g.. Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit warring was not present here.
 * (1) To respond briefly to what should have been an uncontroversial edit: Because citable references are made to the text of an article, and not the abstract, I merely edited the sentence to reflect what is stated in the article's text (p. 117) and not the abstract. Last, the sentence had problems with WP:Editorializing. That was all this one-sentence edit involved.
 * (2) User:Dlv999 has cited three edits above. In chronological order, the first (#3) was a bold edit (removed for MOS:OPED and WP:V), and #2 was the compromise sought after a user reverted me. I only reverted once.
 * I further submit that User:Dlv999 did not attempt to resolve the dispute in the article talk page--the editor just added a section in talk moments before deciding to report this. In fact, no constructive explanation for edits was made in the edit summary nor any citation to a Wikipedia rule. --Precision123 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that this editor was warned about edit-warring just yesterday. See . — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * again, only because he has been told that 1RR didn't apply to this article. you need to discuss these issues on the article's talk page, when you make the first revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:72.214.164.94 reported by Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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


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


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Diff of user informed of report: here
 * Diff of attempts to resolve at user's talk page 1, 2, 3. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

KCKC Alice 102.1 is switching its format on 5 Feb. 2014 at 3 p.m. This I.P. user is changing it as if it had already happened. Plus, its website is still branding as Alice 102.1 I also think the I.P. user is using 24.166.187.131 this IP address too, who is also reverting and changing the article. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi by ). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:117.201.217.221 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) addition
 * 2)  "Undid revision 593882352 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 593883747 by Sitush (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 593884810 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kamma_(caste)


 * Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Cityinfonorns reported by User:IIIraute (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  &
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)  (this revert was done after edit warring warning by admin)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, removed as "nonsense" →

--IIIraute (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Warning: Ownership of articles noticeboard discussion, removed as remove nonsense!!!!!!→ --Cityinfonorns (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr Shempenstein reported by User:Wieno (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


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


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Content dispute - Music video */ 3O response"


 * Comments:

User has admitted a personal connection to the producer of the video he keeps trying to add to the page. There are 3 of us reverting his edits and telling him to work it out on the talk page, but we're hitting the point where we're reaching our own 3R limits. I got involved because of a 3O request. Wieno (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Has not reverted since warned. Next time warn earlier. John (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * See also (6RR at present)


 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "remove socks comment"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Andy Dingley (talk) to last revision by Werieth."
 * 3)  "Please stop proxing for a sock, you where warned"
 * 4)  "remove socks comment"


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


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


 * Comments:

User had been warned by myself and another user and alerted he was deleting legitimate comments by another user and persisted in removing the comments. He states this is because it partially is a copy and paste from a banned sock, however it has been pointed out that the entire comment being removed is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I only removed the socks post. I left Andy's comment alone. Werieth (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:3RRNO removing posts by socks/banned users is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you also removed my post. You have since been told that too, which you then excused as you only did it once! Please do not lie to us quite so obviously, it fools no-one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, the first time I missed that you added an additional comment. which is why it was reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You were since corrected on that point. It's OK, we forgive mistakes. Since then however you have stated that your removal of my post was OK because you only did it once (an excuse for 3RR, but no excuse for simply not blanking other editor's comments at ANI). On this page you have also since claimed "I only removed the socks post", which you had already been told was untrue. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This comes down to two core issues – along with most of Werieth's re-appearances at ANEW
 * 1) Does 3RR apply to Werieth? He is after all the editor with 18RR and an excuse as to why that was permissible and why he was unblocked for it.
 * 2) Does AGF apply to Garbage turk?

There is no policy reason to remove posts by socks. WP:3RRNO does not say this.

There is a policy reason to remove posts by banned and blocked users, which is something different.

Werieth (and others) have claimed that Garbage turk is a banned user. They have given no evidence for this, nor even indicated which user they refer to and why they are banned. In the absence of such evidence, AGF requires us to treat Garbage turk as a user, possibly even as a sock (as no-one contests that much), but we are not allowed (per AGF) to treat them as if banned.

Werieth should either show evidence that Garbage truck is banned, or else stop treating them as if banned. If there is no evidence that they are banned, then 3RR still applies. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. 3RR cases about user talk are sometimes a judgment on who is behaving more disruptively. Since User:John Reaves has indefinitely blocked User:Garbage turk with talk access disabled he has already made the call on this.  If you think sanctions are due to User:Werieth you could try making the case to John. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about Garbage turk, it's about Werieth. How are GF editors supposed to operate when an editor whose behaviour is so bad they're repeatedly assumed to be Betacommand is instead given a free pass to ignore one of our basic behavioural policies? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Andy, Im not ignoring anything. Given the behavior of the numerous socks, and abusive behavior, identifying the master may not be doable, however given the behavior and the fact that non-involved administrators obviously see the accounts as abusive socks, (and from what I can tell there are several likely masters that are banned, I just dont have solid enough evidence to make that accusation at this point) the master account has a very high probability of being banned due to the disruptive nature of the socks that they have used. WP:AFG isnt a suicide pact, given the number of blocked accounts tied to this user common sense applies. Just because they spout rants that support your position doesnt mean that we should ignore common sense and let abusive trolls roam the wiki. Werieth (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is far more, albeit still inconclusive, evidence that you are a sockpuppet of Betacommand than there is for Garbage turk being a sock of any specific sockmaster, either banned or not. You assure us that Garbage truck is banned and that you know who they are because CUs have told you personally. Yet you want the corresponding statement "I think Werieth is Betacommand" to be revdeled on sight as you consider it (despite being told otherwise repeatedly) to breach WP:NPA. Despite this imbalance, you are still allowed to treat Garbage turk as if banned and basic policies like 3RR are thrown away in your favour. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:82.132.232.24 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "do the right thing and leave it be, the beatles are regarded as the most important band in history by fans and critics alike"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Also using IP User:82.132.224.38 and User:82.132.224.8. Has history of challenged reverts, edit warring, and blanking. Looking at the other two IPs, multiple warnings have been given in the past and at least one block for disruptive editing. Appears to be an edit warring and vandalism-only account.

Other reverts from the other IPs on this particular article found here and here

Warnings given on other IP pages here and here

Unfortunately, because the IP addresses keep changing, a block will not likely work for long. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Semiprotected two months. The use of a fluctuating IP in an edit war violates WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghassanid Page, User Lazyfoxx (Result: Malformed)
Hello. I believe that User Lazyfoxx keeps obsessively reverting my edits on the Ghassanids page, removing my sources at will, which I believe is Wikipedia vandalism, and replacing them with incredibly unreliable sham internet sources found via original research to back his pre-existing biased opinion. He undoes all my hard efforts to improve the page within a day or so of the edit, and is obsessed to have the page based on the version he wnats. The page has been an edit-war between myself and him for some time now. I have tried conflict resolution and unilaterally offered compromises to him to no avail. Can I pleaserequest further editor help and mediation n the article, and perhaps article protection based on the most reliable sources judged by third parties. Many thanks for your help. SaSH172 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:APZ982 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Editor warned repeatedly:, , , RolandR (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by User:Startropic1 (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

"(cur | prev) 17:28, 5 February 2014‎ Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,382 bytes) (-992)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 71.168.245.210 (talk): Primary source lies. (TW)) (undo | thank)" Edit added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594071982&oldid=594063528 Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&diff=594077979&oldid=594071982

Diffs of the user's reverts: For history see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Norman&action=history The user is trying different methods of editing my material out to dodge infractions.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Walter_G%C3%B6rlitz

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Larry_Norman I posted at the bottom of the talk page, and on the user's talk page as well. Seems to be just ignoring my posts.

Comments:

Apologies if this is formatted poorly. This is my first attempt at this. Any tidying would be greatly appreciated.

Startropic1 (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad this came up. I was just about to go to RSN, because even after a compromise edit I feel very uneasy about the page, but this forum should do. Let's look at the "source" being added. and here's the source: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/news/recantations. Some background: the website that this "source" is hosted on is an attack site levelled against a documentary film that brings-up some damning evidence against the subject of the article. The whole thing fails WP:NPOV and WP:RS and should be removed. If the material passes RS then keep it in. If the prose pass an third-party review, I'll agree, but the addition to the article is poorly written, biased, sourced by material that does not pass RS and is certainly below standards for Wikipedia.
 * 1) First, the author of this "story" is Alan Coughlin. There's no other story on the site by this author and there's no indication that the author has any credibility. No other writing credits by the author. However there is someone who goes by that name who writes a blog: http://www.alancoughlin.com/Blog/TheSubjectiveAspectOfTheGospel.jsp
 * 2) Second, there's no statement of editorial oversight or anything that would help this site to meet the standards set at WP:RS.
 * 3) Third, there's no support for this statements made by Newman. It would be good to know the circumstances of the interview. Some of the statements were made on the interviewee's Facebook page, but there isn't a link to it to confirm that this is the case.
 * 4) "David Di Sabatino told my friend that he planned to destroy Larry Norman with this movie." We have an unnamed "friend" who made a claim. This already sounds unreliable. Could you imagine going to your editor and saying that? The truth is that this "claim" has been made by various fans of Norman's and have been refuted by the director. The back-and-forth happens in Larry Norman fan sites and discussion boards.
 * 5) The title of the page and the addition to the article claim that Newman "recanted". I don't see a recantation anywhere in the story. To recant, is "to announce in public that your past beliefs or statements were wrong and that you no longer agree with them" I see "I ... decided to remove myself and all the pictures I let him use of Larry and I." I don't see her saying that her past statements on Norman were wrong. She does say that she is "sorry [she] even shared anything with [Di Sabatino]. He just twisted my words and left out the most important part". I'm not sure how Newmans words were twisted, and Newman does not go on to clarify how that was the case. There was clearly editing out of material.

As for ignoring posts Startropic1, wasn't made by Startropic1 but by the anon. I didn't see the discussion because they were added during my commute. (I must stop having a real life). The warning on my talk page fails WP:NPA as, but that can be forgiven by a new editor. So, let's get some eyes on those recent additions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some rebuttals:
 * You seem to suggest the director as a reliable source. While in fairness, he IS the director of the film, the information in question is material that he is hardly the primary source for. It has become clear that he tampered with some of the interviews and some of the people interviewed are suspect as well. Furthermore his body of work prior to the Larry Norman film, and his notoriety puts his credibility in serious doubt.


 * If you go to the previous URL, http://www.failedangle.com you are redirected to the new site that I added to the Wikipedia page. It is run by the authorized biographer of the Larry Norman Estate, Allen Flemming. I have noted this several times but you don't seem to be able to grasp this.  If you bothered looking through the site, you would find numerous recordings of Larry and Pamela along with transcripts, there are no sources more primary than that! See them here: http://www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com/shot-down/pam-newman/

Here are more sources:

Failed Angle facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Failed-Angle/114494451912560

Archived copy of the original Failed Angle page: http://archive.is/eAgqg

I'm getting tired of people like David Di Sabatino and supporters of his like yourself that continue to besmirch Larry Norman, and spread lies about him all over the internet conveniently after he has passed away and can no longer defend himself against your lies. If the sources I have cited are insufficient, then all mention of the Fallen Angel film and the lies it suggests should be removed from the page as that film and its director are far less credible than the sources I have provided. Also for the record, I was the anon because I didn't immediately login until after the malicious edits began.

Startropic1 (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Lastly, you technically didn't violate Wikipedia policies because you proceeded to edit out my material in different ways to circumvent the limits. Rather than doing the prohibited 3rd undo, you instead created a new edit, thus circumventing that rule.
 * I'm sorry if you think that I consider the director to be a RS. Is that why I had his article deleted from Wikipedia? I will elaborate below.
 * While Ian Flemming is the authorized biographer, that simply means he has a conflict of interest in discussing Mr. Norman. He is certainly free to publish a book to set the record straight. If it's self-published, it wouldn't meet RS any more than his self-published websites are. If he can get it published by a reputable publishing house, it will be. Regardless, I will buy the book and read it with great interest.
 * I am not "a supporter" of Di Sabatino. I'm a supporter of FC Bayern Munich. I'm a supporter of Vancouver Whitecaps FC. I can understand how you have come to the conclusion that I'm supporter: because I don't toe the Norman family party line on Mr. Norman and remove unbalanced information on Wikipedia, but that's not the case. In fact, I was accused of being a fan in a recent Facebook event notification of the documentary by someone who really does hate Mr. Norman.
 * With that in mind, there are no lies in the documentary. There some very one-sided statements though. If there were lies, the Norman estate would have taken Di Sabatino to court. They haven't. So while I don't think that the director is a reliable source, I do think that his film is, and I can back that up. I also think that the sources you have added do not meet WP:RS and should be removed immediately.
 * Now, I will point you once again to WP:NPA and ask you to retract your statement that I am spreading lies about Mr. Norman ("can no longer defend himself against your lies"). You may use simple tagging around the statement.
 * Lastly, even if I had reverted your material, I would not have violated 3RR, that only happens on the fourth revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to Allen (not Ian btw) Flemming having a conflict of interest, this is incorrect. He has been given direct access to a mountain of legal documents & recordings left behind by Mr. Norman. Apparently Mr. Norman had the foresight to document a lot of pertinent information. Mr. Flemming previously stated that the biography he will be publishing will include Mr Norman's faults, which no one suggests that Larry Norman was a perfect saint. He has hardly been biased in what he has shared thus far. How are documents and recordings he shares on his site which are DIRECTLY from the Larry Norman Estate NOT valid sources?!

In regards to the assertion that the Norman family would have sued Di Sabatino if the film was full of lies. As a matter of fact, they DID sue him. Among other things Di Sabatino used Larry Norman's music without permission. In the end, the Normans decided to abandon the fight because they didn't want to bother wasting anymore of the Estate's limited funds, (Larry had significant medicals bills to get paid), on a film they believed "few people would even see." It is unfortunate that people associated with Di Sabatino litter sites like Youtube with clips of the film to futher propogate his lies. The truth can become a lie when it is intentionally removed from context as Di Sabatino most certainly did with the entirety of his film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startropic1 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Please use this time to reach agreement on the disputed items. The WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can help with sourcing questions, like the usability of http://thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com or Facebook as a source.  User:Startropic1 should carefully read our policy on WP:Reliable sources. Both parties are warned to stop describing the other's statements as lies. Startropic's reference to 'malicious edits' by Walter had better not go further. If this continues, blocking for personal attacks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Livingengine1 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: blocked )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [each revert is explained below]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  removes sourced material, claiming that it's "not supported by the citation offered." The material removed is explicitly stated in the source, an academic book, to the point of using some of the same language.
 * 2)  makes the same edit, this time claiming that the author hasn't cited any evidence to support the statement, which is erroneous on several counts: a. that she explicitly cites her source, and b. that it's not his job to decide that he's more knowledgeable than this scholar.
 * 3)  makes the same edit, claiming that the content is "not supported by anything in the world."
 * 4)  same edit. In all of these he's claimed that BLP is being violated, in spite of having it pointed out to him that BLP is not a blanket exemption for removing anything you personally dislike and that quality sources like this one strengthen BLP.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for blanking, after which he repeated the edit several more times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: surely the user who wants to change the status quo should try to gain consensus? There's been discussion going on in this section in which I, Livingengine1 (the edit-warring user), and Binksternet have participated, but Bink and I have both been unsuccessful in trying to get Livingengine1 to articulate any actionable problems with the article, which he seems to view as a personal affront - including the cited text he's so determined to censor.

Comments: Note that the fourth revert here falls juuuust outside the 24-hour window. Whether that half-hour gap is an attempt to game the system or not seems unimportant; the user is edit-warring without discussion to remove well-sourced material because it offends his personal sensibilities, and literally lying about the sources in order to justify doing so as well as spuriously waving at policies that don't apply. Also, this is a single-purpose account whose agenda on Wikipedia is to smear American Muslim organizations, as his edit history shows, and he's been taken to task in the past for edit-warring to include obvious BLP violations; it seems the faux concern for BLP extends only as far as it allows him to promote anti-Muslim organizations and smear Muslim ones.

–Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Bishonen &#124; talk 05:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC) )

User:Andreas11213 reported by User:Elekhh (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  18:26, 5 February 2014
 * 2)  19:55, 5 February 2014
 * 3)  21:29, 5 February 2014
 * 4)  21:51, 5 February 2014
 * 5)  22:02, 5 February 2014
 * 6)  22:03, 5 February 2014
 * 7)  17:49, 6 February 2014

Also possible that this IP revert is from the same user, as the same IP turned up to revert to an earlier edit of User:Andreas11213 at Tanya Plibersek

Same user also engages in multiple-reverts at George W. Bush
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * This user has similarly edit warred in the past 24 hours at Liberal Party of Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Stigmatella aurantiaca reported by User:DParlevliet (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:



Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) makes clear that he will revert again and it concerns numerous edits over 2 months

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: fresh start

Stigmatella aurantiaca has reverted 2 months of editing without referring to a Wiki deletion rule and without discussion this revert on the talk page. The revert has been supported by Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 (which declared that he has no plans to edit himself). None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months. Also at the moments of revert none of them has given arguments what was wrong in all those edits to justice a complete revert in stead of editing. There is only one small part which has caused an extended discussion, but that does involve all other edits. Therefore reverting so many edits without referring to Wiki deletion rules is not acceptable

DParlevliet (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Stigmatella aurantiaca
First of all, thanks for protecting the page.

DParlevliet has made three reverts in the last 24 hours against consensus, two reverts of my edits, and one of Patrick0Moran's edits, as expressed in the following diffs:

Diffs of DParlevliet's reverts:
 * 18:15, 5 February 2014‎
 * 19:28, 5 February 2014
 * 08:25, 6 February 2014

DParlevliet's entire history of contributions since 07:41, 1 October 2013‎ has been of adding material expressing his POV against the consensus of (1) Patrick0Moran, (2) an anonymous IP who has actual experience in the field (who argued extensively with DParlevliet on the talk page but refrained from actually editing the article himself), and (3) myself.

The anonymous IP (who has recently opened up an account as Cthugha82) summarized the situation in the following talk page diff. In this diff, he recommended that we revert to the 1 Oct 2013 revision of the article. Patrick0Moran and I were in agreement on this issue.


 * 16:57, Talk page: 5 February 2014

DParlevliet claims that "None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months." This is a completely false claim, as can be seen from even a cursory perusal of the talk page. (I'm a relatively recent addition to the debate so was not involved in most of these debates.) The pattern, repeated over and over, was that Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 would argue with DParlevliet, but DParlevliet would completely ignore our recommendations and would proceed to edit the article the way he wanted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Patrick0Moran
I support what Stigmatella aurantiaca has reported immediately above. I have been editing Wikipedia articles for several years and have rarely seen contributors who fail to give responsive answers to my questions about their edits or understandings the way he does. The difficulty is compounded because his native language appears to be Dutch (see his talk page) and his English is so poor that it is often difficult to determine even what he is trying to communicate. His main point appears to be that the several authors of "A double-slit quantum eraser," all university professors, have argued according to quantum mechanics and reached one conclusion (that is at the heart of their experiment design if not at the heart of their mathematics) but that he can correctly support an opposite conclusion by the use of what he calls the "rules" of classical physics. The paper is available at http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106078%E2%80%8E. On many basic points (such as how and when quantum interference is manifested) he appears to be uninformed. I have endeavored to remain polite, question only the validity of his assertions, and provide him missing information (such has how BBO crystals can be used to produce entangled photons, a crucial part of the experiment design). However, he is extremely resistant to giving responsive replies to objections, always insisting that others argue from his premises. It is not just that he maintains his edits in opposition to the critiques of others, but that it quickly becomes impossible even to explore what he is trying to say. The IP editor, who must deal with real-world quantum-mechanical issues in optics as part of his work and therefore cannot have maintained any misconceptions for long, has tried to explain to him why his classical approach is inapplicable. He has been very patient, but he finally left the discussion in disgust.

While we have been trying to get a major issue that lies at the heart of problems I have with his edits on several related articles, many less central issues have been put in abeyance. It is difficult to fix a vague English formulation while not clear on what the writer was trying to communicate, and I believe that the IP and I have both attempted to prioritize the fundamental issues. P0M (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Response by Cthugha82
I am the anonymous IP editor mentioned above. I am not frequently contributing to Wikipedia, but I support what Stigmatella aurantiaca wrote above. DParlevliet's edits to the article consist of one part which I consider wrong (the issue about classical explanations of experiments involving entanglement). If references are needed, the following article is one out of many explicitly stating that photon number (Fock) states can never be explained in a classical manner: Fock_state. I can dig up further journal references if that is considered necessary. The other edits mostly consisted of deleting sections or rephrasing some wordings. The deletes were not necessary in my opinion and the rephrasing actually lowered the quality of the article, partially due to sloppy usage of scientific language, partially due to a lack of understanding the topic and partially also due to the editor not being a native English speaker. DParlevliet also refused to take place in constructive discussion with a habit of answering with very few words when other editors spent quite some time in explaining where his misunderstandings lie and where he is wrong, partially including in-detail references. Getting an "but I insist on it"-like-answer to that is not very satisfactory. Finally: Yes, I am a working physicist in the field of quantum optics. However, I am aware that Wikipedia cannot rely on what people claim to be as everybody could claim that. If there are any doubts about my identity or qualification with respect to the topic at hand, I will gladly post some of my publications and point out who I am - just not in public of course. Anybody may then contact the author via the official department mail or e-mail address and verify that it is really me if he/she wishes so.Cthugha82 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:SharpQuillPen reported by User:Ring Cinema (Result: 48 hours)
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:

I have tried to work with this editor. Some of his arguments have been accepted just today. (See ). The particular difficulty has to do with content that no editor has questioned since its inclusion in 2010. When I warned about too much reverting, he responded, "Good!" --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to lodge a concern here as well. Are you not the same contributor that has issued 3 revert warning endlessly to all the participants that have been involved lately. except one, I believe and that has been since you contacted that person to say that you were having trouble. This was after you lodged a dispute resolution claim, was preliminarily suggested that your contribution could be replaced and then you never responded to the request for rebuttal. Then you had the whole article, or at least the plot, reverted to a version that did not reflect all the corrections that had been made after that time. This revert caused some non-plot content to be distorted and thus no longer correct as it was before. You have been rude to people actually insulting in the edit summaries and on the TALK page. You even questioned someone's primary language, called someone arrogant as to think that only Europeans could study and map an ancient site and that exploration since Columbus has been nothing but genocide.

The article as it now stands is remarkably far different than what it was three months ago including numerous attributions, some quoted, that after an issue about the suitability of "gasoline" being included in the plot, were found to be erroneous and possibly transfers that existed in that version two months ago. A transcript of the dialogue in the movie was found to determine those facts. You came to a speculative conclusion about gasoline being in the movie by using with out due diligence a draft copy that lacked most of the dialogue and ended with Katherine in the cave. You then announced to the group that gasoline did not appear in the movie. And as if that were not enough then went on to speculate that "airplane fuel" should be used totally based on speculation when you yourself would [not] let stay in the article speculation, interpretation and assumption. There have been great efforts to portray the plot with that information in which can be verified by the content of the movie. All that needs to be done is some incorrect characterization which then down the line people start using as a source when it can be found that in such things as movie review[s and] [removed comma] book content has been included making some people think the movie has far more explanation than it does.

The issue in question is that was Almasy's 3 day walk to El Tag in scorching weather. The answer is, according to the content of that part of the movie, no. There is not indication that the weather was unpleasant despite it being desert. Now mind you, the area of concern includes where the cave is located a mountainous plateau. El Tag is also on an uplift in the area albeit 3 days walk. You assert that by scenes elsewhere depicting heat is enough to interpret/speculate/assume that it was hot when he walked. A desert is marked by extreme temps and being arid. Not necessarily hot all the time. Palm Springs, California is a perfect example that follows much the same temperature pattern as that part of the Sahara. It can be assumed that if it is arid, drinking water is scarce. He is in the sun for an extend period of time. Anyone can get heat exhaustion from merely exerting themselves without proper supplies. It does not need to be hot. That is why when people think that when it is overcast and they do not mind having been exposed for a prolonged period of time that they find they have sunburned and possibly get heat stroke. That is regardless of heat. To speculate based on other scenes in the movie is not for what Wiki strives. The sequence of the film cannot be used as a timeline because it is non-linear. It was edited that way. It did not follow the final script. So to say that someone is being difficult is insincere and a wrong characterization. This has been the situation with every contribution to the group.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have had a chance to review "the evidence", you can insist on something all you want but if it did not happen it is not fact. It is never mentioned in the dialogue when it clearly could have been. Also, since the film was not edited according to the final script, what reference there may have been to describe any anticipated difficulties with the walk could have made the cutting room floor. "Lured"? That was a conclusion of Almasy during his explanation of what happened for the period to which Caravaggio sought answers. It is absent from any scene previously. The intent of picking up Almasy at the camp was to bring him back to Cairo. If Katherine knew that she had been lured she does not say. She does not even speculate. So to say that Geoffrey lured her is speculation, well assumed, but just speculation based on Almasy's after the fact interpretation. So if the issue of scorching and lured are to be included in the plot then they should appropriately be characterized as speculation, interpretation or assumption. But the fact remains that in both situations they are not portrayed in the film as such.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

CLARIFICATIONS MARKED BY []SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, before this goes any further, the TALK page will document well the amount of discussion and justification for these particular changes. A discussion was open for the entire plot which would have been useful to go through the text from beginning to end in one swop to avoid never ending changes. Ring Cinema responded that we will discuss these issues and then opened new additional discussions on the same text without presenting to the group that maybe these issues should be treated individually. That is the pattern of Ring Cinema, unilateral action regarding the text of the plot. If Ring Cinema did not take possession of everything that is in the content then there would not be so many reverts of what makes it to the plot.SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This complaint has nothing to do with the "gasoline" issue, however it is instructive. When the evidence was presented, I agreed that it was correct to use the word 'gasoline'. That is good editing. There has been no further dispute on this content issue since the evidence was presented on the Talk page. That is not a problem.


 * Secondly, have I issued other 3RR warnings? Yes, it is true that I have issued such warnings when editors revert enough to receive a warning. There is nothing suspicious about that; neither is it germane to this complaint, as far as I know.


 * Regarding the matter of the heat in the desert, I would simply mention that the word 'scorching' has been used continuously in this article since May 2010. It was included in one of the first expansions of the plot summary beyond a stub. No other editor seems to have found it objectionable. I am open to an argument that the desert heat was not scorching as depicted in the film, but I don't see anything persuasive on offer there and it seems to be a longstanding consensus for more than three years. Absent a good reason, it seems more accurate to say it was "scorching" than not to say it, particularly since the heat has a disastrous effect on the main character. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

--The gasoline issue just illustrate that YOU will not allow ANY to insert language in specifically the plot until they provide you with absolute evidence. Yet there are countless times of when others have suggested language and you reverted it. With the gasoline issue it was said to you countless times and since no one had provided any "evidence" you would continually change it. Then in an attempt to prove your assertion which by the way was total speculation since the item to be fueled was a plane that obviously it had to be airplane fuel. You got trumped when the source you used turned out to be reviewed without due diligence. So, it was permissible for you to include speculation but not others. So you continue to fail to recognize that you have such a dominate presence in the plot that everything is connected to you regardless as to who suggested it. You even have the audacity in the edit summaries to say such terms as what was suggested was acceptable to you, not a consensus of the group. And by the way, when you were commenting on the transcript that was provided of the dialogue [you] seem to have the impression, for what reason I do not know, that it was written by the person who submitted[,] commenting that the person submitting it had misspelled gasoline when in fact it was clearly presented as being directly from the source.

As for scorching, how long did "Afrika Corps" appear instead of Germans, which the former never was dialogue in the film. How long was "north to Benghazi" included and never justified by quote in the film according to the dialogue transcript. This just goes to show that the article has contained various inaccuracies that with a review of the dialogue transcript shows how fallacious transfers from the book, that sometimes made it into reviews and stories about the movie, made it into the plot. And then if in plot, although based on speculation, is used by countless people to give a proper characterization of that instance in the film. But it does not exit in the released version. Even when it is pointed out that a statement made by you in the plot, was not an accurate characterization, the pattern repeats about continual reverts, reverts, reverts. And that is the situation with scorching. You assume and speculate that because there are scenes of a hot desert that it is hot all the time. That is just not true. The Palm Springs, California example has been already been brought up and still you refuse to accept, despite no evidence during those portions of the film (the plane crashing; Katherine being in the cave and Almasy getting to El Tag) to think other than that the desert was hot (24/7/365). Since there is no direct dialogue or visual representation in those scenes then to state so is total speculation. It very well may have been included in the script used for the filming and it very well may have been filmed. But it did not make it into the released version, if it existed. But, remember that we are talking about the content of the movie; not the final script. And the dialogue transcript clearly points out that no representation of any heat had an affect on Almasy on his 3 day walk. His exhausted presence when he gets to El Tag is totally explainable by the exertion of a three day walk with out proper supplies. Did the sun affect him? Probably. But then it would affect anyone in an arid environment without supplies and exposed to the sun although the temperature may be in the 60sF and 70sF if so at the time (which we do not know). At least in Lawrence of Arabia we see them tenting themselves in their garb during the day to protect themselves from the sun (as well as the heat when they crossed that particular desert during a very disagreeable time with the waves of heat rolling across the horizon. We do not see that in the released version of The English Patient.

Reverts. Not germane to this issue? Previously, you filed for a dispute resolution mediation. Everyone that was asked to participate did so except for you. And when closing that matter the mediator said that a decision could not be made because all the parties were not willing to participate. You lodged a concern and then felt, for whatever reason, that either you did not have to defend your position or did not defend it in or to thwart a decision that was already made against your original imbedded sentence. The mediator attempt to bring about a consensus by suggesting language and in fact some of that language had previously been suggested in the TALK page but you disregarded it and then lodged the dispute. That's cooperation? It seems that there is a pattern of threatening people, that you will lodge a 3 revert policy complaint for those that changed YOUR characterizations, and then when you were challenged to do so, do not follow through. That happened to me several times from you and each time I welcomed a review and no follow through came about. This last time, again, you issued a threat and instead of lodging a 3 revert complaint came to this board. Just as I said at the beginning of my statement that I was just about to lodge one myself after I had asked for advice about it and was directed to this process. So, yes. I did say "Good" because I had intended to do it myself. But it is not who did it first but who is characterizing the content of the film accurately. Holding firm on the truth is not being a tendentious contributor, so do not attempt to throw that out into this issue because it goes no where. Well, when it comes to the truth, the characterization is just as important as the facts. That is how you avoid characterizing people, events or issues with out a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Changes in [].SharpQuillPen (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of this has anything to do with the edit warring. SQP lacks a consensus for the change he is proposing and has only offered OR as an argument. His participation in the discussion has been accusatory and not accepted by other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Three accounts (User:LimeyCinema1960, User:WordWrightUSA, User:SharpQuillPen) all registered within three days of each other and all have spent an unholy amount of time editing/commenting at The English Patient (film). Here is the interaction between all three:. This activity looks deeply suspicous to me and any admin who takes on this case should be aware of it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebuttal

Registration is merely that--registration. It does not account for time spent on the site when not registered. I have been using the site for several years and decided to register so that when I wanted to contribute whatever format others contributors had available so the same would be available to me. If you wish to say that all three concentrated on TEP then how do you explain the other articles to which contributions were made. It would appear that the work on TEP was not only on the plot. As I saw new things added to TEP article I would look at the coding to see how things were done to see if I could do the same especially when there seem to have been some thing that changed a sortable table. Does that mean if we all worked on similar stuff of the article we are the same or just took a gander at seeing what was appearing on the page and then working through it to see if it was possible. There was always the cancel button and the review button. Work was done on the other aspects of the article as well as other articles as can be seen with the following taken from the contribution pages of each:

WordWrightUSA

•18:30, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,534)‎ . . Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ‎ (→‎Summary of dispute by WordWrightUSA: Is Wikipedia Obligated To The Sentence?) •05:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+20)‎ . . m Hugh Henry Brackenridge ‎ (link) (current) •05:34, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-4)‎ . . m Mark Abley ‎ (→‎Selected bibliography: link) (current) •05:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (0)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:24, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+4)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:22, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+4)‎ . . List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:19, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+45)‎ . . m List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:13, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-19)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:08, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •04:25, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+4)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:23, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:21, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+2)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:16, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:14, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+7)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:11, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+30)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:07, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-8)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) (current) •04:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) •01:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (links) •01:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+42)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •17:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-4)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (→‎Interwar period: correct link)

LimeyCinema1960

•08:30, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+259)‎ . . Talk:Ralph Fiennes ‎ (→‎Fiennes USE: new section) (current) •08:25, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (0)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ •08:19, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-3)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (starred is a misused word.) •02:44, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,448)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: definition and repetition) •02:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-22)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: the types of plane(s) is irrelevant to the plot and unnecessary detail that removing from the article has been the objective identified long ago to make it proper quality.) •02:00, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-5)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: In one of the reminiscences clearly it is said that it is gasoline that is traded not airplane fuel.) •01:47, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+40)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (insert sortable table) •01:37, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+210)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors) •01:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-11)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (redundant and repetitive phrase often used in high school papers for alliterative puffery) •01:02, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,551)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Not Cairo: possible time limits.) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: fix {}) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+212)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: insert sortable table) •22:48, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant phrase often used in gratuitously since the "he had been" is already establishes an end with "spell the end to" ; common superlative that just adds antiquity to the composition of the sentence.) •22:42, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+18)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •22:38, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •20:07, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-38)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (rid confusion) •17:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-91)‎ . . Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Film career: establish links) •16:54, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-87)‎ . . 48th Academy Awards ‎ (reduce confusion) •15:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-48)‎ . . m Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Early life: eliminate redundancy; too many "Zaentz" in such a small paragraph.) •15:43, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+2,032)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles: new section) •14:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant statement of fact;) •06:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (→‎Personal life: correct link) •06:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-136)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (update links) •06:09, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-4)‎ . . Michael Tolkin ‎ (update links) (current) •06:00, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-198)‎ . . Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Career: update links) •05:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-18)‎ . . m Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Early life: provide reference) •05:06, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: links) •04:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-28)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: link) •04:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-21)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: correct link) •04:45, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+17)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: increase references) •04:33, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,033)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: enhance with references production notes; update references) •03:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct ) •03:41, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+2)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct bracket) •03:31, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-23)‎ . . m Leo Frobenius ‎ (provide sources) •03:22, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+408)‎ . . m Talk:Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Education: redundant phrases) (current) •03:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,944)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (rid redundant statements of fact; insert table; include new info and upgrade sources) •19:37, 24 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1)‎ . . m British Academy of Film and Television Arts ‎

SharpQuillPen

•08:53, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+275)‎ . . Talk:The Godfather (novel) ‎ (→‎Link to no mention of godfather or puzo: new section) •08:42, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+4)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+51)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:59, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:58, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:56, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:51, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:47, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:43, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+15)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+46)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:01, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+1,499)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles) •06:35, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-88)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: points of clarification) •06:17, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+152)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (-327)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: I forgot the SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:14, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+2,431)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: What the hell is going on?) •05:39, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+6)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: Almasy's use of the cave) •05:32, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+16)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Archaeology: link) •05:23, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+30)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (systemize citation) •05:07, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist). . (+17)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: correct reference)

Seems like there has been a variety of other activities with TEP article plot and other Wiki articles. So if you want to characterize something then look at the whole record content instead of merely the statistics.SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also note that none of these accounts use indentation on their posts, which is something most editors learn how to do early in their career. For a style comparison, let's try these examples: --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

– 48 hours for 3RR violation. There is a possibility that one editor is using multiple accounts on this article. Consider filing at WP:SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Toccata quarta reported by User:Zabadu (Result: Submitter warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

I'm not sure if I'm doing this correctly, but this person keeps reverting my plot of this moving because I've added "too many links to Wiki (for the character actors) and because I signed the page. He apparently wants an outside link for the plot and a similar one is on TCM.  I wrote the plot while watching the movie.  Do we seriously have to find a written sources for movie plots??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

I've asked for clarification, but all I get is reverts. Okay, so I signed the wrong page, but how do you cite a movie plot? I was trying to give more plot - am I restricted to just a blurb because that's what's published? If I am in the wrong here, I will be the first to apologize, but this persons history makes me wary. Zabadu (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: User:Zabadu is warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert without getting consensus first. They have made 3 reverts while Toccata is only at two reverts. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of you. Zabadu, you did not notify the other party of the 3RR complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, apparently I'm too stupid for Wiki. The "Diff of edit warring" above says "link", I placed toccata's name thinking it would link to them. Apparently, it wasn't. Yes, I made three reverts as I have received no details as to what Toccata quarta hasn't given me any details of their revert. Asking questions gets me a warning. Unbelievable.I did state I wasn't sure I was doing it correctly. Zabadu (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594237182 by Tbrambo (talk)WP:BLP is not a suggestion and this is abusive to re-add when the BLP/N discussion is thataway"
 * 2)  "/* Homophobia accusations */ rm named of living persons - accusations of homophobia are a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and per discussions at WP:BLP/N"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 594209880 by Tbrambo (talk)for g-d's sake READ WP:BLP!!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 594204113 by Alison (talk)read thre discussions at WP:BLP/N and make your case there -- at this point, it is a WP:BLP violation and is thus required to be removed"
 * 5)  "bold violations of WP:BLP are still violations of WP:BLP"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: under discussion at WP:BLPN,


 * Comments:

Multiple editors (including Alison, an admin) have told Collect that this material does not violate BLP. I held off for the fourth revert, but Collect is now on 5 and it's clear that this editor intends to continue reverting. Collect will surely tell us that they were BLP violations (and so his violation of 3RR is therefore justified) -- but that assertion surely at some point runs up against the views of multiple editors in good standing who are convinced in good faith otherwise. Prevention of further disruption is now called for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that has likely also violated 3RR on this article; I have now warned that editor as well and will file a report if there is further reverting by him/her.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I consider an accusation that a living person is a "homophobe" to be a "contentious claim" from the start, and the fact is that the discussion at BLP/N, where Nomoskedasticity has stated  '''Sometimes we come up against the limits of mindless whimpering of"BLP". As any reasonable reading of the material in question shows, this is one of those times. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC) ''' indicates that he may have a particular ax to grind here, and fails to note his own edits and posts. My edits have been absolutely in accord with the mandates of WP:BLP and should be so regarded. I have filed a report at AN/I about a POV pusher on this topic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also note that multiple editors have agreed with my stance on this -- Nomoskedacity is obfuscating the discussion in process at BLP/N utterly with that claim. Collect (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, a "warning" from April 2013 is not really what is intended here when they ask for your specific warning -- really that is about as far a reach as I have ever seen on Wikipedia. APRIL 2013!! Collect (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course they have to be called "homophobe" THAT'S WHAT THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT!!! The controversy of Panti, John Waters, Breda O'Brien, and Iona Institute is about the fact that they were called homophobic, O'Neill was censored, they were paid money and then A LOT of people, including individuals in the Irish Government, European Government, and general public, though this was a really controversial thing. So tell me WHY should homophobia not be used in these articles, when the entire article is about them being called homophobic?? This is CRAZY!!!! Tbrambo (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving exactly why WP:BLP is properly invoked when an editor holds your clear position. Collect (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that the sourcing is impeccable and multiple editors in good standing told you you were wrong. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to clarify what you think the above comment demonstrates beyond exacerbation at your removals? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Collect appears to be continuing his campaign at Iona Institute where he has removed reliably sourced material about the controversy over the payments by the irish broadcaster to Institute. See: . I also suggest people see for the level of coverage that is available on this material. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec)I did not know that removing contentious claims (that specific named living persons are homophobes, based on a claim made in a TV programme which was deleted by the broadcaster), meets the WP:BLP requirements. Retractions used to be considered retractions.   Now they remain "reliable sources". Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article is not making that claim and does not claim the Iona Institute is homophobic. Are you unable to distinguish between coverage of a controversy (and this is a very large controversy in Ireland), and a controversy itself? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Promoting such a "controversy" on multiple pages, carefully naming living persons is, IMHO, improper. The word "libel" appears in some of the Irish papers -- and I find the idea that we must "expose homophobes" is not covered in any Wikipedia policy.  In fact, I suggest editors whose purpose is to spread defamatory claims about living persons  ill-serve the project.  The "controversy" claims need not name living persons.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Every Irish newspaper, every news website and every news channel covers this incident and in detail and also naming specific individuals (See ). Putting controversy in quotation marks considering the scale of the coverage is suspect. Maybe it's simply American exceptionalism at play here, but a controversy like this in the US would generally also get its own article here too. The coverage is in depth and sustained over a two week period so far. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a mistaken idea that in pursuit of writing articles Wikipedia editors are not responsible to real people in real life, that Wikipedia allows us to write and defame in pursuit of adding content to out articles, that our only responsibility is to our articles and that we have the Wikipedia-given right to add content if its sourced irrespective of who is hurt. In my opinion, out first responsibility is to real people in real life and so I'd suggest here that some compromise be reached between Collect whose passionate sense of real life responsibility trumps article content, and those who want to add content that notes the controversy. Edit warring is not the issue and I'd note many were involved. The issue is defining a apossible BLP infraction and finding the mid line between that and adding necessary content Collaboration is needed to suggest where living persons will not be harmed and WP can add content needed with the reminder to self  that Wikipedia is not a newspaper or gossip column. I'm  not going to get embroiled in this further, just a thought.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC))
 * What I had sought was removal of the names of living persons, and removal of the spamming coverage in multiple articles.  Not that hard to deal with.  Instead we have editors who regard this as a holy war to make sure everyone knows that X and Y are "homophobes" -- which is not a valid reason per WP:BLP.  Thanks. Collect (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What you actually did was blanked sections for a controversy which has hundreds of sources on major newspapers including the much coverage amongst every Irish newspaper for a sustained period and coverage in International papers and news websites. One needs to only look at the coverage of the Iona Institute alone  to see that deletion of the entire section was totally unwarranted. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you did and agree that you are protecting real life people over the idea that Wikipedia somehow gives us the right to tell everyone, a newspaper's possible mission, over the mission of an encyclopedia. I'd agree this should be simple, and that responsibility to people must first and foremost be the agenda, and that we can add content while doing as little damage as possible, Frankly, I'm tired of the idea that this online environment gives permission to injure and damage, that we have a mission to spew out information no matter the consequences. And now I really will walk away. Best.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC))


 * It is entirely inappropriate and contrary to policy to insert contentious material into a BLP. Collect's actions in this case are entirely and obviously correct. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What line of is contentious. Point it out to me. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether this requires admin attention or not, it certainly does not belong here. If Collect believed in good faith that this was a BLP matter, that is a valid defence against edit warring. I believe that he did. We are traditionally conservative regarding BLP matters. This should be discussed at another more appropriate venue. This report should be closed with no action in the meantime. --John (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Collect has used these same tactics to roadblock sensible and sourced information which is all but guaranteed to go into BLPs based on repeating hyped up concern shouting BLP! Some form of the content will surely go in on each of these articles, but instead of working collegially with other editors, they effective shut down conversation and repeatedly remove everything forcing other editors to spin their wheels and do much more work, when usually a nuanced re-phrasing is all that is needed. Just because they often skirt the letter of the guidelines of conduct does not mean they don't violate the spirit of not disrupting improving the articles. And they do this across many articles in the same method, often while forum shopping on various boards to whip up concern, of what is basic editing standard. Also submit for consideration this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with the statement above that a good faith belief that BLP is involved is a defence against a charge of edit warring. If you read the 'contentious material' passage of WP:BLP carefully you will observe that it's about 'contentious material... that is unsourced or poorly sourced'. Hence none of Collect's removals qualify under the WP:3RRNO exemptions from the 3RR policy. When Wikipedia reports that someone has made a charge, that is not the same thing as making that charge in Wikipedia's voice. It seems that the material is all over the press and it doesn't stand or fall on any single publication. Since Collect's reverts are not exempt he has effectively broken 3RR. Since he is unlikely to stop voluntarily, it is up to admins to decide what action to take. Some of the things Collect has mentioned above fall under WP:Undue weight, which is a matter for consensus discussion and does not make items subject to instant removal by any editor. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not made subsequent reverts and do not intend to do so, but regard your opinion as being unfortunate since now every printed accusation that a person is a homophobe or the like is "fair game" -- the original interview was retracted by RTE, and I suggest a retracted item ceases to be "strongly sourced". Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They can't retract the remarks made, and Panti hasn't retracted them. The controversy is huge, and just featured on prime time (RTE) here, with David Quinn featuring on the panel. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why did RTE pay scads of money out if they stand by the material which they no longer appear to have on their own website? RTE paid money just for fun, and accidentally removed the offending material? Really?   Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RTÉ REMOVED THE Saturday Night Show from its online player yesterday over legal concerns regarding an interview with Rory O’Neill aka Panti. seems pretty clear. Collect (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC) and The interview was uploaded to YouTube yesterday but that has also been removed with the website explaining the video “is no longer available due to a copyright claim”. to boot.  They tried to remove it completely per legal grounds. Collect (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is legal maneuver, and it's hard to believe anyone sees that for anything else. So a NPOV would report about the initial controversial, dustup over censorship, the fine, pending litigation, and impacts. Not convenient removal of reliably sourced content. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree this should be closed, but I do not think the whole episode - which attracted huge amounts of coverage in reliable sources, not to mention discussion in parliament - can be censored completely from the articles; especially as the controversy is not so much the accusations themselves but the controversial payout made by RTE. I would suggest BLP/N as a venue for discussion as to whether the amount of coverage fails WP:UNDUE, though. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One does not exempt oneself from consensus-building by crying "BLP." Evidently many users disagree with Collect that BLP is violated by including this material, which I see is cited to reliable sources and at the very least, can't be reverted out of hand. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, taking the most disruptive route whenever you want to suppress content remains disruptive even if someone offers up a technicality for causing disruption again and again. There were many options and they chose poorly, again. Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose action against User:Collect. Policy dictates: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources...." This ensures that slurs are not only confirmed, but that multiple reliable sources deem them worth re-publishing. BLP authorizes removal on sight if such verification has not been provided.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's the point, verification was provided, Collect just edit warred it off forcing multiple other editors to re-add it. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the diff of the first revert, I see only one source: "Gay marriage is a product of this bunker mentality".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't expect anything will now come of this but clearly sources were presented by others and then removed. It's a disruption, it wasn't needed, and only hindered productive editing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: Both blocked + IP)
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: The user will not discuss the edit war and simply reverts edits. I have at least made an effort to try to resolve this on this talk page, but no response. Also, he logs out of his account and makes changes with the IP address 217.96.115.78 as well as Batiste Igienice. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * seriously ?, you revert changes that i made, just because you don't like them, you haven't given any explanations, and i am the bad one, you started edit war and copmlaing about it, grow up Batiste Igienice (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC) besides i did noticed on your discussion page, that according to Vader facebook only Peter is official member you did not respond on that, so why to bother Batiste Igienice (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC) you should be permanently banned for providing false information, for exemple you put Novy as official member of Behemoth, but on every band record he is session or guest 1, the same with other musicians Batiste Igienice (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You started editing all my information I previously added to the page. You don't even follow WP: ACCESS when editing the members page. And on the Behemoth website, it only lists former members and current members. You have some growing up to do. If you could reply to this post, why didn't you reply to any of the talk pages I sent you? You were edit warring, as well. You were NEVER in the right. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way, Discogs and Facebook ARE NOT VALID SOURCES. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an actual source, direct from their website, showing all former members of Behemoth. This is a valid source. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 19:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . I blocked TheSickBehemoth for 31 hours for edit warring at Vader (band) (another report filed above) and Behemoth (band). I blocked Batiste Igienice for 48 hours for the same wars with extra time because they are apparently editing with . I blocked the IP for the same 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Batiste Igienice reported by User:TheSickBehemoth (Result: Both blocked + IP)
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:
 * . I blocked TheSickBehemoth for 31 hours for edit warring at Vader (band) (another report filed below) and Behemoth (band). I blocked Batiste Igienice for 48 hours for the same wars with extra time because they are apparently editing with . I blocked the IP for the same 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Islamize reported by User:Anupmehra (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594296905 by Anupmehra (talk) source provided don't agree"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 594296047 by Saddhiyama (talk) multiple account allowed in Wiki, but not blocked editors like Siddiqui--and original research"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 594295606 by Saddhiyama (talk)no original research or personal preference"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 594294650 by Saddhiyama (talk) "body silhouette and extremities.."=original research"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Editing tests on Women in Islam. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Women in Islam. (TW)"

Talk:Women in Islam
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

Suggested user to participate in the ongoing discussion in my last edit summary. He doesn't seem to agree and want to keep his version of article. Anup Mehra  ✈ 01:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Islamize is a sockpuppet of User:Realislamtruth. I have posted an SPI here: Sockpuppet investigations/Realislamtruth. Reverting sockpuppets does not fall under 3RR. The sockpuppetry has been admitted by this user (referring to the SPI). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . Islamize has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet by .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Raoulmachal reported by User:MaxU24 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Original material reverted to

Previous version reverted to: See above

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=593117478] (31 January 05:47 UTC)
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=593251310] (31 January 20:56 UTC)
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=593347591] (2 February 22:21 UTC)
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=593659685] (3 February 03:25 UTC)
 * 5) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=593680028] (4 February 22:57 UTC)
 * 6) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=593983709] (6 February 02:40 UTC)
 * 7) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=594162586] (7 February 02:46 UTC)
 * 8) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_Society_of_Australia&diff=next&oldid=594312551] (7 February 03:26 UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raoulmachal&oldid=594334142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q_Society_of_Australia&oldid=594204201] (13:02, 6 February 2014)

Comments: User:Keepdry and I have been trying to resolve the neutrality of Q Society of Australia. User:Raoulmachal hasn't been receptive to attempts to find compromise/consensus nor is he prepared to work within the principles of Wikipedia. Instead, he reverts the changes we've made, usually without explanation. After discussing differences at length on the Talk page under Content, I proposed we send the issue to an RfC or noticeboard (see diff of Talk page). Since then Raoulmachal has reverted the article twice without responding to the talk page/arbitration suggestion. I didn't warn him in advance about edit-warring because I was involved and I followed the advice about not inflaming the situation MaxU24 (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * for edit warring and WP:BLP violations., you should post messages on user's talk pages, not on their user pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Mg3942 reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594319974 by Ruby Murray (talk) Please stop deleting before asking for more or better citations."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 594265353 by SPACKlick (talk) Ask for a citation if you want."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 594264780 by SPACKlick (talk) The source is sufficient."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 594207614 by Ruby Murray (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 594207854 by Ruby Murray (talk) There is no consensus on this. Please ask for additional citations or help fix the writing. But do not delete"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 593870252 by SPACKlick (talk)For all the same reasons discussed on talk."
 * 7)  "Undid revision 594106388 by 24.39.190.38 (talk)Quote not taken out of context. The last sentence sums up the whole paragraph."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593870252 by SPACKlick (talk)For all the same reasons discussed on talk."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 594106388 by 24.39.190.38 (talk)Quote not taken out of context. The last sentence sums up the whole paragraph."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594106388 by 24.39.190.38 (talk)Quote not taken out of context. The last sentence sums up the whole paragraph."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Mg3942, you are invited to the Teahouse */"


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


 * Comments:

See also anonymous diffs at, , , , , , probable IP sockpuppet, as Mg3942 only resumed reverting when the page was semi-protected. Ruby  Murray  10:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . I blocked the user for violating WP:3RR on their reverts alone. I don't see enough evidence for the claimed connection between the user and the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Samsamcat reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Thomas S. Monson

Comments:

Discussion is ongoing with multiple editors expressing a "wait and see" attitude with regards to the material since it falls under WP:BLP. Editor's response to 3RR warning is also not very civil. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: this dispute (in which I consider myself involved) has already resulted in the semi-protection of the article due to off-wiki recruitment of other people to join in the edit war. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:B. Fairbairn reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)
Page: among other national articles

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Because of the nature of the edit war (ongoing for more than ten days) there have been intervening edits that would be lost. Revision as of 2014-02-07T05:08:38 would be acceptable.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Other editors have objected at Talk:Canada, I was the third one into the discussion, but the argument boils down to the editor's belief that the leaders of certain nations are over-represented across Wikipedia. Four editors disagreed. B. Fairbairn ignored WP:CONSENSUS and removed the image once again. The editor then added an image of less important political affiliation (Canada-Brazil) and sandwiched the copy between it and the one three editors has claimed is important. That was later removed for layout issues. This fifth reported edit replaces the Canada-US image with the Canada-Brazil. The editor continues to tell us that the image is not necessary

A look at the editor's contributions makes it clear that the editor has been removing US-related images from multiple articles.

I reported the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259 which drew additional comments.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is not a typical edit war, but is clearly attempting to impose a specific view on the article over a long period of time against consensus. The editor does not appear to be willing to accept acknowledge or accept this consensus and will continue to edit this and other articles if allowed to continue unabated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Uenuku reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594308418 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) Important to give balance and NPOV"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 594295711 by Marteau (talk)There is no reason for this to be deleted"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 594293225 by Light show (talk) Please don't delete content because you disagree. Use the talk page."
 * 4)  "Reverted to include reference from Comment is Free Guardian blog"
 * 5)  "/* Dylan Farrow */ Added counter-argument to Allen's on the allegations."
 * 6)  "Moved section on music and clarinet to sit beneath "theatre" section"
 * 7)  "/* Personal life */ Separated "Children" from "Marriages and romantic relationships" for clarity"
 * 1)  "Moved section on music and clarinet to sit beneath "theatre" section"
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */ Separated "Children" from "Marriages and romantic relationships" for clarity"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Consistency? */ apples to oranges"
 * 2)   "/* Consistency? */ r"


 * Comments:
 * – One week by User:Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And this outcome is absolutely atrocious. Uenuku continued to revert after this notice was filed, with negligible talk page participation. The content involved was plainly disputed, contentious BLP material, and by policy should not have been added back to the article without reaching consensus on an appropriate text. There was an attempt to resolve the material via RFC, which has been short-circuited by editors who believe the allegations involved. Uenuku's last set of edits clearly violated BLP, including a claim bolstering the "case" against Allen that is not in the source cited for it, and removed the well-sourced claim that a court rejected the accusations. User:Ged UK was dead wrong to protect the article without correcting the BLP violations, and their failure to so much as warn Uenuke (when both an edit warring block and a topic ban were justifiable) is inexplicable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Kswarrior reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Secondary resources also removed, all facts with third party citations"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Vanamonde93 (talk) to last revision by Kswarrior. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Provided citation, updatation war part and removed controversial stories popped without proof"
 * 4)  "/* Alleged involvement in Terrorism */ Unreliable souce, controversial stry, not proved, rejected by Indian Intelligence Buro"
 * 5)  Number five
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Notification */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Content removal II */ new section"

The guy is now on five reverts and is still removing an entire section from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * by .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ove Raul reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: Both warned)

 * . This report is obviously malformed, but I took the trouble to look at Gustavus Adolphus Pastry and the acrimonious discussions between the two editors. This is a silly battle over a See also section, and both and  risk being blocked if the war continues. Also, try to focus on the content issue and stop sniping at each other. Serge is upset because Ove accuses Serge of vandalism. Although Serge is nominally correct, his attitude in the discussion is not optimal, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sincerely, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:144.136.64.150 reported by User:129.33.19.254 (Result: Blocked)
Page: and

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Abomination and Loki

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Previously warned by User:T-Nuggett and blocked two days ago by User:Callanecc for same activity per User talk:144.136.64.150.

Comments:

129.33.19.254 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:107.15.200.87 reported by User:Exercisephys (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This user is being really aggressive, accusatory, and technical, and seems to be editing Wikipedia with the sole intent of belittling and deriding people. I don't know if there's a Wikipedia "species" defined for that type, but it's definitely a distinct breed. He needs to be cluebatted and otherwise wisened up because he's wasting our time and irritating people. Exercisephys (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not violated 3RR, nor will I ever violate it. Unlike Excercisephys I have not made multiple personal attacks in the form of false accusations. For example, he accused me of sinister editing because he thinks I work for the U.S. DEA. His sole basis for this accusation is his erroneous conclusion that I live in Herndon, VA, even though I don't live anywhere near Herndon (check my IP geolocate). This is purely and simply an attempt by Exercisephys to intimidate me because I have called him out twice on personal attacks. Please see the talk page in question for details. And I suggest that Exercisephys review WP:BOOMERANG if he wishes to continue making false reports here or elsewhere. I have finished my comments at Talk:Zolpidem. Exercisephys has successfully (though crudely) driven me away from any discussion, rational or otherwise, on that page. I've read Wikipedia for about ten years. Only once or twice have I seen an editor as vengeful as Excercisephys; fortunately there are few like him, but it's those few that give Wikipedia a bad name. 107.15.200.87 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: The IP editor is warned not to continue removing the Erowid link from the Zolpidem article unless they can get a talk page consensus. It may interest you to know we have an article on Erowid. The steps of WP:DR are available to you if you disagree with the link. The IP's personal attacks will get tiresome after a while and admins may eventually lose patience with them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:82.123.155.217 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 594390354 by SPACKlick (talk)My text is the true, your text is propaganda"
 * 2)  "/* Renewed Army ground offensive */ The rebels never entered in the prison, souce from SANA : the most reliable source in the syrian conflict!"
 * 3)  "/* Renewed Army ground offensive */"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 594364098 by SPACKlick (talk)this information was denied by sana and even western media....you want to be remeber as a idiot????"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 594361987 by SPACKlick (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 594359323 by KajMetz (talk)SANA and CNN.....i don't hear you....hahahahah"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594359323 by KajMetz (talk)SANA and CNN.....i don't hear you....hahahahah"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:KajMetz reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 18 hour block )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594410717 by 82.123.155.217 (talk)We can do this all night long, until you get a IP bann ofc."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 594364502 by 82.123.155.217 (talk)parts captured by rebels, later recaptured."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 594342758 by 83.14.202.249 (talk)Source?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 594273194 by 92.128.39.86 (talk)Come back later when you've more sources"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 594254405 by 92.128.39.86 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Battle of Aleppo (2012–present). (TW)"


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

There's definitely significant editwarring going on here. Given the relative newnewss of KajMetz and the type of editwarring, I'm going to issue a short block and drop a note on Kaj's talk page. I'm going to sleep soon, so if any other admin believes it's appropriate to revise my block upwards, downwards, or even to if it completely, please feel free to do so without asking me first. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

User:Jerry Pepsi reported by User:69.23.116.182 (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Several articles being manually reverted, but Shattered_Union is one of them. User is insistent that categories of fictional places should not be applied to articles about the works (TV shows, books, etc) featuring those places. Per discussion on user's and my talk pages, user refuses to seek consensus before continuing to make/revert changes. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.116.182 (talk • contribs)

Comments:

Here is the output of 3rr.php for Shattered Union, recent edits by User:Jerry Pepsi: Jerry Pepsi seems to be engaged in reverting across a wide set of articles, usually because he disagrees with how others chose to categorize them. If you total up his reverts over all articles, it's probably more than a dozen over the past three days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) 05:22,  7 February 2014  (edit summary: "a video game is not a fictional state")
 * 2) 05:36,  7 February 2014  (edit summary: "A real video game is not and cannot be a fictional US state")
 * 3) 05:45,  7 February 2014  (edit summary: "A video game is a real thing that exists. It should not be categorized as being fictional.")
 * 4) 06:08,  7 February 2014  (edit summary: "A real video game is not and cannot be a fictional US state")
 * Based on the timestamps on those, I was editing under the influence of many ounces of vodka. I have no conscious memory of any of it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. You'll be fixing all the changes you made, then? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This is an old issue with Jerry Pepsi:   5 removals of the James Bond film Category:On Her Majesty's Secret Service from Piz Gloria, a famous mountain-top building that was even built and paid for by the film budget (similar on other articles). See: "I made a mistake because I was drunk" is one thing, but if he's still drunk from October, that's into COMPETENCE. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive226
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive815
 * WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive816
 * An admin should issue a lengthy block unless Jerry Pepsi will agree to an indefinite ban on category-related edits. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment by a third party user: I have been observing Jerry Pepsi's behavior for a while now, and it has been beyond appalling - example being this edit summary. I am sure xe could be a great editor if not for hir adamant refusal to accept advice. Chunk5Darth (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

. Jerry hasn't edited since yesterday. I've looked at his contribution history for the last few days, and this is what I see:
 * An IP adds the category to an article. The one I've seen most often is . They are owned by Verizon, dynamic, and geolocate to Santa Monica. The IP filing this report is owned by TWC, dynamic and geolocates to Kansas City, Missouri. I haven't gone back further in the articles' histories to see if the category is disputed longer ago.
 * Jerry removes the category and there's a short war, usually between him and the IP filing this report. This has happened on many articles.
 * Less frequently a named account is involved in the battle against Jerry. The two I've seen are and.

Based on these points, I might block both Jerry and the IP. However, Jerry's history of problematic category-related editing militates more in favor of either sanctions against just him or more severe sanctions against him. Obviously, I can't impose a topic ban. That would have to be decided by the community. I can, of course, block him for however long I think is justified. The fact that the most recent battle seems to have stopped (with Jerry on the "winning" side) doesn't apply in the usual way (punitive vs. preventative) because it would appear that the disruption will continue. At this point, I'd like to hear from. As an aside, I'm not even a little bit swayed in his favor by the "I didn't know what I was doing" vodka argument. If you drink and edit irresponsibly, you suffer the consequences. Besides, his behavior doesn't seem any different from other times, so it seems like the drinking excuse is a strawman. No matter what Jerry says, though, I may still impose a block - or another administrator is free to do so. I'm also unwilling to wait too long to hear from him.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – One month. Serious concerns have been raised about Jerry Pepsi's editing. He has engaged in long-term warring about categories and has previously been blocked for personal attacks. Any admin may lift this block if they are confident that Jerry will change his approach in the future. If Jerry would agree to a voluntary restriction from category-related editing that could improve his chances for unblock. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, just been brought here by the red notification dot of doom. No surprise about the block TBH, after Jerry made several disruptive edits on CfD nominations over the past few weeks too.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Nwbocploumouic reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:Blocked 24 hrs )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 594557655 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 594554501 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 594543436 by EdJohnston (talk) Blanking article of blocked sock"
 * 4)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Nezir. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Nezir */ new section"


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


 * Comments:
 * I think that this user should also be blocked disruption over just the one article, he is removing other's comments, leaving spurious warnings. I definitely agree with Bbb23 and Dougweller that this is a situation that should be investigated. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Nomoskedasticity reported by User:Precision123 (Result: Stale; no violation)
Page:

User being reported: User:Nomoskedasticity

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user appears to be edit warring on a page related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would be subject a 1RR revert rule. In addition, the editor made no efforts to reconcile his/her difference on talk or to reach a resolution. Although the editor did comment on talk, the comments were not constructive; rather, they only served to disrupt the discussion and irritate other editors. For example, here are the editor's two only comments since he began edit warring:
 * 1) "Sean, I'd bet a nice bottle of scotch that this editor will neglect to answer your question. Having looked at activities elsewhere, it's clear that this editor is on a crusade to eliminate reference to Palestine as much as possible; Wikipedia policies are then merely a means to that end, and so we'll merely get repeated harping about synth, OR, etc. The best venue for this discussion will surely turn out to be AE. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)"
 * 2) "Hmm -- too bad you posted before Sean told me he'd take my bet: I might have scored a nice bottle of scotch. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)"

I kindly bring this to your attention. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly clear from the article history (and the diffs given above) that I haven't violated 1RR in the slightest. A generous interpretation is that what's going on here is the result of a gross misunderstanding of the rule; a less generous interpretation is that Precision123 is being frivolous.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . I do not see a recent violation of WP:1RR. However, I do see disruptive edit warring, now about three days old.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * . I do not see a recent violation of WP:1RR. However, I do see disruptive edit warring, now about three days old.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Gatorfan123456 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Took this out because it is extremely subjective, inaccurate and incomplete."
 * 2)  "I have no conflict of interest other than looking at the pages of companies that I support to make sure that there aren't items added to their pages that lack substantiation or are inflammatory.  Here are my reasons for completely removing this post fr..."
 * 3)  "I stated in my previous edit why the section was removed and there were no changes or added documentation. Please add necessary information"


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


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


 * Comments:

Users only edits have been blanking this one section. User warned about COI, and 3RR, asked user to improve section and to discuss on talk page. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ., you are at three reverts. Just because I blocked the other user for violating WP:3RR doesn't mean you can revert again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I was not going to touch it again after filing this report.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  23:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Precision123 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: Warned)
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: Talk:Sodastream

Comments: This is a 1RR article as stated on the talk page which this user has edited. I've edited other parts of the article, but not any part related to this 1RR infraction. I have however interacted with this "new" editor on other articles and believe they are not here to help the encyclopedia but to further a POV by edit warring - - 5 reverts on a 1RR article in January. Sepsis II (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell reported by User:Underlying lk (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "After a massive removal spree of factual and visual content, you arrived back to 172K. Bravo..."
 * 2)  "Adding back all the citation tags (they didn't save a significant amount of space, anyway)"
 * 3)  "Sorry, I missed two citation tags: One in the intro, one in the Etymology section. Now they are all complete."
 * 4)  "All the citation tags are now restored. Your deletions saved less than 1K."


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Comparing Turkey with its equivalents */"


 * Comments:

Note that my changes were the result of a five-day discussion on Talk:Turkey where the article's issues were extensively discussed and there was wide agreement on the need for changes, but that didn't stop Rivendell from restoring his own revision. Several other uninvolved users also complained of Rivendell's tendency to violate WP:OWN. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit: after another editor restored the previous version, Rivendell went on to revert a fifth time.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * He always violates WP:OWN and makes changes against the decisions that we made on the talk page, all the time. I give my support for it. And he recently filed a complaint about me to Administrators' noticeboard, but it didint approved, it got rejected.KazekageTR (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * and User:Underlying lk warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:94.27.233.95 reported by User:RolandR (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 593772711 by DMacks (talk) Being born of a line of rabbies is pretty much being of Jewish origin."
 * 2)  "That doesn't make the Jewish ancestors disappear."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 593777695 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 593779411 by Jim1138 (talk)"
 * 5)  (No summary, but same reversion)
 * 1)  (No summary, but same reversion)


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


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


 * Comments:


 * . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:92.11.xxx.xxx reported by User:Scolaire (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to: 28 March 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts: No four reverts within 24 hours, i.e. gaming the system.
 * 1) 12:16, 2 February 2014
 * 2) 16:03, 2 February 2014
 * 3) 20:24, 2 February 2014
 * 4) 14:56, 3 February 2014
 * 5) 18:35, 3 February 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 92.11.202.180, 92.11.192.215

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: initial post by Denisarona, entire discussion to date

Comments: The user is a dynamic IP. I am requesting page semi-protection. Scolaire (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * - semi for 4 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:يوسف حسين reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 13:16, 2 February 2014 (removed identification of the Jazali group)
 * 2) Revision as of 07:27, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
 * 3) Revision as of 07:47, 3 February 2014 (ditto)
 * 4) Revision as of 08:17, 3 February 2014 (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User violated 3RR over content dispute on Yemen. He has been revert-warring on the page over BLP material with a number of different editors, including administrator User:Materialscientist. The user has in the process also engaged in personal attacks in his edit summaries, while altogether avoiding discussion on the article's talk page. Additionally, he is simultaneously revert-warring on the Najahids page with several editors over the same issue. Middayexpress (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This user has admitted formerly being User:Kendite. Back on December 15 this editor was also [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive230#User:.D9.8A.D9.88.D8.B3.D9.81_.D8.AD.D8.B3.D9.8A.D9.86_reported_by_User:Til_Eulenspiegel_.28Result:_Stale.29 reported at this noticeboard] for warring at Queen of Sheba, and it seemed to be a 3RR violation. That particular report was closed as stale. EdJohnston (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * May I add there is a problem with this editor please see the comment and its racial overtones. no plan of discussion with "Africans"--Inayity (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. The user has been reverting the Yemen article a lot but does not participate on Talk. As with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAcidSnow&diff=593698550&oldid=593650042 the edit] mentioned by Inayity he thinks he is dealing with Afrocentrists and for that reason won't discuss. His theory about his opponents was also stated in his edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemen&diff=593698795&oldid=593698477 here]: 'some Afrocentrists here are working together'. Any admin may lift this block if the user agrees to engage in discussions and wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Inayity is quite right about the racial overtones. Accusing opponents of "Afrocentrism" and a priori of being "African" seems to be a routine part of Kendite/يوسف حسين's modus operandi (c.f. the related Sheba debacle here with the non-African User:Til Eulenspiegel). Kendite/يوسف حسين also uses antiquated, derogatory epithets like "Negroes" with no compunction. Elsewhere, he also claimed to be reluctant to engage in discussion because he was "tired". Apparently not tired enough to revert war with several editors on two pages simultaneously, though. Additionally, the user has serious WP:OWNership issues and threatened an editor ("just stay away from any Yemen related article" ). Middayexpress (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Capricornmanager1 reported by User:Fyunck(click) (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 2)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 3)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 4)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 5)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 6)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 7)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 8)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 9)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 10)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 11)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 12)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 13)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 14)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 15)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 1)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 2)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 3)  "/* Number of times players ranked number 1 */"
 * 4)  "/* Leading number 1 ranked players by decade */"
 * 5)  "/* 1913–present */"
 * 1)  "/* 1913–present */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Refrain from reverting */ new section"


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


 * Comments:

This is not the first time this editor has been told not to keep reverting by multiple editors, though it is mostly in the subject lines. His 3RR is going on. Not sure why he won't listen. Warning given and yet he did it again. I certainly have no qualms about an administrative warning being given instead of any kind of block... but I thought it should come from someone semi-official instead of just other tennis editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Warned. All editors are expected to abide by consensus. If this behavior continues, Capricornmanager1 can be blocked with no further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "back to original version"
 * 2)  "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
 * 3)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "again: back to original version before someone screwed up"
 * 2)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "/* Belgium */"
 * 1)  "/* Belgium */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* French Fries */ please stop"
 * 2)   "/* French Fries */"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* France/Belgium origins */ new section"


 * Comments:
 * I restored it back to the original version of a few months ago. It's EvergreenFir that keeps pushing his version. If anyone should be reported it's him. A bit lame that he tries to resolve it this way. I gave sources that the French claim is more recent than the Belgian claim. Then it's clear that in the template only Belgium should be mentioned and not France. --Wester (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And note that's it's NOT a edit war. The last two edits were not simple reverts but a rework of the page. EvergreenFir is even reverting things like this which are outside the mentioned conflict. It seems that he is not looking what he is doing.


 * In the last edit I even tried to resolve the matter by simply removing the 'invented' section in the template. Since all this talk about who invented the fries is getting kind of silly, the reality is that nobody knows for sure.--Wester (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You were asked repeatedly to take it to the talk page and refused. Your edits were still removing the content related to the reverts. You are being disruptive to prove a point. As I've said multiple times, we are here to report on the state other sources. There sources saying there's a debate. We must report on that. It would be biased to take sides and to choose one is original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep mentioning that holy source of you. A source that no one can verify since it's a book. Most sources, like this are clear: Belgian claim: 17th century and French claim: 1789. So France should not be mentioned in the template. It's as simple as that. And that was also the original version. France is only added on January 9, 2014 by an anonymous user: see this. It's that dubious edit that I reverted. --Wester (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to note this is not the user's first time edit warring according to their user talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is character assassination. I am active on Wikipedia since 2005 made nearly 3.000 edits and nearly 100.000 edits on the Dutch wikipedia and have never been blocked. That's a clear indication. I do not know what EvergreenFir's intentions are with this action. A block solves nothing here. --Wester (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wester (then known as Westermarck) has been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia at least once, so that's a lie and they know it: Naturally, the links are in Dutch, but it was for sockpuppet use.
 * Wester has never been blocked on the English Wikipedia, but has come close more times than I can count. Their talk page history shows that it's repeatedly sterilized of the accumulation of warnings for their long history of edit warring, unilateral page moves and other edits that defy consensus. At any rate, the idea that Wester has a history of good behaviour is patently absurd.
 * As for the actual article, choosing an arbitrary edit from over a year ago isn't good justification for the deletion of content. And Wester's argument doesn't even make sense. With the actual origin unclear, the fact that one dubious origin story uses an earlier date than another dubious origin story doesn't make it the right one. It's not clear where fries were invented, so it doesn't make sense that Wester (or ES&L) dismiss it as obvious.  Oreo Priest  talk 23:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you knew Dutch you would see that that block was a mistake and not sock puppet use. So that doesn't count. Second: that edit you mentioning is made in January 2014. So not 'over a year ago'. Barely two weeks ago. It was an anonymous edit that I reverted. And no: there is no actual debate between France and Belgium who invented fries. I find that only in American sources. Probably since it's named 'French' fries. --Wester (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we put this on WP:LAME? The world (including the French) know that Frenched, Fried Potatoes were invented in Belgium.  Citations are everywhere  ES  &#38;L  19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That isn't the issue. It's the removal of the fact that the French and Belgians both claim it from the article.  Repeatedly.  Also, it doesn't matter if Wester is right or not (as the EW warning template says).  (S)he was edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you are not looking to other sources and keep focussing on the words 'ongoing battle'. Most sources are clear that the Belgian claim is older then the French one. BTW: lot's of sources also mention Spain. --Wester (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Wester is warned. If they continue to revert at French fries without getting a talk page consensus first they may be blocked without further notice. If you intend to participate in controversial articles, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wester&diff=593764246&oldid=593761229 clearing all the messages from your own talk page] does not suggest a willingness to discuss. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that suggest that I do not feel my talk page should be used against me like EvergreenFir did. A talk page is a private thing.--Wester (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:41.96.7.179 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

There's an ongoing discussion on talk page, editor is ignoring it and has reverted 5 times in two hours despite invitations to talk and 3rr warning. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Ersroitasent reported by User:Faizan (Result: Indef)
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: [diff]

Comments:

Again he has violated 1RR. Earlier he was reported too and was blocked for a day. But his disruptive edits and edit warring continue even after the block. I request a strict action to be taken. He is edit-warring with four users on the article, and moving without consensus. Instead of discussing it on the article's talk, he keeps on reverting others' edits. After this severe violation of 1RR just one day after the block ended, it seems that now a more strict action is needed. Thanks. Ping, am I gaming the system now? Fai zan  03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * nonsense claim! There's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk  nonsense claim by User:Faizan What disruptive edits...... What.....

the edits i reverted was not supported by consensus stop your disruptive edits Do not edit war, Instead take it to talk page--Ersroitasent (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is an ongoing discussion, but is not seeing your active participation. You have no material or reliable sources in support of your your claims. This diff explains your disruptive behavior, is this discussion? Besides you have clearly violated 1RR. Fai  zan  07:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * i DID Not have any claims to support i reverted No consensus edits stop cite misleading information--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * note that, on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This diff There's an active participation What......... an  argument!!!!--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I admitted my mistake, and promised to improve it next time--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Your argument was discussed and proved wrong in an earlier discussion. I'd be more than willing to discuss if you provide a serious argument on why we should remove sourced content from the article, but so far you have only unspecifically denied the validity of the information. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

i reverted No consensus edits the countries that sent troops are in the Aid to Egypt and Syria section and Not in the infobox--Ersroitasent (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . The return to the identical edit after a block for that edit, and full-bore lack of willingness to discuss shows longer-term protection of the project is unfortunately required  D  P  09:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User: Precision123 reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Warned again)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Content is clearly related to the IP conflict (and under WP:ARBPIA 1rr restrictions) as it regards a research paper looking at the bias in reporting in the Israel Palestine conflict. Editor has been repeatedly ignoring the 1rr restrictions on IP related topics, and has been previously warned about this behaviour. For previous recent example see e.g.. Dlv999 (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit warring was not present here.
 * (1) To respond briefly to what should have been an uncontroversial edit: Because citable references are made to the text of an article, and not the abstract, I merely edited the sentence to reflect what is stated in the article's text (p. 117) and not the abstract. Last, the sentence had problems with WP:Editorializing. That was all this one-sentence edit involved.
 * (2) User:Dlv999 has cited three edits above. In chronological order, the first (#3) was a bold edit (removed for MOS:OPED and WP:V), and #2 was the compromise sought after a user reverted me. I only reverted once.
 * I further submit that User:Dlv999 did not attempt to resolve the dispute in the article talk page--the editor just added a section in talk moments before deciding to report this. In fact, no constructive explanation for edits was made in the edit summary nor any citation to a Wikipedia rule. --Precision123 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please note that this editor was warned about edit-warring just yesterday. See . — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * again, only because he has been told that 1RR didn't apply to this article. you need to discuss these issues on the article's talk page, when you make the first revert. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:72.214.164.94 reported by Corkythehornetfan (Talk) (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 03:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

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


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


 * Diff of warning: here
 * Diff of user informed of report: here
 * Diff of attempts to resolve at user's talk page 1, 2, 3. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

KCKC Alice 102.1 is switching its format on 5 Feb. 2014 at 3 p.m. This I.P. user is changing it as if it had already happened. Plus, its website is still branding as Alice 102.1 I also think the I.P. user is using 24.166.187.131 this IP address too, who is also reverting and changing the article. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 03:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi by ). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:117.201.217.221 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) addition
 * 2)  "Undid revision 593882352 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 593883747 by Sitush (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 593884810 by Sitush (talk) See Talk page"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kamma_(caste)


 * Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)