Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive240

User:‎MiG29VN reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

To be fair, all of the "discussion" has been in edit summaries and to a lesser extent on my user talk page, but I still think ‎MiG29VN's disruptive behavior warrants scrutiny. Within a less than 24-hour period (17:23 22 March to 14:30 23 March), he has racked up four reverts, after four dissenting editors (myself included) reverted him once each. Since ‎MiG29VN has been warned for edit warring in the past, and appears to be using multiple IPs to advance his agenda, his failure to adhere to WP:BRD and his violation of the three-revert rule is unfortunate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ladislav Mecir reported by User:Aoidh (Result: )
Page: User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also evidence of long term edit-warring


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


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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bitcoin and other discussions on the talk page

Comments: This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report for continued edit-warring (however, 3 reverts within an hour, though short of 3RR, is still problematic). Ladislav Mecir is a SPA with a focus on the Bitcoin article and has a persistent habit of pushing his edits with the explanation that they "were discussed" when discussion is still ongoing (and often with most others disagreeing with them), and alluding to others agreeing with him when nothing like that has taken place on the talk page. Editor seems to believe that they can decide that the discussion is "over" and that if nobody comments within some arbitrary time-frame, it is "approved" and cannot be reverted despite objections to the edit on the talk page (which are ignored). Editor also has a habit of making an edit and when it's reverted, waiting a day or two and making the same exact edit and insisting that when they are discussing the edit that it remain in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz and User:Jaellee reported by User:Mishae (Result: Mishae warned)
According to a policy a user is allowed to edit the article the consensus way, and that's what I was doing by adding archiveurl and with it removing whitespace as a part of a big edit. It doesn't suppose to cause trouble since most of the editors do combine their actual edits with small ones, and I was following as I was told. Then on the 23 of March when I edited Mehmet Ekici page, by doing the same thing, user Walter Görlitz came in and restored the white space without adding anything. According to my previous experience, adding and/or removing whitespace is considered to be disruptive and therefore should be treated as such. So, I reverted his edit stating the reason. He restored it back stating that it wasn't disruptive. Mean time we discussed it on his and my talkpages at the same time and then I revert it again saying that according to the news protocol which link I can't find yet the article suppose to stay as is till I find it. But no, he goes in and restores the god forsaken spaces]. I go in and reverted his edit again and state the same, in a bit concise way reason]. Then he goes in for white space again] and sends me this for another article that I edited Michael Ballack where I too removed whitespaces along with archiving. Can someone solve this, because, from my perspective I see their edits as disruptive. P.S. I have notified the editors and here are the diffs as you demanded:
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * diff
 * As a side note, I will invite who will monitor the situation, if there is no objection to it.--Mishae (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * May I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG The editor in question has broken 3RR in at least one article,, , , and . Was warned about it  and then made another edit to the article, a minor one,.
 * Community consensus is that the whitespace stay in place. At least three editors, two of which are being reported here, and as seen, have tried to indicate that the whitespace is useful for editing. While the adding or removing of whitespace is not disruptive, in my mind, edit warring over the removal of it against consensus is.
 * And from a purely theological standpoint, God has forsaken no space, not even hell, so the spaces on Wikipedia are not forsaken either. I point you to the writings of Greg Boyd, Rob Bell and others to support that case in countering Mishae's statement that there is such a thing as "god forsaken spaces". Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Now editor has started to violate WP:OVERLINK at Oliver Kahn just for the fun of it. Time for a block as the warning, which I don't see on the editor's talk page, has had no effect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ., this is a formal warning to stop reverting at Michael Ballack and at Mehmet Ekici. I don't know what the "community consensus" is that refers to, and I don't much care. Your editing is disruptive. To some extent, Walters and 's edits are also disruptive, but at this point, you have to obtain a clear consensus for your stylistic edits, either on the talk page or some other dispute resolution forum. For someone with the number of edits you have and the insistence that you are right when it comes to a matter of style, why do you have such a hard time following instructions on this page? Your first report was rejected as malformed, and this one isn't much better. In addition, you mis-notified both editors (don't know how Walter found his way here). You told them both that there was a discussion at WP:AN in a section called ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, so its my archiving with whitespace removal that is disruptive? You should clean your classes man. Look at it this way, for instance, you go in and do archiving combining with whitespace removal, someone edits it and puts it back in. How is his not bold edit (inserting whitespace) is not disruptive while my archiving with it is??? Archiving, mind you, is bolder then his whitespace insertion. And if you don't care about consensus then I should not care about your warnings either. Maybe you will propose to fuck consensus instead? Like what kind of dispute resolutionist are you? I know that you shouldn't be on any of our sides but its ridiculous how you look at it. As a side note, I have autism and that's why my report is so awkward, and your comment was pretty much insulting to me regarding my hard time of following. Put yourself in my shoes.--Mishae (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You should take heed of my warning because, like it or not, if you persist, you risk being blocked without notice. I do care about consensus as my subsequent remarks made clear. I just don't know what "community consensus" there is, and the "I don't much care" meant it didn't figure into my actions, not that I don't care about consensus (sorry if that was ambiguous). I can't insult you if I'm unaware of your autism, and, frankly, although I sympathize with impairments that make it harder for you to edit here, I have to look at the project, not your personal issues. Finally, it hasn't stopped you from compiling over 60,000 edits to Wikipedia. You are the one bringing the complaint. It's your responsibility to do it right. If you can't, then don't bring it. It's not fair to other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, if I brought a complaint its their responsibility to do it right, I am not the one goes and inserts whitespaces everywhere. I do understand that Wikipedia is not therapy but at the same time I was looking for fair resolution not blocking threat. I also understand that Wikipedia is hostile to people with disabilities because some users throw in Wikipedia is not Therapy thing and that's it.
 * Now, I understand your humour but please understand that God for saken it's a figure of speech and I am sorry if you take it so offensively. I personally don't care about your theological aspect, although smart but it sounded rather strange how you don't know that its a figure of speech. Have no offence on your faith, continue worshiping Jimmy Wales (I personally don't). --Mishae (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing it for the fun of it, your edits are disruptive! User user:Bbb23 should block you instead.--Mishae (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So edits that follow a guideline, in the case of the Oliver Kahn article WP:OVERLINK, is disruptive? Please elaborate.
 * The warning to Mishae is only here not on the subject's talk page. I see that now: "this is a formal warning to stop reverting ...". Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. You thought you were reverting like this. Well that makes much more sense now. Can we get a block for Mishae now please? The editor's actions clearly violate the spirit of the warning above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * O.K. I ment the other edit which I undone as well because it only containing spacing which was disruptive and I am surprised why no one takes a note of it. Why its my fault, when it suppose to be yours! Now, can we get a block for Walter too?--Mishae (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact I wont cooperate on a block until Walter will be blocked too, I like fairness.--Mishae (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . You're both driving me crazy. I'm not blocking Mishae for his conduct on another page (not the ones I warned him about). And I'm not blocking either of you for edit warring over WP:OVERLINK, although, at this point, I should probably block both of you. If either of you wants to take the other to WP:ANI, that's your prerogative, but there's been enough drama on this noticeboard for today. No more comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:201.215.252.50 reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Blocked)
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:

Comments:

IP was asked to use the talk page to discuss, as per BRD, but carried on reverting material supported by citations; they were warned after the fourth revert, but proceeded to the fifth anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update
 * The IP has also removed my recent comment from the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Twice. This is becoming intolerable. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thrice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Four times... - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Five times. I've given up putting my comment in there: the warring and associated abuse just isn't worth the hassle with this editor. - SchroCat (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * now six, after a kindly (and independent neutral) soul replaced my comment. - SchroCat (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * And on this page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Twice. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

A false accusation of vandalism does not count as an attempt to resolve a dispute. Someone should explain that to User:SchroCat. Also removing section headings when I attempted to discuss matters on the talk page is pathetically immature. Follow the links helpfully posted by User:SchroCat and you can see what kind of person I'm dealing with here. 201.215.252.50 (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its the same topic for which a thread has been opened. The second section heading on the same topic is not needed: neither are the insults, so please stop with the latter, and put back my comments on the talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

48 hours.  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Indefinite block)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 18–20):
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)

Editor was blocked for 31 hours by User:Nikkimaria:

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 21):


 * 1)
 * 2)

Editor was blocked for 60 hours by User:Crisco 1492:

Diffs of the user's reverts (March 24):
 * 1)

Disruptive editing on the article talk page:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This is the third spate of warring after two blocks. I think a lengthy block is required this time. The issues have been highlighted on the talk page and the sensible thing to do would have been to work through them and supply the requested sourcing, and there isn't much any of can do if he simply refuses to co-operate. Betty Logan (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Woleez reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: Previous version


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "huge difference between non-muslim and not-muslim, constitution say not-muslim, so read it by your self. then undo my edit. http://www.thepersecution.org/archive/ordxx.html"
 * 2)  "Dr salam had contributed towards initial project development of atomic project, I known it for sure. so don't try to undo it."
 * 1)  "Dr salam had contributed towards initial project development of atomic project, I known it for sure. so don't try to undo it."


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


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


 * Comments:

It is an edit warring report not a 3RR. S M S Talk 13:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Filucz2004 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

User continues to edit-war over edits to the Shakira article, and giving little to no reason or explanation for why, other than that the edits are "repulsive". User was previously blocked for edit-warring, and when I tried speaking to said user, they ignored my talk page comments and continued on editing. Two other editors also tried communicating with said-user, and ignored them as well. He also called the edits "untrue", but all that was reverted was the infobox and how the date of birth was represented. Neither edit was untrue. User also changed simple changes to how the references were appeared, with "30em", which is what is most accustomed used in articles now. User is obviously only here for self agenda is appears and will continue their edits until they've been blocked once more. And given a look at their talkpage, a severe case of disruptive editing is at hand.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 12:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (User explanation: Revert, totally untrue.)
 * 2)  (User explanation: STOP!!!!!)
 * 3)  (User explanation: UNTRUE AGAIN!!!!!!!!!)
 * 4)  (User explanation: THIS IS REPULSIVE EDITION)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)  XXSNUGGUMSXX tried asking why they've been making their edits, with no response.
 * 2)  IPadPerson tried once again contacting user, with no response.
 * 3)  I tried contacting user, with no response.

Comments:


 * There is a slow-moving edit war there, but no violation of 3RR exists. Remember that at least *four* reverts must be done in no more than 24 hours, which is not the case here. However, if you continue, it is likely for any of you to end up blocked.  → Call me  Hahc  21  14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:210.211.110.236 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Not adhering to neutral point of view on G8. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on G8. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP repeatedly adding POV comments/personal analysis. I notified them about both NPOV and 3RR on their talk page (diffs included). BethNaught (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * IP has continued to perform reverts restoring the inappropriate content after my warning and and notifying them of this report. BethNaught (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 19:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Arderich reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrie_(2013_film)&oldid=601063427
 * 2) [diff]
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Intuitive2000 reported by User:Randykitty (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601018969 by 41.106.3.43 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 601014447 by William M. Connolley (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 600996239 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 600996199 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 600996098 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 600987011 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 600986899 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 600986661 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 9)  "TheRedPenOfDoom is abusing and disrupting this entry by deleting entries necessary for understanding the full story:"
 * 10)  "Undid revision 601046086 by Randykitty: The original content has been restored. There are several attempts of censoring information necessary to understand the full story. Argue your argument instead of deleting"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 601049755 by TheRedPenOfDoom Dear TheRedPenOfDoom, do not delete just because you do not like the full story. Add contents if you have it"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 601056121 by Randykitty Do not delete. You are censoring. Argue your arguments in the talk page."
 * 13)  "Undid revision 601057248 by Randykitty Do not be boring. There is a discussion."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601057248 by Randykitty Do not be boring. There is a discussion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1) First warning
 * 2) Second warning
 * 3) and another warning


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* We are not Ouadfeul mouthpiece */ agree"


 * Comments:

Several editors disagree with this one editor on the article talk page. Editor has now full scale reverted at least five times, after clear warnings on their talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Elockid  ( Talk ) 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Amensnober91 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts (1RR per WP:SCWGS):
 * 1) 24/03 08:02 revert
 * 2) 24/03 01:39 revert
 * 3) 23/03 18:31 revert

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: 06/03 warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:

user:Amensnober91 is among several users engaged on an all-out edit-warring on the described article, which is sanctioned for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 19:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 72 hours, given that he was previosuly blocked this very same month for 48 hours. GreyShark: please keep and eye on it and let me know at my talk page if, after the block expires, he come sback and violates 1RR again.  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * please record the block at SCWGS.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks.  → Call me  Hahc  21  22:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:87.161.204.120 reported by User:TheIrishWarden (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winx_Club&diff=601098411&oldid=601098263 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Winx_Club&diff=601094709&oldid=601085441
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Winx Club. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* Threatening users about being blocked */ new section"
 * 3)   "/* March 2014 */"
 * 4)   "Warning: Edit warring on Wings (Pike novel). (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Continually edit warring with another IP and threatening to block the other IP. This IP has persistently ignored warnings and branded them as me threatening them Thєíríshwαrdєn  - írísh αnd prσud  22:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * for 60 hours.  → Call me  Hahc  21  22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Daki122 reported by User:Greyshark09 (Result: No action taken)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts (1RR per WP:SCWGS):
 * 1) 22/03 16:56
 * 2) 23/03 13:54

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: blocked on 23 November 2013 for edit-warring at this same page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm not an involved party)

Comments:

Among several users engaged on an all-out edit-warring on the described article, which is sanctioned for 1RR.GreyShark (dibra) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . I'm going to give Daki122 the benefit of the doubt since the edits did occur on different days although they were 21 hours apart, and because Daki122 wasn't notified of this discussion. That particular edit seems to have gone back and forth quite a bit among other editors as well. I'm minded to fully protect the talk page for a while, although several of the reverts I see in the history are self-reverts.


 * I will leave a warning on the user's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake for not notifying him - i had been distracted right in the middle of it.GreyShark (dibra) 22:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * please record the warning at SCWGS.GreyShark (dibra) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about this I did not see the hours on the reverts as I did revert in two different days so I did not notice that 24 hours did not pass.I did not notice that I eve broke the rule as I thought a day(24 hours) had passed since my last edit.Thanks for the heads up I will try to be more careful next times.Daki122 (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Elmech and sockpuppets reported by User:Smyth (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported: and sockpuppets;

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  00:17, 25 March 2014
 * 2)  11:06, 25 March 2014
 * 3)  13:51, 25 March 2014‎
 * 4)  00:18, 26 March 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user has been invited to the talk page on numerous occasions, but their one and only edit to an article talk page so far has been to delete the discussion they were invited to join and insert a forged comment from another user to make them appear biased. 

My report on this user here on AN/I has received little attention. This is the first time they have broken the 3RR, but they have been reverting the article to their preferred version at least once every few days for more than a month now. This needs some serious admin attention, as they are holding the article hostage and ignoring all attempts at discussion. – Smyth\talk 01:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seconding Smyth's report. User is WP:NOTHERE and a single purpose account.  Requesting strong action.  Thought they were a sock but apparently were not blocked for it. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If the consensus at any is to modify the block, then it will be handled there. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Connor2278 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601286406 by Flat Out (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 601280773 by Flat Out (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ed Manion. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ed Manion. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Copyright problem removed */ seek consensus"


 * Comments:
 * It seems that per the result of the last report, both users were warned of edit warring. Instead of issuing blocks, I have decided to protect the page instead. I did however block and . I have also warned Connor2278 about our policy on multiple accounts. Elockid   ( Talk ) 02:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * would you consider reverting to the previous version given that I have sought consensus at article's talk page? ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the practice on the wrong version prevents me from doing so. It doesn't seem like there's consensus on the talk page yet, so I don't feel comfortable making any changes at this time. If however, a consensus is reached, I will be happy to assist. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:XXX8906 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 601108918 by ViperSnake151 (talk): Seems acceptable to me. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 601108918 by ViperSnake151 (talk)Nothing wrong with having a large amount of content."
 * 3)  "Reverted good faith edits by Werieth (talk):  non-free use rationale's have now been added for the files. (TW)"
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by Werieth (talk):  non-free use rationale's have now been added for the files. (TW)"


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


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


 * Comments:

He is placing in-depth content, copied from other pages, on a page that has always been written in a summary style. There is no consensus for these changes. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been a violation of 3RR. At most XXX8906 reverted three times. But, the consecutive reverts given can be treated as a whole or single revert. I can only really see two reverts on XXX8906's part. I don't see how this would be considered edit warring either. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:39.32.206.224 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "See the talk page topic discussion "
 * 2)  "Reverted to last edit by Finexfeather <Even if  8 crore budget figure from 13 sources is being claimed from low quality sources still it is better then 18 crore un cited figure may be typo error of 1)"
 * 3)  "Even if  8 crore budget figure from 12 sources is being claimed from low quality sources still it is better then 18 crore un cited figure"
 * 4)  "Cited 12 sources and Corrected. wt sock?"
 * 5)  "Reason ?"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Infobox budget figures discussion */ Cmt"


 * Comments:

This is likely an IP sock of LanguageXpert, who has been all over this article like a rash with multiple socks. I requested PP yesterday, but it appears there are a backlog over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * by . The IP is most likely too stale to take any action on. Since this is a Pakistani IP, it's very likely that collateral is very high in case your wondering of a rangeblock. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tabrisius reported by User:Tachfin (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "removing vandalism..."
 * 2)  "The Moroccan army has existed continuously since the 11th-century (removing vandalism)"
 * 3)  "ok...done.."
 * 4)  "Vandalism...next time you edit i'll contact a mod. YOU CAN'T"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User is in violation of 3RR, refuses to resolve the conflict on talk, and keeps reverting edit which is clearly good faith with the edit summary "vandalism". The user in question is also threatening me on the talk page quote: "Next time you edit i'll contact somebody to make you respect a bit others work" Tachfin (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Though Tabrisius has been doing a lot of work to improve the article, he broke 3RR on 25 March per the diffs above. He has made incorrect charges of vandalism plus an AIV report. Notice the intemperate attacks at Talk:Royal Moroccan Army. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Marchoctober reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

 * 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:

When there is strong evidence to prove that Bhakta Prahlada was released in 1932, he mocks it and supports much older sources which erroneously state 1931 (due to an old belief which he still follows). He has been edit warring against multiple experienced editors who support 1932. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Could you please see the talk page here: Talk:Bhakta_Prahlada_(1931_film), the above user has been trying to edit the article in a biased manner suitable to him, the talk page even had and administrator who concluded that the name change had no consensus and that the same name be continued, now this user reports me as edit warring though I had not indulged in any edit warring as reported by this user, I have provided all the possible sources and also provided an amicable solution of presenting the same information on the article which the above user presented and without deleting the present information which has overwhelming sources unlike this user's version, the talk page has all the information, in order to get his way on the article this user seem to be reporting me as edit warring, but in good faith I will assume, he misunderstood me and reported me as edit warring here. Marchoctober (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been any reverts since last year. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk ) 03:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , I want you to see the this for more information. While everyone in the discussions support 1932 based on the authentic sources, he alone does not. To make himself a winner, he always has something to say in rebuttal against other users with valid statements. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't warrant any action. This is common during arguments/discussions. To be sanctioned for edit warring he/she must perform multiple reverts against multiple revert or to be sanctioned for 3RR, he/she must perform more than three reverts during a 24 hour period. Simply opposing others' views doesn't qualify for sanctions under policy. If however, they decide to act disruptive by either using personal attacks (I don't see that in the discussion) or start to keep on reverting others, then they may be sanctioned. <b style="font-family:Calibri; font-size:14px; color:#4682B4;">Elockid</b>  ( Talk )

User:Spec235 reported by User:Widr (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601317295 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 601322342 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 601322992 by Materialscientist (talk)"
 * 4)  "https://www.facebook.com/todd.chandler.16121?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab    here is your source   and here is another source http://www.intagme.com/chosenforkrime/  i have pics my email is spec235@gmail.com he died for his art..get it right.."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 601332919 by Widr (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Oglesruins reported by User:Tarlneustaedter (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (HAHAHA!, read the reference, or will stay exhibited and in ridiculous, ;))
 * 2)  (what it says the user AbelM7 is true, I also saw him writing as well in an spanish encyclopedia, thus it is also known, why one has to stay well and smack you, that you are not God, and that is not going to blindly obey whatever you say, ;))
 * 3)  (Spend the link to me of the hindering one " quite solid consensus ", apart, I am not a domestic animal in order that they are treating me that way (another user))
 * 4)  (You cannot act without arguments)
 * 5)  (here's your reference, clow...)
 * 6)  (I compose the article nothing more to be able to put that I do not agree with this, but they are forcing theirs that makes it like that...)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No response from user, the following section is discussion by other editors who have also reverted him. 

Comments:

The original bad edit was removing "de facto" description of Spanish as national language. Later reversions have included reverting earlier bad edits from other editors - re-adding the incorrect back-translation "Estados Unidos de Mexico", which had been resolved with a different editor, AbelM7.


 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH)  */"
 * 2)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
 * 3)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
 * 1)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH)  */"
 * 2)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
 * 3)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

The user has been given warnings in the past to not add biased primary blog sources as references to take side of one claimant Summichum (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Summichum after being released from blocked status immediately started blanking out the edit painstakingly done by me and fellow editors, and started imposing his view again. Same reason for which he was blocked before.I feel his conduct highly unethical and propose to block him instead.Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.--Md iet (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * for one month, but be warned, if there is a next time I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mufaddalqn reported by User:Summichum (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601314011 by Summichum (talk) Please stop your disrupting edition and war edits"
 * 2)  "Restructured the Article so as to make it more readable."
 * 3)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"
 * 1)  "/* Nass of 1388 AH/1969 AD (made public in 1432 AH) */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Mufaddal_Saifuddin. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is a long standing dispute the user has been warned several times yet persists in adding personal blog sources for his claims Summichum (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can see from my talk page the user has given me final warning Just 2 minutes before citing my name in edit-war notice board, further he has given me notice in response to my being giving him notice.pathetic.Mufaddalqn (talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This User Summichum is citing difference from two different articles and further he himself was engaging in war edits. You can clearly see from his history and talk pages. I had been given him warnings for his disruptive edits and not citing him to the Noticeboard as a courtesy, because he was already blocked twice before. I leave to the Judgement of Admin that he is right in requesting to block me and it should not be vice versa. Mufaddalqn (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ( Comment from uninvolved editor ) Obviously not a 3RR, but a content dispute running for a couple of months now. I have suggested on the article talk page that the entrenched parties start by taking the question regarding use of primary sources to RSN to get input. Best, Sam Sailor Sing 08:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sam Sailor Anup Mehra Thanks I really request your interventions . The two users are posting Original research as done in their own blogs as evidences for their claims. My main contention is that users should not take side of any claimant and not add statements like "nass was granted on XYZ" as the succession \nass is extremely disputed and in such a case we can only rely on third party published sources from authoritative sites like huffingtonpost, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg RSN dispute:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If huffintonpost is reliable the more so is times of india. The Admin can find this himself. this should be discussed in talk pages not here.Mufaddalqn (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.
 * We are surprised that a single person joined the Wiki for a specific purpose, intentionally want to impose his partisan views. We have differences on 'Claimant' issue, and the matter is under discussion at talk page. All the relevant reports on subjects are placed in best NPOV. The encyclopedic reports on the page of main subjects are included on individual's page and controversial points are also covered in brief with due references. Summichum seems adamant to take side of one and already blocked once for his activity and now blaming other editors. We know the real in depth facts and would make all sincere efforts to keep the Wiki principles above all. Dear Summichum, please restrain yourself, don't worry truth will prevail and only fare material will have space here.

Only third party published sources have been included now and reports as published by them are quoted for specific points mentioned regarding Nass. If Huffingtonpost is reporting on the material from one self_published_site and being included then TOI, Outlook, Badre Muneer etc. are registered and authorative sites having huge international circulation and material covered by them have same importance in Wiki.--Md iet (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * for one month, but be warned, if there is a next time I'll be blocking people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Heritoctavus reported by User:NeilN (Result:user blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Controversies */"
 * 2)  "/* Controversies */"
 * 3)  "Recovering from unjustified reverting by Nein : see talk page"
 * 4)  "modified as per the discussion in the talk page"
 * 5)  "recover from illegitimate sectional blanking of twinkle twinkle NeilN"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles. using TW"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* New York Times */"
 * 2)   "/* New York Times */"
 * 3)   "/* New York Times */"
 * 4)   "/* New York Times */ Fixing style/layout errors"
 * 5)   "/* Public's opinions */"


 * Comments:

Editor recently blocked for edit warring. Posts on article talk page indicate disruption intentions  Neil N   <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And now an "only warning" for vandalism to me. -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  20:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , not just for the edit warring but for general disruptive editing and belligerent attitude. Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 20:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

User:111.125.201.50 reported by User:Elassint (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601355560 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 601357773 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk) I've provided references you are removing for no reason"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 601364895 by Til Eulenspiegel (talk) yes you vandalize"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 601374704 by 71.246.155.112 (talk) same annoying edit warrior"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 601375120 by 71.246.155.112 (talk) what consensus, Reverting vandalism is no edit warring."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

User was already warned by another user Elassint  Hi 17:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I had reverted the vandalism by other user known as "Til Eulenspiegel", who is removing the fully referenced stuff, and adding a known forger Annius de Viterbo. He has got NO REFERENCES for what he is adding. Very soon, he would use his own IP "71.246.155.112" for same edit warring, using same summaries.(edit summaries)


 * I have reverted, but the version which has references, I am on this article for years, and for days with this identity, this content was NEVER removed, but today this user is edit warring over it, removing it, adding unsourced stuff from himself.


 * 4 reverts by Til Eulenspiegel :-


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * And soon he did 3 reverts from his IP, even reverting ClueBot NG, that identified his edits as vandalism...
 * 
 * 
 * 


 * See the block history of Til Eulenspiegel, it is not even a new thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.201.50 (talk • contribs)


 * You have reverted against consensus and three different editors and refused to take part in discussion. This is not the way we do things around here, you will be reverted and blocked if you try to bring about objectionable changes to articles in this fashion, all while refusing to discuss until it gets to WP:ANE. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Making a incoherent post or denial at talk page doesn't means 'consensus', ultimate consensus I see on talk page is that number of editors had raised this issue for years. And this week, everything got sourced, that you certainly started to revert with your account and IP address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.201.50 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Another revert/removal of highly referenced content by Til Eulenspigel :- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mannus&diff=601397890&oldid=601375624

Now he has crossed 5 reverts, removing WP:RS and inserting his own unsourced original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.125.201.50 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been pinged on the article talk page regarding the to-ing and fro-ing here. Right now, I'll say this much: Til is an experienced contributor and should know all about WP:RFPP, WP:EW and WP:DR. There is no reason at all for Til to have engaged in repeated reversals of what, basically, seems to be just statements that they do not like.


 * Whether those statements have consensus or not, this is, I'm afraid, not the first time that I've seen Til try to force their position. Like it or not, anons are valid contributors and should be treated in a no-worse fashion than a registered account: if Til is concerned about socking or similar then there were other options available than edit warring. I should probably warn Til now but I'm also aware from a past episode elsewhere (relating to Sheba, for example) that warning has next to no effect and that they have a record of ignoring our dispute procedures, eg: their refusal to accept WP:RSN in the thread here. It doesn't look good and it is not becoming of someone of their experience. I'm fairly sure that this type of behaviour by Til has been reported at ANI before now; perhaps it needs to be reported again. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * by Ged UK. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:92.163.84.192 reported by User:Jehochman (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  User has refused to engage in talk page discussion . Clearly, they are edit warring rather than collaborating.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The problematic content this user is edit warring to add is as follows. There is an appearance that the user is connected to Gonzalez-Mestres. Note that Science20.com is not a reliable source.


 * However, this assertion does not take into account possible nonstandard cosmological scenarios, including pre-Big Bang and the spinorial space-time suggested by Luis Gonzalez-Mestres in 1996-97.


 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tabrisius reported by User:Tachfin (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Don't erase everything...if' you are not agree with some just erase those parts, not everything. First Warning"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Royal Moroccan Army. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Tabrisius */Edit conflict, replying to threat"
 * 2)   "reply"


 * Comments:

User edit wars again fresh out of a block for 3RR violation, without participating in discussion in talk page other than personal attacks and name calling.

Note: That I refrained from reverting whilst the user was blocked and that I requested full page protection. Tachfin (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:198.228.200.25 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601519335 by Loriendrew (talk) wiki regulations are clear about references so the material was deleted. Since loriendrew keeps putting it up the burden is on you to cite it."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * User IP jumping, 5 different ones today


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * attempted to use edit messages and warning templates


 * Comments:

Edit earring via jumping anon IP, see edits by 198.228.200.17, 198.228.200.42, 198.228.200.49, 42, 35, etc. User section blanking, template removals, unconstructive editing. User section blanked for lack of references. I reverted placing section-CN, but user removed template and contents without waiting for citation acquisition attempt. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  16:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * by Bearian. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:172.243.128.84 reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: Blocked for 36 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning, was deleted hours later.

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

Comments: Myself and others have attempted talking to this user on the numerous IPs they are using to no avail. The user is also the subject of a discussion on an admin's talk page regarding edit-warring on another page. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * User has been notified of this report. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 21:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Please review the article's history. Go back to last year. Anytime ANYONE--not just I--edits neutralhomer deletes/reverts. This goes back for many months. At one point neutralhomer claimed a deletion was 'per request', per request of who? eposty restored the edit. I posted on Angie Goff talk page to discuss the article, neutralhomer deleted it. Neutralhomer needs to be blocked for disruption. 172.243.128.84 (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the edits from this user date back to last year on different IPs. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Facebook to verify a birthday? That's a BLP revert right there. I would warn you not to readd. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. My first time editing this article was this month on march 2. I reviewed edit history and saw that neutralhomer removed information so I restored it. Previous edits are other people's edits. 172.243.128.84 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a lie, [] shows that you indeed did add the BLP violation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar ☥   22:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all admins involved. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 22:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tenski82 reported by User:Tiller54 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Tiller54 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar ☥   14:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Graemp reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (prior inclusion of unsourced birthname)

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: Graemp is edit warring to add an unsourced birthname and other unreferenced content to a porn performer biography. Both Dismas and I have removed the material, expressly citing WP:BLP. Graemp continues to add the content back without providing reliable sources, and most recently casting aspersions of bad faith by edit summary. An unreferenced birthname in a porn performer bio is a textbook BLP violation, to be removed "immediately and without discussion" (as was done when the unsourced name was inserted previously); Graemp's repeated restoration of the unsourced name, and insistence that discussion is required to remove it, at best raise WP:COMPETENCE questions, and in the case of an experienced user like Graemp, simply show refusal to comply with BLP policy requirements.


 * Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is edit warring to revert an entire edit without giving any explanation of what part or parts of it he doesn't like or taking the trouble to raise issues on the talkpage first in line with Reverting making it hard for me to Assume good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz confirmed WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR and added "not BLR" (whatever that is) with regard to the entire edit without stipulating any aspect of those policies, making it difficult to try and address his concerns. When I requested him to clarify he declined to do so and persisted in reverting and quoting policy codes and claiming that no discussion was required. I specifically stated that I wished to avoid edit warring and invited him to discuss the edits on the talkpage but without success.
 * Above he has at least decided to explain a specific concern which requires a response;
 * Unsourced birthname: Her original birthname was not properly sourced. The name 'Nasrin Alavi' can be properly sourced but not as a birthname. I would be happy to move 'Nasrin Alavi' from 'Info Box Born' to 'Info Box Other names', which should satisfy any BLP concerns. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was particularly concerned about that aspect, he could easily have deleted that particular reference and explained his actions either in the edit summary or on the talkpage. Instead he chose to revert the whole edit.
 * Other unreferenced content: Regrettably, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not specify which other parts of the edit he considers to be unreferenced or what he considers to be unreliable sources so these are issues I can not address. I believe that the rest of the edit was clearly sourced and referenced. Graemp (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, Graemp's response is nonsense. He tripled the length of this short article without adding a single reliable source -- "http://beautifulbritishbabes.co.uk" (NSFW) is an advertising site (and does not support any of the claims for which it is cited). Most of Graemp's additions are blocks of unsourced, unreferenced text, and it is beyond ingenuous for him to claim that they are "clearly sourced and referenced". There is no need to "specify" what is plainly visible. You simply can't stick blocks of unreferenced text into a BLP, and if you need other editors to "specify" the problem, line by line, you fail WP:COMPETENCE standards and shouldn't be editing BLPs. And it's the height of hypocrisy for you to cite WP:Reverting to justify your edits and condemn other editors when that essay says, plain as day, in emphasized text, "If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit". At least doubly so when two different editors have reverted you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the two additional reliable sources I provided, "http://beautifulbritishbabes.co.uk/fcw/fc-full.php?ref=5018". was used as source for "In 2005 at age 20, under the name of Nasrin, she started glamour modelling in the United Kingdom as a brunette, and performing in solo girl scenes." because it gave her name, her picture, her performance, her age and the year that related to that sentence. This in my view does support the claims for which it is cited. The site exists as a database of information, the relevant details of which are confirmed by other sources already quoted in the article. Of the following 4 sentences in this particular block of text, only one sentence is specifically referenced. On reflection, the paragraph could have easily been closed by an additional reference, even if it is questionable if one was needed. From the reference list, either reference 1 or 5 would do the job. The other block of text contains one specific reference. I would be happy to add a couple more if it helps.


 * Investigating. Dreadstar  ☥   14:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar ☥   14:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

User:72.133.35.24 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Neutrality"
 * 2)  "Merged sections for readability and consistency."
 * 3)  "/* Arrest on corruption charges and gun trafficking */"
 * 4)  "/* Arrest on corruption charges and gun trafficking */  Removed uncited material."
 * 5)  "Removed biased material"
 * 1)  "Removed biased material"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Continued removal of content. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (semi) for a month by .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:108.3.172.179 reported by User:85.246.188.170 (Result: Semi-protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [600016206]
 * 2) [600588207]
 * 3) [600922275]
 * 4) [601561885]

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

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

Comments:

He/she is now using the account: MengFan
 * (semi) for five days.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Redmen44 reported by User:Flat Out (Result:Not blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601796007 by Flat Out (talk) Page is cited and there are multiple links that prove without a doubt that this is a living person. Please discuss further on talk page"
 * 2)  "Still working"
 * 3)  "Happy now?"
 * 4)  "Work in progress"
 * 1)  "Work in progress"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Create discussion due to edit warring"


 * Comments:

This is an editor with a history of edit warring, and an unblock in the last 48 hours that refuses to work cooperatively with other editors. Has not exceeded 3RR but blanks talk page and refuses to engage around improving articles. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   12:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No disrespect was intended here I guess I am just confused on why the page that I created has a BLP tage yet I have shown with cited articles and links. Again, I am not trying to start an edit war I want to discuss why I have not done enough for this page. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to discuss it you would have started a conversation on the articles talk page or joined the one I started, or not blanked my attempt to start one on your talk page. The tag was "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." and it does need additional sources. All claims must be supported with references. Waiting until a report is lodged to start talking is not good enough for someone who just came off a block for edit-warring. 13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am truly sorry and I did not mean to start an edit war. I admit I went about it the wrong way as I should have gone to the talk pages first but I thought that I could delete the tag because I thought I added enough sources and links. If the page is still not up to par, then I understand the BLP tag being put back on the page and I will work towards making the page more complete. Once again my sincere apologies. Redmen44 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated the BLP tag - this is a horribly-referenced BLP, and the only possible sign of notability (the extremely minor "accomplishment" of a triple-double) is only sourced to the university page, which is utterly unacceptable. I don't believe this article would even survive an AFD  D  P  13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced per statements above that such behaviour will never be repeated on Wikipedia D  P  13:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tonga2010 reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: Warning, Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

I am reporting both this user and the IP 98.216.213.118, who have over the past few days repeatedly reverted the page Unix to show this operating system's first release date from 1973 to 1969, without discussing at Talk:Unix. I realize that this is drastic in the case of a new user, but I stand at risk of violating WP:3RR, and I request that the admin who checks this case consider the possibility that the IP and the account are the same user (without wanting to make the accusation of sockpuppetry, since the account was too recently created and no other registered user is involved). Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Tonga2010 warned, article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jtrevor99 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngenta&diff=prev&oldid=601668197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngenta&diff=601755954&oldid=601752076] 03:47, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngenta&diff=601756334&oldid=601756154] 03:52, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngenta&diff=601760417&oldid=601757308] 04:46, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
 * 4) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syngenta&diff=601831043&oldid=601829636] 16:56, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 removes text recently added by others.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtrevor99&diff=601760966&oldid=600761493] 04:55, March 29, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyngenta&diff=601761505&oldid=600930260] 05:04, March 29

Comments:

Jtrevor99 has violated the brightline rule of four reverts in a 24-hour period, despite being warned against doing so after three reverts. In general, he has been using primary sources to defend and promote the agribusiness chemical company Syngenta. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * – Article protected one week. Two editors seem to have broken WP:3RR. It is doubtful that any of the reverts, by either side, are justified under the exceptions to 3RR. Jtrevor99's use of primary sources is on thin ice regarding WP policy. Wikipedia attempts to summarize what independent third parties have written. We don't achieve balance by giving equal time to the combatants. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for protecting the article. There was only one editor who broke 3RR or I would have reported the other one. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Zvonko reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Protected, 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: The material the user is reverting was reviously reverted by IPs. The user showed up when the article was semi-protected (the IPs did not want to discuss anything). The user responded at the talk page (though sadly they do not seem to care about policies or consensus - they have been reverted by three different users) but continues reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * for 1 week. I also left a warning on Zvonko's talk page that further misbehaviour will lead to a block.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Page was just released from edit protection. It turns out that the editor displays a different name on the talk page.
 * The re-reverts took place quickly: six minutes, seven minutes, 2 minutes, and 11 minutes. After I pointed out that the D follows the first R in BRD, I made it to Talk:Ken Ham thinking the 3RR would kick in and discussion would finally be required, but as soon as I was done posting my first talk page comment, I saw the notification of the fourth revert.  It is therefore not possible to keep the Article stable to allow for discussion.  The editor has 100,000 edits, so I have to assume that this is some kind of Wiki-tactic.  You will see in the edit histories and talk page diff that there is a second editor trying to stop the changes to the article, as well as also involved on the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * First of all, there are only two reverts listed here (the first two). Neither this nor this is a revert, as both were good faith attempts to get to compromise on the basis of good faith efforts on the talkpage to try to reach a compromise with User:AzureCitizen. He and I came to what I thought was a good compromise and then I tried to implement it in article space. The user here reporting is not involved on the talkpage and reverted three times (compared to my two). I also note that these diffs only include three reverts here: I am trying to edit in good faith to reach a compromise, but the user reporting here seems unwilling to discuss on the talkpage and oddly went here rather than discussing there. Well, color me confused. jps (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm here to endorse comments. The editor reporting this came out of nowhere (no talk page involvement) and reverted three times in little more than an hour:  whereas  only did so two times. If anybody here should be sanctioned for edit warring it's, the editor who opened the report. Regards.  Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  02:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note that jps is the editor reported. As the editors have commented, I am not an involved editor in this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. Doesn't matter which editor is being reported, you are accountable for your actions either way and the simple fact is that you breached WP:3RR, not . Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  03:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * AzureCitizen removed the word "incorrect" to find out if anyone objected. Nine edits occurred to the article without objection.  Yet you restored the word on the grounds that you were restoring the article to a "consensus" version.  Was it a mistake  your intention to restore the word "incorrect", or was this simply a matter of not being aware that you were making a quiet change?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff for clarifiction. Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to the version that was agreed 6 to 1 in the talk page not two weeks ago. My intention was to restore the WP:CONSENSUS version. Do you dispute that was the one? Then please point me to the correct consensus version. Regards. Gaba  <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  13:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, let's cease discussing the issue here on this noticeboard and take it up on the article's talk page. Sound good?  Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, User:Unscintillating didn't breach 3RR because he only made three reverts. It's only a fourth revert in 24 hours that is a violation. On the other hand, it is also true that discussions on these noticeboards are intended to cast a wide net. jps (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * for a week. Discussing at the talk page and reverting is *not* good practice.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Foggas and User:Septate reported by User:Toddy1 (Result:Protected )
Page:

User being reported: User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Septate 11:00, 23 March 2014
 * 2) Foggas 11:36, 23 March 2014
 * 3) Septate 16:40, 25 March 2014
 * 4) Foggas 17:18, 25 March 2014
 * 5) Septate 14:11, 26 March 2014
 * 6) Foggas 18:40, 26 March 2014
 * 7) Septate 15:52, 28 March 2014
 * 8) Foggas 05:27, 29 March 2014
 * 9) Septate 16:13, 29 March 2014
 * Warning given to both editors at this point.
 * 1) Foggas 15:07, 30 March 2014
 * 2) Septate 15:53, 30 March 2014
 * 3) Foggas 16:21, 30 March 2014

Diff of request that they use the article talk page to discuss what is a content dispute and not vandalism (as Foggas had claimed on Septate's talk page).Septate, Foggas

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Foggas, Septate

Link to discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Criticism of Islam

Since they have continued to revert each other, I am reporting them here. I am certain that both of them are well-meaning editors who are acting in good faith.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They're obviously editwarring, although neither has stepped over three rr. I could block them anyway, but have gone the route of just slapping a week of protection on the page to force them to work out their disagreements on talk.  I'll put a note over there shortly to that effect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:173.79.251.253 reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  04:34 30 March
 * 2)   15:40  30 March
 * 3)   16:55 30 March
 * 4)   19:03 30 March
 * 5)  19:47 30 March
 * 6)  20:36 30 March

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned about deleting comments on talk page,  warned about WP:EW,   warned and notified of this post notice of this post

See Talk:Jason Russell, the IP's accusations of everyone else of "vandalism" and his position that if he can "verify' something that he is the arbiter that it passes WP:V.  There is substantial discussion, and the IP is, at this point,tendentiously accusing everyone else of "vandalism" while making 6 clear reverts in well under a day. Collect (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Jtrevor99 (Result: See earlier report)
Page:

User being reported:

I apologize; this is the first report that I have filled out, and I know that this is not the correct syntax. It was unclear to me what information was needed, even after following the other examples on this page.

If it is helpful, I have opened a dialog on my own talk page regarding this topic, and Binksternet and I have been discussing it. In my opinion, the primary issue is around our differing views on what constitutes an "unbiased" article, and Binksternet's objection to my use of a primary (but publicly available) source to record Syngenta's public response (within the article) to the Hayes accusations. In essence, we are seeing a conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. I am hopeful that through further discussion we can settle this without remediation; in fact, I am satisfied with the current version of the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As for my accusation: I know that Binksternet is a far more historied user than I, and thus, admins might tend to side with him if they do not examine the facts or recorded history. However, for evidence of the edit warring and Binksternet's impropriety, I would simply point you to the Syngenta article history. Binksternet repeatedly attempted to expand Tyrone Hayes' statements of accusation (regarding verbal/physical threats supposedly lobbied against him by Syngenta, damaging effects of the chemical atrazine, etc.) while attempting to block all efforts by myself or Jytdog to post a Syngenta response. He even went so far as to claim that a Syngenta quote does not belong in the Syngenta article due to it being a "primary source" - despite his repeated use of primary sources in favor of his viewpoint, and the fact that the Tyrone Hayes article itself makes repeated use of primary sources. I finally eliminated all but one reference to atrazine that Binksternet had posted, as that was distracting from the subsection's main point of "Alleged threats made by scientist against Syngenta"; I left both Hayes' accusations (posted by Binksternet) and the Syngenta response (posted by me). It was after this, the fourth compromise I attempted, that Binksternet reported me for edit warring.

As for my defense: Note that practically all reversions I committed were, in fact, reversions of Binksternet's reversions, which in turn were deletions of additions I tried to make. I must credit Binksternet: I was not aware of the "4 reversion rule" like he, so he knew to stop after the third time. Instead, he technically avoided the "4 reversion rule" by simply deleting my comments the fourth time. Study of the article's history will reveal that, in all cases, I was attempting to strike a balance. I never once tried to delete Binksternet's comments; on the other hand, he repeatedly deleted mine for flimsy reasons. Tellingly, his reason for deleting the Syngenta response was my use of a "primary source"...but he kept giving different reasons why a primary source should not be used in a subject's article. Each time I countered, he gave a different reason - 5 in all - and then finally pointed me to WP:SECONDARY, which per my reading does not support him.

In short, I believe I was ethically and morally in the right with my behavior, and even though I triggered the "edit war" warning, I steadfastly believe it was necessary in order to present unbiased and neutral language in the Syngenta article. If I am wrong, I apologize and ask for direction on what I could have done differently; I await the admins' decision. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article fully protected one week due to a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am writing a response to thank you for the protection status, and to further explain my use of the primary source despite it being "on thin ice". This final post is made because I'd like the admins to weigh in on what I should have done here. (We all learn from our mistakes.)
 * As noted on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I believe this issue was sparked by a conflict between WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS, and possibly WP:WEIGHT. Quite simply, Syngenta was not given the opportunity to respond to Hayes in The New Yorker, Democracy Now, or all but two media outlets (that I could find). And Binksternet challenged those two as possible COI or unreliable. The primary source thus seemed my only option for WP:BALASPS, despite it apparently violating WP:BALANCE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've learned this isn't the right place to have this discussion; it would fit better on the Neutral POV Talk page instead. I added a section for it so now consider this matter closed. Thanks again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:27.99.111.84 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

No interest in engaging on talk page despite invitation and ongoing discussion sections already open, and have been for weeks. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:173.177.14.25 reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Removed the Feminism sidebar, as sexism isn't part of feminism and includes all genre."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 602024772 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)"
 * 3)  "Someone removed the discrimination sidebar. Oh, and removed the feminism's."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 602027538 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) Watch that bad mouth of yours."
 * 5)  "Removed feminism sidebar."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Took out feminism sidebar */"


 * Comments:


 * See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Itsbenja.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 6th revert -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Up to 7 -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure about the sock puppetry thing, which may certainly result in a longer block. Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:USchick (Result: Warned both)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   21:38, 29 March 2014‎
 * 2)   20:59, 29 March 2014‎
 * 3)   09:25, 29 March 2014
 * 4) User has refused to engage in talk page discussion  No response.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warnings are disregarded as "silly templates" and reverted as "nonsense." 

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Edit warring sometimes with no explanation and other times hostile remarks on talk page. USchick (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Director admits to edit warring even though he has no intention of looking at the information in the article. He's waiting for someone else to show up, so in the meantime, he's edit warring. USchick (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) -->
 * . I see edit warring by both and . I see contentious comments on the talk page by both of you. Indeed, the discussion on the talk page is a perfect model of how not to resolve content disputes. Neither of you has violated WP:3RR. However, if further edit warring occurs, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm doing something wrong. I would like to use this opportunity improve. Bbb23, would you please be so kind and point out where on the talk page you think I should have handled it differently? I reverted in two different sections of the article (one time each) and outlined my concerns on the talk page. My edits were reverted and my concerns have not been addressed. Other people's concerns on the talk page also remain unaddressed. There's a lot of talking in circles, but concerns are not being addressed. Other editors attempting to contribute to the article have been either run off in frustration and/or blocked. Two editors in particular seem to be working as a tag team to the point that one is unable to edit without the other one and even admits to holding back any further editing until the other half of the tag team shows up. What do you recommend? USchick (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see where a warning has been issued to either one of us. Can someone point it out please? What am I not seeing? Thank you. USchick (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of your comments on the talk page: (1) I will ignore your POV comment about Kiev being part of the "original Russia."; (2) "The silly templates you disregard are mandatory warnings."; and (3) So you're saying that you can't be bothered to determine if my edits are acceptable, you prefer to edit war while you wait for Producer. Thank you for clarifying that. Now I understand. Of course, Director's comments are not constructive, either, but I'm addressing only your question. The warning wasn't given before. It was the action I took based on this report. Finally, I recommend you use one of the mechanisms in dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the warning. USchick (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh.. USchick was pushing new edits, edit-warring to blank and rewrite sourced content on an extremely controversial article. I requested that she wait a bit for the user that posted the sources to respond, as he can best answer her concerns that the sources have been misquoted. This is in light of USchick's previous content blanking over there on grounds such as "Marxism is different than Communism" (no, I'm not kidding ), and the fact that Producer has thus far satisfactorily explained virtually every issue re sourcing. I wish I could say I'm surprised she reported herself, and that while misunderstanding 3RR. Not that 3RR is a binding rule, but if anyone needs any sanctions its the reporting user, I'm just gonna say it: USchick lacks basic knowledge of the article's topic, and basically just disrupts the talkpage. Its WP:CHEESE over there. -- Director  ( talk )  17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 1, rev me
 * 2) 2, rev me
 * 3) 3, rev Paavo273
 * 4) 4, rev Paavo273
 * 5) 5, rev Darkness Shines

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning; revert #5 came after I posted warning of this 3RR dispute.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page - about 50% of the talk page is an argument on this topic to which he is the prime advocate of his POV.

Comments:

I attempted to intervene in this ongoing edit war with Solntsa90 as a neutral party (I did not edit the Yatsenyuk article until the other day, when I saw the talk page dispute). I was reverted, and as the diffs show, we're at 4 reverts now. My first edit was not a revert, but verifying the sources and re-editing on my own. He reverted, so I reverted back per WP:BLPREMOVE ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"). The issue is that Yatsenyuk has been smeared as "Jewish" by political opponents, even though he does not self identify as such and there are no actual sources proving he is. Solntsa is trying to prove he is, which may qualify as WP:LIBEL in this context. I issued a warning, and other editors have tried to intervene, but he keeps reverting. Further, he has been incredibly uncivil (calling me "Lvovskiy") and has been engaged in person attacks. He has also has stated he will not engage in talk page discussion and that I don't "have a place in this debate", which is not assuming good faith.--Львівське (говорити) 22:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have provided numerous sources on Yatsenyuk's Jewishness, most notably from the Consulting firm Oxford Analytica HERE with the direct quote: "Born in chernivtsi in 1974 to Jewish-Ukrainian Parents, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was affiliated with a local legal firm for most of the 1990s

You however have not only failed to provide any evidence refuting that the sources I provided stating he is Jewish (The Guardian UK, Oxford Analytica, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) are "slander" or that these companies are publishing slander, rather, you have taken it upon yourself to declare unilaterlly that this constitutes "libel", despite the fact you have been been sanctioned from editing on Crimea's referendum and have been repeatedly warned in the past from making edits regarding Ukrainians and their Jewish origins, when applicable.

I think I'm in the right on this one, and my sources vindicate me. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This noticeboard is not for content dispute resolution, but rather user conduct. --Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have engaged in personal attacks? like "This attack" attack for instance? also, "Lvovskiy" isn't being uncivil, Russian is my first language and it's simply another way of saying "Lvivskie". In closing to your 'libel' comment, Yatsenyuk doesn't identify as Jewish, but that doesn't change the fact that his parents are from a Jewish family, and that's all I'm reporting, as per the Guardian, as per Oxford Analytica, as per all my other sources. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * But the warning given by Lvivske according to his/her diff related to content-sourcing issues.  Nobody gave Solntsa90 an edit-warring or 3RR warning.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We're speaking English here, not Russian. That you're essentially attempting a nationalist slur by warping my username is telling, especially that you've kept it up after I asked you to stop being uncivil. --Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only has he accused me of both being responsible for "about 50% of the talk page is an argument on this topic to which he is the prime advocate of his POV" and yet in the same breath accuses me of stating that I "will not engage in talk page discussion", but this Lvovskiy guy has also accused me ironically of libel directly HERE, putting doubt into how much faith he actually has in his own claim, and making me assume he is trying to silence me (and my sources, which do not violate WP:BLPREMOVE btw as they're all credible) via arbitration. You refuse to discuss the issue with me on the talk page, because you know that my sources are correct and to do so would be to concede that I am correct. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

SOME HISTORY
 * A serious problem is that from day one involvement in this article, Solntsa90 has been bent on "outing" AY as Jewish and has insisted only his verbatim edit with the sources he alone chooses with the wording he alone chooses may be allowed in the article. When I suggested other wording to characterize the Harriet Salem Guradian piece, when I added sources including one of the chief rabbis of Ukraine to rebut the Jewish ethnicity claim (the other source Solntsa90 just blanked numerous times without ever even responding to), when I added unrelated sourced info to the birth section, etcetera, etcetera, Solntsa90 always just blanked back to his verbatim wording, excluding all sources that disagreed with Solntsa90.  See HERE for diffs.

'''
 * INCVILITY: Intentionally calling a user by a deliberately offensive nickname based on his real username is not the first example, and like the others when asked to desist, he still will not stop. Before I got involved on this page, Solntsa 90 had accused another user of racism because the user did not think a source offered was valid.  Solntsa90 during my entire involvement in this article so far has peppered his edits and talk contributions with uncivil remarks, just for examples: A and "I'll edit your edits any time I see something wrong with them, and you'll see that my patience is rather infinite, if you want to go that far." Solntsa90 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014


 * Actually, Solntsa 90 WAS warned on his talk page prior to the 3RR. He then proceeded to make multiple additional reverts.


 * I've never seen anything approaching this in my slightly more than four years on Wikipedia. Paavo273 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I notice you used the word "outing" Yatsenyuk in quotations. Can you please provide this qutation where I said it was my intention to "out" Yatsenyuk as Jewish?

I have repeatedly and over and over again said that Yatsenyuk is not Jewish, that his parents were Jewish, and that this is what the sources supported, not Yatsenyuk being Jewish. Once again, don't shoot the messenger.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I deleted Dov Bleich because it's been already mentioned in the other sources I provided. You took the same source and drew a different conclusion with it. Finally, You have called me an anti-semite repeatedly (a quick review of the talk page can confirm this) and just now have said I want to "Out" Yatsenyuk, so there goes your credibility in that stance.

P.S: I was given no 3RR warning whatsoever.

P.S.S: hyperbole such as ''I've never seen anything approaching this in my slightly more than four years on Wikipedia. '' just reinforces the notion that you have an agenda to push by trying to claim extra facts in order to send me off into censorship. I'm quite perceptive to things like this. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

''We're speaking English here, not Russian. That you're essentially attempting a nationalist slur by warping my username is telling, especially that you've kept it up after I asked you to stop being uncivil''

1.) If we're speaking English here, then why is your username in Cyrillic?

2.) It's not a "nationalist slur" and the fact you think the transliteration of Lvivskie into Russian is such betrays a deep-seated hatred of Russians, and possibly Jews (given your previous older edits).

3.) You don't get to decide what words in my language are "slurs" or not. Do you even speak a word of Ukrainian or Russian? I assume you do not, or else you wouldn't have made this erroneous assumption. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of thing I've been putting up with while trying to get Solntsa90 to engage on the merits of the content. Just a couple minutes ago, I pointed out another baseless instance of Solntsa90 charging racism. The ink is still wet on my edit pointing out the prior baseless racism charge and here comes another one. The fellow editor is racist because he asks to be called by his user name? Who would ever want to edit any page under these conditions and this logic? Paavo273 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If you've ever been to Lviv, it IS a nationalist slur. I've been there a number of times.  But the real issue is even in arguing on the edit-warring noticeboard, Solntsa909 continues to show gross disrespect.  The point is Lvivske asked him to stop but he just continues baiting. Paavo273 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Did he just accuse me of having a 'deep seated hatred' of Jews? wow --Львівське (говорити) 23:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The "fellow editor" just minutes ago accused of me launching a 'nationalist slur' for transliterating his username into Russian (while not correct and thus I'll cease doing so, it is NOT a slur) and I noticed you had little problem with that accusation of racism (Your accusation of me calling another "racist" is simply me warning another user not to discredit sources simply for being Russian; to do so would be--yes, that's right, racist).

And speaking of accusations of racism, do you mind showing me where I said I want to "out" (since you used quotations) Yatsenyuk as being Jewish? Or are you hoping such a slanderous accusation is conveniently swept underneath the rug?

@Lvivskie, You yourself said on your talk page you do not speak any Ukrainian. Would you even know the difference between someone calling you "Lvovskiy" and someone calling you "Lvivskie"? Because seeing as your ears aren't tuned for it, I highly, highly doubt it.

P.S: you and Paavo have both accused me of various things from antisemitism to libel. Why is my accusation so unprecedented? I've been accused of being an antisemite, of wanting to "Out" Yatsenyuk (a very slanderous accusation from Paavo), etc. with no comment on me insofar as much as you didn't comment on mine. I'm guessing the Guardian and Oxford Analytica want to "out" Yatsenyuk too. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Lvovskie is not a "nationalist" slur, it is merely a transliteration of Lvivskie, even the wikipedia page on Lvov can tell you this. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * TECHNIQUE TO DISTRACT FROM DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS:

Solntsa90: Please 1. provide a DIFF for any accusation or even implication I made about you being anti-semitic, 2. of your using Dov Bleich before I did (I first used him HERE after which you blanked it many times.  As far as I can tell, the first time Solntsa90 referred to the rabbi was HERE (the second "EDIT"), at that point apparently unaware 'cuz hadn't bothered to read my addition of RSd info--just blanked it over and over instead.


 * Call other people racist. Accuse others of calling you racist. Anything to distract and bully, even if not factually correct. A rather revolutionary technique, I'd say, not democratic, not consistent with civility, respect, or collaboration, just as multiple blanking of others' and verbatim restoration of one's own edits isPaavo273 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heheh, and you accuse me of being uncivil (also in regards to your claim of me being "undemocratic": NOTDEMOCRACY ). Solntsa90 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps brush up on WP:OWN. To Paavo: "How can I take anything you say seriously" Or to me: "Upon further review, you don't really have a place in this debate, Lvovskiy." You've shown your unwillingness to collaborate or engage in any form of consensus building. It's not a democracy but it's also not a dictatorship. --Львівське (говорити) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If both you two are going to gang up on me and provide soundbites, why not post them in the full context they were given so as to show why they were even said in the first place? My claim that "you don't have a place in this debate" was in response to admins having warned you not to take part for possible anti-semitism and ethnicity issues re: Ukraine. You said that the admin was found "to be wrong" later on, but you posted that after I posted this, so if you're going to try and get me on a "smoking gun", at least make sure your facts and context are correct to your own position.

Also, given that he has baselessly accused me of multiple things in the past few days, how can I AGF with Paavo? Solntsa90 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide diffs? DIFFS and specific references add meaning. Vague and general assertions are pretty impossible to respond to or evaluate. Paavo273 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just above, you accuse me of being "bent on 'outing' Yatsenyuk as Jewish", heavily inferring that it's his heritage (and not the accuracy of facts and the correctness of researched sources) that I care about. I assume you're going to have some excuse for this slander? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure how it's slander; how are you defamed? In any case it's true.  Your first main comment I saw on AY talk was HERE: "To ask the obverse of that question, why do some Wikipedia users take it on themselves to obfuscate Jewish identities on politicians or other famous people all the time, and in this case given that there are sources from think-tanks, journals and foreign policy advisories saying Jewish?" Solntsa90 (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2014  More importantly your entire course of conduct in squelching all dissent, simply blanking all sources and all references that suggest AY is not of Jewish ethnicity.  The link to the talk section showing DIFFS is linked twice twice above and HERE.
 * Any others? Paavo273 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment, far from proving my obsession with Yatsenyuk's alleged Judaism, moreso implicates your own desire to obfuscate the facts of his Jewish Parentage; It's crass to call you "antisemitic" for it, but I don't know what your motives in this regard are. Maybe you really do believe that Oxford Analytica and The Guardian are trying to spread anti-semitic slurs in an attempt to undermine his presidency, I have no idea anymore. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At least on this point you' ARE consistent: "[W]hy do some Wikipedia users take it on themselves to obfuscate Jewish identities on politicians or other famous people all the time...?" (to a prior 'nother user who like others melted away after that and the assertion that his own post was "racist") AND "implicates your own desire to obfuscate the facts." Paavo273 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The user who attempted to put admin sanctions on me didn't even disclose that he Isn't supposed to be here in the first place:

This whole attempt at silencing me is superfluous, and beyond hypocritical. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, where am I 'not supposed to be'? I guess this ties more into the whole WP:OWN thing. --Львівське (говорити) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything at all, no matter WHAT, to avoid talking about the topic of THIS NOTICE, Solntsa90's bright-line misconduct: edit-warring--up to 5Rs, gross incivility incl. lots of accusations against anyone who tried to participate on the AY article page never backed up by any DIFFS, blanking RSd text of other editors the most recent several of which came AFTER my section with diffs of at least five examples on the talk page, etc. Paavo273 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

– Solntsa90 is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. If another admin thinks Lvivske should also be sanctioned (for 1RR/48 hours in his case) they can use their judgment. Since this is a dispute concerning ethnic matters (Jewish heritage) and it's about an Eastern European politician I'm notifying Solntsa90 under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Sexism shouldn't be a part of the series feminism. It makes it seem like women are the only victims of sexism"
 * 2)  "Sexism shouldn't be a part of the series feminism. It makes it seem like women are the only victims of sexism"
 * 1)  "Sexism shouldn't be a part of the series feminism. It makes it seem like women are the only victims of sexism"
 * 2)  "Sexism shouldn't be a part of the series feminism. It makes it seem like women are the only victims of sexism"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Took out feminism sidebar */"


 * Comments:
 * See Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring -- Neil N  <sup style="color:blue;">talk to me  00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Stephen J Sharpe (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  21:16, 10 March 2014
 * 2)  10:16, 11 March 2014
 * 3)  11:13, 11 March 2014
 * 4)  11:16, 11 March 2014
 * 5)  19:57, 11 March 2014
 * 6)  00:28, 12 March 2014
 * 7)  12:25, 12 March 2014
 * 8) 12:27, 12 March 2014
 * 9) 12:33, 12 March 2014
 * 10)  15:59, 12 March 2014


 * 1)  15:04, 13 March 2014


 * 1)  10:41, 14 March 2014


 * 1)  20:57, 15 March 2014


 * 1) 13:35, 18 March 2014
 * 2) 13:36, 18 March 2014
 * 3) 17:49, 18 March 2014
 * 4) 20:47, 18 March 2014

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2

Comments: Lvivske is currently under the following sanctions:Lvivske was reminded that these sanctions still apply on March 5 by Alex Bakharev. The bolded reverts specifically refer to edit warring over the text of the referendum question where Lvivske replaced "status within Ukraine" to "declare independence" despite there being an ongoing conversation where the emerging consensus supported the original text. Beyond this article Lvivske has shown a pattern of disregarding his sanctions and I can provide further examples if requested. I attempted to bring this matter to the attention of User:Alex Bakharev with this discussion but received limited response. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Myself and the users on the talk page came to a mutual compromise on the wording and worked together rather well on the talk page. This was just WP:CYCLE in action. Sure, it looks rough if you stick to the diffs out of context. Not sure why you're head hunting me weeks after the fact to try to get me blocked. This is the second time in a week you've tried to throw these sanctions at me erroneously, when you canvassed multiple admins. Give it a rest. To other admins reading this, I would like to point out that the user in question made a rather bizarre attack on me on his user page, some personal vendetta is going on here. --Львівське (говорити) 00:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If I was "headhunting" you then surely I would have reported these 3RR violations when they occurred. As it is I only came across them after reporting you for a different set of violations. Lvivske's constant claims of headhunting, libel, and calling me "a nut" are evidence of uncivil behaviour. Just to clarify - "multiple admins" means two which I only requested as I was unsure who I was supposed to be requesting help from as I am a new editor. There was, in fact, no "mutual compromise" but rather the text of the referendum question was returned to the original wording after Lvivske eventually got tired of single-handingly reverting multiple editors. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Lvivske cites WP:CYCLE but the essay states: "The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again." In contrast, Lvivske decided to make the same reverts again and again before consensus could be reached. The same essay goes on to state, "If you have reached three reverts within a 24 hour period (3RR bright-line rule), do not edit that content in any manner that reverts any content, in whole or in part, even as little as a single word, for over 24 hours." Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out at the very least that the series of diffs aren't 3RR material in particular but seemingly a list of every edit or rev I've made on that article (ie. #10 is just me adding a source). It would appear at first glance that I went on some amazing reverting streak but this is a collection of everything, and I did slow down after the 11-12th dispute. I was also engaged on the talk page for everything listed. --Львівське (говорити) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Every diff listed is a revert. Per Help:Reverting, "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version." which means, for instance, when you replace "remain within Ukraine" with "declare independence" that is considered a revert. It was indeed an "amazing reverting streak" especially considering that you are currently on 1RR restriction. The #10 diff includes you adding a source but also includes you changing "potentially declare independence" to "declare independence" which constitutes a revert and continued edit warring. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In support of Stephen J Sharpe's claim, I would like to point out that Lvivske has made multiple and numerous contribution's to Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's talk page HERE, in clear violation of the 1 edit per 48 hour rule that he agreed to abide by ( and even had the audacity to report me for what he saw as an offense of mine). Solntsa90 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no "1 edit per 48 hours on a talk page" rule. Sorry for the confusion. --Львівське (говорити) 00:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple edits to Ukraine-related articles HERE and HERE shows you fail to understand the rules of your arbitration. That is more than 1 edit per Ukraine article in a 48 hour period, made worse by the fact that rather than accept this and apologize, you are now attacking others. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Who did I attack? I don't think you understand the terms of the sanctions you're referring to. --Львівське (говорити) 00:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's not change the subject so hastedly (and I was referring to your response to Stephen J Sharpe above): You do realize you made multiple Ukraine-related edits within a 48 hour period, correct? The evidence that you failed to abide by your arbitration is provided by me right above. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely made edits. Lots of edits. I'm an editor. On Wikipedia. --Львівське (говорити) 01:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not permitted to make multiple edits on Ukraine-related subjects more than once within a 48 hour period, and not without talkpage notification first, so why then do we have This and This? Solntsa90 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * *shrug* You're misreading the terms quoted above. --Львівське (говорити) 01:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed at WP:Arbitration enforcement as Lvivske is appealing the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:X.equilibrium.x reported by User:BethNaught (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 602098318 by BethNaught (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 602095187 by Argovian (talk)"
 * 3)  "If what you believe is true, then what exactly is a legislative body and what is is responsible for? I would advise against wasting any more of your time perusing illegitimate claims"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 600474465 by Argovian (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 600474465 by Argovian (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Has reverted several times on a contested edit he made. Has also added invalid CSD templates at Civil law (common law), also edit warring there. BethNaught (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, someone got lucky there. just blocked for 24 hours; I was pondering a block for a week to indefinite. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen someone get blocked for, and I think the next block, should it happen, should be for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Capmo reported by User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom (Result: nada)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=601917675&oldid=601912603

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=next&oldid=602092582
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=next&oldid=602098033
 * 3) [diff]
 * 4) [diff]

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

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

Comments:

I edited the IPA for Portuguese page afterwards to make sure it was understood why I was marking it that way. A sound file in the dark ell section of the alveolar lateral approximant article shows a standard Brazilian pronunciation of.

It has sourced content that Brazilian Portuguese uses to make very doubly articulated phones for this context of in particular, what is unusual for about every other language. (in English, for example, you will have clearer - less doubly articulated - ells before, and other front vowels, and darker ells before ,  and other back vowels, reflecting their "palatal" and "velar" mouth positions respectively.) Since these guidelines are supposed to help English speakers (or Anglophones) get how Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation works, I guess it's a very significant detail to be added.

Previously, I had already to revert a change by a user not respecting that the sole guideline for Brazilian Portuguese adopts the →  palatalization as standard, given how – alike the velarized ell issue – people who speak largely substandard registers of Brazilian Portuguese (a few spots of rural folk in Southern Brazil, rural and a tad lot of urban in Northeastern Brazil) do not have these phonological features. Still, people who have my palatalization of (speakers of dialects such as these of coastal/urban Rio de Janeiro state, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, and Belém, Pará) represent an equally large fraction of Brazilian Portuguese speakers, do speak registers much closer to the Brazilian standard (hell, Rio de Janeiro is the state capital after Vitória, Espírito Santo to have a dialect closest to it) but still we do not push for all IPA for Portuguese transcriptions in each sinle article have double pronunciation guidelines just because we have our "s" at the end of syllables getting a "x" sound and we feel bad for being an underrepresented minority or something of that sort.

As such, I regard it as pointless to have such kind of discussion. It's a long-established guideline. If people want Northeastern pronunciations be represented – it is more likely that they would end up getting something even closer to Rio de Janeiro's pronunciation if the status quo is changed anyway, given how IPA for Portuguese recommends one to use the Brazilian pronunciation closest to that used in the European nation of Portugal for linguistic unity and ease of Anglophone comprehension issues –, they should go to the talk page of WP:IPA-for-PT and get a new consensus before.

I am not considering neither user here as having bad faith in intent, given how Capmo showed signals they didn't see my newer edit on Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese. Still, we can't keep reverting each other, for everybody knows it is regarded as disruptive. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose I'm expected to reply to this; as I see it, Srtª PiriLimPomPom is trying to push her own opinion on the subject in these articles. Her changes to Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician look like WP:OR and should also be reverted unless she's able to back them with undoubtedly reliable sources; the standard Brazilian Portuguese does not have the ɫ or the β sounds at all (nor does any local BP dialect as far as I'm concerned). —capmo (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lol nope. Are you really versed in phonology? It's sourced in the dark ell section of the article. If you can't hear the difference between the Spanish/nordestino li and the paulistano/carioca one, you're not supposed to give opinion on this stuff.


 * The fricatives were not a change done first by me (it's the consensus accepted for months) and the top of the article IPA for Portuguese and Galician explain why they are there, it's supposed to help Anglophones learn Portuguese as a whole rather than being too specific about local Brazilian phonology (that'd be BTW hugely biased because I have for most positions of  myself, as most of anyone from Rio de Janeiro and AFAICT São Paulo). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The changes made by are original resources, and he acuses  not be "versed in phonology" to justify himself instead of using sources.

There is also a problem of sock-puppetry here, Srtª PiriLimPomPom creates its account when he stopped to edit as because he made several edit wars against other editor in Portuguese related articles. PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it's a music, and the user PiriLimPomPom does absolutely the same things that Guilherme (Lguipontes) has did.--Luizdl (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it is an inside joke I have with friends from other part of the internet. I don't put my real name on the internet. Regardless, oh, wow... This is a fairly serious accusation, you will need evidence for that. What I doubt anyway, because Wikipedia got my email and I am fairly sure that I am the first person to use it so that it can be associated with my Wikipedia account.


 * Just because I generally agree with that guy that is no longer active here on various phonological details about my dialect and Brazilian Portuguese as a whole, that doesn't mean I have to be him. Are you seriously being that close-minded?


 * Furthermore, you are implying things about a person no longer active here. I browsed his talk page and found only a single instance of edit warring (it involved sockpuppetry, but with an IP and it seemingly wasn't malicious in intent). Just because you had some problems with his assertion that Brazilian Portuguese has Catalan-like lamino-alveolo-palatal sibilants (here), what both Canepari and a Brazilian source seemed to confirm (and I believe it since, well, I can hear the difference, and @ seemed to confirm they hear it as well), it doesn't mean he crossed the line with you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, the term "music" isn't used in English AFAICT. It's song. And my English skills also contrast with Lguipontes' (not that I see an issue in that).


 * Investigating further... I saw that you have very little contributions here for the whole of 2014. It is weird how suddenly a user that is no longer active here would turn and say something about an issue with such pride in your own instincts. So I went to your Portuguese Wikipedia account and you are not very active much more there as well... Seeing your talk page, you seemed to have quite of a cordial discussion in Portuguese in your Lusophone Wikipedia talkpage with him, where he asked for your help with an issue concerning the very phonology that we are discussing now (the fourth last one, and it took place in early 2013). O.o Do you guys know each other in real life or anything? I am seriously curious what would be behind the reason of all this drama now.


 * "(O pós-palatal do inglês (como em Sean, Russia etc) é labializado? Como se eles ocorrem normalmente em sequencias de sibilantes com a vogal anterior fechada não arredondada? De onde você tirou isso?)" There are sources for that... http://www.martinetoda.org/publis/icphs2003toda.pdf just searching "labialized postalveolar english" in Google... BTW it could have been cited here. Seemingly you went to discuss what is and what isn't in that discussion about Brazilian Portuguese categorically lacking alveolo-palatals without a lot of background in it with information that Wikipedia itself lists (I've read it in forums that didn't even deal with linguistics). That is half as bad as OR and even so you wanted to accuse others of doing it just as wrong as you did. What the flying fish is happening here?! If there's anyone who looks like a puppet (and I'm not accusing anyone else), it's you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Why has this been brought here? 3rr hasn't been breached and there's been no attempt at discussing it on the article's talk page. — lfdder 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I explained it already. The guideline is clear, it's a consensus, and form the small fraction of information I did put there, it was sourced. It isn't something to be discussed. Furthermore, I didn't want nobody to reach 3RR because I don't want other people to be blocked. If they are reverting, it means that they are attempting to build something in their vision of correct. I'm new here and I thought it'd be a decent and okay thing to be done. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What do you mean there isn't something to be discussed? Your change has been reverted; there's obviously something to discuss -- even if that is to reiterate the consensus (if there is one). See wp:BRD -- when your 'bold' change has been reverted, it's generally expected that you don't revert the revert. It is expected that you talk it over on the article's talk page. — lfdder 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * A new section has been created, thanks. :) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point, : thanks. I'm going to close this--after a. leaving a templated warning for both editors along with b. a hearty 'what the fuck?' (Pardon my Portuguese.) Is that what you two are fighting over? And Prilimpompom, do you need THIS many words for a simple edit warring charge--even before 3R is breached? And surely there should be more evidence than "someone's name is music" and a hint or two for a charge of socking. Let's close this and hope that this two can whistle their dixie on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, they're now discussing it over at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician (after I suggested it here). It seems to be often that people can't agree on transcriptions of Portuguese. — lfdder 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:96.49.72.50 reported by User:FenixFeather (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I work on Arrow as a PA so I put May 2014 because Arrow season 2 ends in May 2014."
 * 2)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 1)  "/* Series overview */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Discussion concerning 96.49.72.50 edit warring */ new section"


 * Comments:

Warnings available at User_talk:96.49.72.50 (for some reason, it's not showing up on Twinkle). Repeated vandalism, removal of content, and edit warring on this article. Continued to edit war even after the starting of a discussion on the talk page. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Khimaris reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Time reported: 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * 1) 06:42, 31 March 2014  (edit summary: "/* Effects */ Qualifiers are very important. Alexbrn's previous attempts at "simplifying" were biasing the article towards unjustifiable negative conclusions. A lack of studies does not mean ineffective...")
 * 2) 20:46, 31 March 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 602164554 by Alexbrn (talk) Nope, a negative bias is still a POV. Please use the talk page before you revert any further edits.")
 * 3) 20:58, 31 March 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 602166005 by Yobol (talk) Then say that there were no available trials of lipoic acid on dementia patients if you want to "closely match" the article. This is insane!")
 * 4) 03:45,  1 April 2014  (edit summary: "/* Effects */")
 * 5) 04:25,  1 April 2014  (edit summary: "/* Effects */ per WP:ASF inline citation removed.")


 * Diff of warning: here

— 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course Zad  reported me but not Yobol nor Alexbrn for my good faith additions. We had a discussion going on the talk page. Yolbol accepted the addition of the review not finding any any randomized clinical trails as a reasonable. I added this information. Yolbol then reverted my post using WP:ASF as his reason. I accepted this and removed the inline citation. I'm afraid this report is unwarranted.

Further more, I would suggest that Zad68, being an administrator, should reacquaint himself with WP:BRD. I await further comments.Khimaris (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sage reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (essentially this one, with a few subsequent minor changes by other users)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)  (and concurrent subsequent edits)
 * 5)
 * 6)

If you throw in a few hours on March 31, then you got a couple more reverts there too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: various warnings on user page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12014/April#Original_research_needs_to_be_removed and by other users 12014/May#Request_move_of_.27Sniper_theory.27_section

Comments:

This is a brand new WP:SPA account (a check user would be nice here) which has been edit-warring on this page for several days. The user is inserting unencyclopedic rants and soapboxing into the article and citing it, first to a Facebook page, then to some blog. In the discussion s/he demands that other content in the article (this one sourced to Washington Times) be removed as well if he's not allowed to have his way on the article. Lots of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

He doesn't appear to want to assume good faith: "You guys are probably working together, I know there are many groups like this here [...] just further reveals you to be anti-Russian and trying to score some cheap anti-Russian propaganda points. "--Львівське (говорити) 07:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours. Notified under WP:ARBEE, since the user seems to be adding their personal POV regarding the Russian/Ukrainian quarrel. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "what's your problem ? i have explained to you & even to Mr.Dougweller...then why are you repeating this type of reversions...this is not fair...please don't do it again...."
 * 2)  "i have explained the reason &  i hope you could understand..."
 * 3)  "I have clearly explained about government's mentioning as Kshatriya and explained to dougweller and also to Joshua Jonathan for his mistake..what is your problem.."
 * 4)  "i have explained to dougweller yesterday about that satyanarayana's reference and i have provided references from anthropological survey of india and also other references...so you are mistaken..."


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


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


 * Comments:

k then, i have provided explanation to dougweller(in his talk page) who is an administrator and for Joshua Jonathan for his mistake in Joshua Jonathan's talk page.Joshua Jonathan is repeatingly reverting the version created by me and then iam trying to protect it.I presume Sitush & Joshua Jonathan are unjustifiable in case of Rajus and i don't have faith in them.Please see the talk page of Dougweller and also talk page of Rajus from beginning.I am asking wiki administartors to conduct research on Kshatriya Rajus or Rajus with experts in history but not editors like sitush or Joshua Jonathan.Then truth will come to light that Rajus are Kshatriyas and how Rajus are mentioned as Kshatriyas by Government of Andhra Pradesh & India.Rajus are Kshatriyas but Sitush & JJ are trying to keep the word claims of Kshatriya status in Etymology.As i can't always follow & protect the sourced version by Anthropological references from being vandalised.Thank you -Shvrs (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . However, Darkness Shines, I'm not crazy about your chronology above. You warned the editor on their page and one minute later reported them here, with a diff to that warning. I can't take your warning into account, and they haven't edited the article after it. I'm taking earlier warnings on their page into consideration, and therefore blocking for edit warring, but please be careful how you report on this page.


 * @User:Shvrs: I'm afraid the admins aren't going to conduct the research you request; that's not how the rule against edit warring works. Don't edit war even if you're sure you're right. It also doesn't make any difference that you "don't have faith in" Sitush and Joshua Jonathan, both experienced editors who're careful abut reliable sources. (That's a policy content guideline, please click on it and read.) On the contrary, I advise you to read the policy assume good faith. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Sorry about that Bish, twinkle only gives the option of posting your own warning, he had one on 10:08, 23 March 2014 from Sitush. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, OK, please disregard my grouching. I generally tell people they mustn't blame Twinkle for anything they do, but in this case I do understand, because Twinkle certainly makes the heavy lifting at this board (=the diff-collecting) lighter. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).
 * Probably time for a revert limitation on this editor per General sanctions/South Asian social groups as he has already been warned of discretionary sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, likely enough, but... I've replied on my page. I certainly wouldn't object if somebody else acts on your suggestion. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

User:Dr Marmilade reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Renewed Army ground offensive */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 602304806 by The Four Deuces (talk) As Eko just said, it is not your place to determine whether a source is reliable or not with your opinion."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* World Tribune */ Cmt"


 * Comments:

The article is under a 1RR restriction. The second revert is the restoration of the same content already removed, for some reason Dr Marmilade thinks that is not a revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the information was already up and you took it down, then I put it back up, then you took it down again, wouldn't that make you equally guilty of edit warring? Also, how do you defend yourself when a user reports you? Is there some type of mediator or "court" decision? Which administrator is in charge of this case? Are those lists that Darkness Shines has up there offical charges, or his own claims. Also, how do penalties work on Wikipedia. Can a user report another whenever they feel like doing so? If an administrator could answer these questions for me, that would be very helpful. Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any administrator who comes along will decide, and I have not violated the 1RR restriction, reverting sockpuppets is an exemption. If you think I am wrong, feel free to file a report on me. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what you are saying is that any random administrator can make a judgment in a split-second, without any review at all. Also, I am not a sock puppet. Finally, If I go and remove the edit, does this case go away or does a moderator still see it? Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you self revert then you have not violated 1RR and I will obviously withdraw the report. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done.Dr Marmilade (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:R0745976409 reported by User:Kndimov (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Note: I made this just now. It's a shame dialogue wasn't tried already.

Comments:

I happened to stumble across this edit war between User:R0745976409 and User:Pietaster. User R0745976409 has made his account for the sole purpose of editing the one page and to engage in an edit war. I have not intervened in this war but have notified the users. -- Kndimov (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . I blocked R0745976409 because their blanking appears to be more disruptive, but,, you didn't go about this in the right way. I'm not familiar with the article. In particular, it's hard for me to verify foreign sources. It would have been better to report the user rather than edit-war with them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnGoodName reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: All warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 601765388 by Aoidh (talk) thanks for finally joining us again on the talk page, it seems that consensus is against you though"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 601882037 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your edit summary threats"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 602182230 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your specious arguments"


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


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


 * Comments:

There more reverts going back at least 3 days by this user so the pattern of edit war is clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (This comment was in response to this comment which was then removed) The previous consensus was against this edit, the edit is unsourced, misleading, and WP:UNDUE. Persistently inserting an edit is not the way to push changes on Wikipedia, especially persistent edit-warring by a SPA who has ceased even attempting to discuss the edit on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * However, looking at the edit history I didn't realize how much I had reverted that; thinking that I'm "right" is no excuse. I think I should step away from that article for a few days and see if any additional discussion pops up, which I'll do (additional discussion will hopefully happen per the WP:DRN discussion I've opened). - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've left a warning in a dummy edit summary, and I'll say the same thing here. (and  to a lesser extent) if any of you revert again I will block you on the spot, take it to the talk page get a consensus ask someone else to make the edit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Callanecc I find that to be a curious warning. I reverted once because of the edit war and the edit against consensus and I took it here as an outside editor that saw the problem was ongoing. That's a rather disturbing response and unwarranted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically this was my way of avoiding fully protecting the article, it was primarily addressed at Aoidh & JohnGoodName, however since you had also reverted it wasn't fair or equitable not to let you know as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: Discretionary sanction imposed)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Apr 1 14:43
 * 2) Apr 1 16:33
 * 3) Apr 1 17:12
 * 4) Apr 1 17:28
 * 5) Apr 1 17:31 (sequential)


 * 1) Apr 1 17:32 (sequential)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning from previous day, 3rr notif

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

Comments:

User was reported and blocked for the exact same behavior and exact same article the day prior. After 24 hour block ended, proceeded to pick up where it was left off. User also seems to be having fun reverting & blanking content out of spite (personal assessment based on his tone in the edit summary) --Львівське (говорити) 23:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Out of spite?" Do you even see what you're doing? Any admin who's been involved in the past few days should immediately be suspect to this.Solntsa90 (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You had an appeal related to the Ukrainain/Jewish article topic denied earlier (or today)...does it have anything to do with the fact that my words when quoted or used by admins to demonstrate a case against you had something to do with it possibly? I'm not quite sure, because I reverted vandalism, otherwise, I didn't exactly revert anyone's legitimate edit, so I think I'm staying within the 3RR rule (which I'm not even sure it applies to me, since I don't have sanctions against me).

As for my revert that you say was "out of spite", you had no source for it at the time; you have since located a Pravda.Ru source, but before that, you had no source attached to it whatsoever.

And if you scroll to the bottom of the Yatsenyuk talk page, you'll see me working it out with a fellow editor, not simply "edit-warring". There is no edit-warring, just me revert vandalism, and compromising on the talk page. Let's be honest, you get grudgeful against users, as anyone can see through to your talk page history and comments regarding others. I'm not sure what I'm even being reported for, to be honest.

so uh...what is this about again? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have been reported for WP:3RR, which does apply to you, as you are not above the rules. What you call "reverting vandalism" appears rather to be "reverting to your version", the same version you were previously blocked for. This is textbook edit warring.--Львівське (говорити) 00:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The edit warring notice that Lvivske posted on the users talk page for this complaint was posted six hour after the last revert by Solntsa90. i.e. none of the reverts that Lvivske is complaining about happened after the warning.  I suppose this is an improvement on Lvivske's previous complaint about Solntsa90's edit warring, when the so-called warning that Lvivske posted in his/her complaint was a content warning, and was nothing to do with edit-warring.


 * Whilst I think that Solntsa90 was mistaken in believing that the IP editor from Lvov was a vandal, I can understand why a reasonable person would believe in good faith that he/she was reverting vandalism. In these edits, the IP editor from Lvov deleted lots of material that had citations from independent sources.


 * Please could the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk be protected from edits for seven days. This apparently controversial issue has induced both Solntsa90 and Lvivske to revert excessively during the last week.  (Lvivske is under greater restrictions than Solntsa90.)  I do not think that Lvivske played fair in either this or the previous complaint about edit warring.  People should be given clear warnings about edit warring, and only reported here if they continue to edit war.  That is precisely what has not happened.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If being blocked isn't a warning, I don't know what is. Also, not sure about the "reverting excessively" accusations seeing as I've not touched the article since the 30th, but Solntsa90 has been non-stop revering multiple editors.--Львівське (говорити) 00:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lvivske knows perfectly well what I am talking about. It is being discussed at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Lvivske is "under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion".  Lvivske has breached this sanction on the article on Arseniy Yatsenyuk during the last week.  Naturally, in a spirit of fairness, admins block the person Lvivske was edit warring with, but have not blocked Lvivske.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Toddy, your vendetta against me is getting pretty tiring. If you're going rip on me, at least get your facts straight. --Львівське (говорити) 13:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . I'm not precluding any blocks by me or by another administrator. On the positive side, it looks like and  are talking to each other on the article talk page. On the negative side, the edit warring by both editors (and the IP, whoever they are) is disruptive. Solntsa90, you can be blocked without violating WP:3RR, particlarly if you resume edit warring, as you did, after expiration of the last block. Indeed, generally, a block in those circumstances is longer than the first. I have no idea what you mean by "active sanctions". I do know if that this continues, whether it's today or tomorrow or anytime in the near term, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the user has already been blocked for edit warring on this article, but that they are engaging in discussion I've decided to impose a 1RR per 48 hours restriction for one month under ArbCom's discretionary sanctions for Eastern Europe. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Bcd3174 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Lebanese by net worth
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:LarryTheShark reported by User:Yobol (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been pushing an anti-water fluoridation POV on Water fluoridation and Water fluoridation controversy as well.


 * Completely to the contrary. The complaining editor is pushing pro-water fluoridation to the point of trying to censor the official European union position on water fluoridation in the Water fluoridation article.
 * And reverting additions to Water fluoridation controversy in which he never participated in the long talk page discussionsLarryTheShark (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * is a dead cert sockpuppet, IMHO. It's just which banned user is he a sock of? Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SwervingStyle reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: link

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff (3RR warning and level 2-4 unsourced warnings have been removed by user)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: Discussion in my archives from February regarding the same issue: discussion

Comments: User clearly demonstrating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mentality. I explained the situation to him/her several times in February to no avail (either didn't read or doesn't understand WP:V and WP:OR) and shows no signs of stopping adding his/her unsourced content to the page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do take a look at the amount of articles Truth has made and how he has reverted many other pages based on this same evidence which is not correct in many cases. Thanks, SwervingStyle
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Gentlemanscholar741776 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: 24hr)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) Just check his contributes; all dozen edits of his edits are reverts to the same article

Comments:

This "new" account has made 12 reverts to an article in the last 28 hours, please indef block as battleground, coi, block evasion. Thanks, Sepsis II (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is constantly being vandalized with false information. Every time i fix it, people put the same false and politically charged language back, hence reverting back to the correct information. Gentlemanscholar741776 (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Gentlemanscholar741776


 * . Gentlemanscholar continually removes sourced information - that's clearly NOT vandalism (that has a very distinct meaning).  The items being removed are properly sourced, provide balance, apparent truth (based on the sourcing), and are therefore exempt from the WP:BLP aspects that might otherwise be permitted under WP:EW.  I would suggest that someone is trying to whitewash this article inappropriately.  No comment on block evasion, try WP:SPI should someone with similar MO reappear  D  P  00:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:12.130.161.8 reported by User:Apokryltaros (Result: Declined)
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: of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:12.130.161.8 seeks to purge all mention of the terms "medicine" and "medical" from Seahorse, preferring to refer to it as either "superstition" or "tradition," and is not interested in citations that contradict these changes, nor appears to be interested in producing citations that justify or support these changes.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . The IP was not warned of edit warring, and was also edit warring. I understand the difference between the IP's edits and Apokryltaros's, but the IP is trying to discuss the issue on the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP is trying to justify its edits, but has a tendency towards WP:ICANTHEARYOU.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean I can proceed with editing that section as originally intended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.161.8 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. It means that you should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page. It means that there must be a WP:CONSENSUS at Wikipedia for changes to articles, and if the consensus is against you, you must defer to it. If there is no consensus, you can use other means of dispute resolution to assist you, but you cannot edit war.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean continuing to censor the article without bothering to achieve consensus to do so?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Trying to get your digs in through the WP:LASTWORD is rather childish and inappropriate - try to take the high road D  P  00:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:N8-57469 reported by User:Eyesnore (Result: Blocked for vandalism)
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:

Comments: An attempt to break the syntax for the infobox.  Eye snore  (pc) 01:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've no idea why this is being reported as edit warring - many of N8-57469's recent edits have been clear and unambiguous vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for vandalism/disruption based on the inappropriate responses on the user's talkpage.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rahulsinghpinaki reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 2)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 3)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 4)  "/* Notable alumni */"
 * 5)  "/* Notable alumni */"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* And to emphasise */ new section"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Colonel Brown Cambridge School. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Failed Citation Verifications */ why as a fictional person added?"
 * 2)   "/* April 2014 */ 2nd warning on adding references that do not establish that entries belong in the article."

Editor used to do this at and has been continually reverted. He doesn't provide evidence that the names he adds are alumni of the school, he adds names of questionable notability, he adds Howard Roark who of course is fictional, and even though I told him "You really must have sources that say they attended the school. And the Muhammad Ayub Khan who is an alumnus doesn't seem to be the same as Ayub Khan (President of Pakistan). You really need to understand this. If you can find sources saying they attended, you might even find we have an article on them." he continues to add these names. Some of them are BLP vilations, and as I told him, he's confused two people with similar names. The Ayub Khan here doesn't seem to be the one who was president of Pakistant. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 *  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:151.66.113.53 reported by User:Liz (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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

This editor received many warnings and explanations over the past few days about the exact same edit but they identified it as "vandalism" or failure to use an edit summary or an unexplained deletion of content. But it was the exact same edit/revert made repeatedly over the past five days. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * 151 has continued to revert this same passage, racking up 21 reverts since April 1st (and some before that date, too). Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Septate reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 3 March
 * 2) 4 March
 * 3) 30 March. Note edit summary: "moved image to right section" whereas in fact the image was deleted
 * 4) 3 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: previous warning (evidence of notification of edit-warring rules plus this reminder on current edit-warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:1st thread 2nd thread

Comments:

This isn't a bright line breach of 3RR, but is nevertheless edit-warring with some egreggious aspects. Septate wishes to remove an image of Muhammad from the Islam article. He as done so four times over the previous month while talk page threads have been open to discuss the issue - linked to above. The threads clearly show no consensus to remove. Septate knows there is no consensus to remove so he did so on the third occasion with the edit summary "moved image to right section" in an attempt to disguise what he had done. When challenged on this he admitted it was a dishonest edit summary, and apologised in this post. But then (in the last revert above) he removed the image with the edit summary "per talk" yet it was clear from the latter thread that he had no consensus. He had announced in the thread he was going to do it anyway because "no one has raised serious concerns", which was patently untrue. I warned him not to do it, but he went ahead anyway.

Septate has a track record in this type of edit-warring. On the Muhammad article he tried to remove an image twice. After the first removal it was made clear to him in an article talk page thread by Amatulić not to remove the image yet he then went on to do so again with the untrue edit summary of "per talk". Another editor reverted him with the edit summary "no, not "per talk". You were asked not to remove that image" Septate is fully aware the issues around edit-warring, and what would result in an AN3 block, having recently had two reports about him to this noticeboard.

I appreciate that this is not a bright line 3RR and had contemplated whether it would have to go to ANI. But it seems to me the essence of the problematic behaviour is edit-warring as so should be dealt with here. While four reverts in a month may not seem much I think why action is called for is his MO of ploughing on with reverts despite it being clear from the talk page that he shouldn't, and doing so with dishonest edit summaries. DeCausa (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment from the sidelines: I've often thought that the Muhammad article might be a good candidate for 1RR, although most of the time the participants are pretty good about discussing things on the talk page. 1RR wouldn't be a factor in this report, however, since the reverts were more than 24 hours apart. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

– 48 hours for long-term edit warring at Islam regarding images. The latest example is [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam&diff=602595809&oldid=602407956 here, on April 3] where he removes a Muhammad image yet again and replaces it with one that does not show Muhammad. This follows a series of image removals during March that were performed with deceptive edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)