Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive242

User:Malqrrishh reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "At least, i added a source though poor. So at least do not revert. And sir, in Hindi you added bbfc site!"
 * 1)  "At least, i added a source though poor. So at least do not revert. And sir, in Hindi you added bbfc site!"
 * 1)  "At least, i added a source though poor. So at least do not revert. And sir, in Hindi you added bbfc site!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Source wars */ re"


 * Comments:

Continuously tries to prove that the Hindi film Ra.One is also English and keeps adding the forever-unreliable IMDb as the backing source, ignoring other editor's warnings and comments. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:67.242.113.32 reported by User:331dot (Result: 72h)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Created page with '==Characters== *Alvin is an alien who appears on The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss. He's the sole resident of the planet Malamaroo *Annie DeLoo is a little girl w...'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Talk:Carmen (iBook). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around!. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW)"


 * Comments:

This user continually creates pages in the Talk namespace which seem to be articles, but makes no effort to put them in the main namespace. It is an edit war in that the page referred to here has been deleted five times according to the log; the user has not responded to posts on their talk page. If this is not the proper forum, I apologize and welcome being directed elsewhere, but I wasn't sure where else to go. 331dot (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, re-creating something ad nauseam is pretty much edit warring. Blocked for 72h.  I'll tidy up the fake articles as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Silvio1973 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Without source, refer to Talk page"
 * 2)  "You are adding manually the information from another source. This is OR.Provide a source. And report to Talk page to get consensus first."
 * 3)  "CN"
 * 4)  "You need a neutral source. Please report to talk page"
 * 5)  "Source needed"
 * 6)  "Reverting the article in the original condition before the current dispute started"
 * 1)  "Source needed"
 * 2)  "Reverting the article in the original condition before the current dispute started"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Edit warring notice */ new section"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Number of federal subjects */"
 * 2)   "/* Number of federal subjects */"
 * 3)   "/* Number of federal subjects */ rp"
 * 4)   "/* Number of federal subjects */"


 * Comments:

POV edit warrior who thinks all Russian sources are not valid. User was warned. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * To illustrate user's battleground mentality: "A source close to the Russian Government is not neutral and definitely insufficient to push a POV in the lead. What happened in Crimea is not my problem. My problem is that you post an edit without a source. And unless you do not provide a neutral, your edits will be reverted. 'Without fail'. And report me for 3RR. I simply removed unsourced material and put the article in the condition prior to your POV pushing" on Talk:Russia EvergreenFir (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no batteground at all, but unsourced and insufficient sourced material can be challanged and removed.
 * The issue here is very straight-forward. EvergreenFir is presenting in the lead that Crimea is possible 'de jure' part of Russia and supports the affirmation with the declaration of annexation from the Russian Government. Of course this raises an issue of neutrality and of WP:FRINGE (to say the less). There is of course a discussion ongoing on the Talk page about this matters and other users told EvergreenFir to refrain from pushing his/her udit, untill valid sources are not presented. For some reasons, EvergreenFir believes that whilst the dispute in progress, the article should not be edit as he/she wants instead than in its originary condition. EvergreenFir was also warned not to include the population of Crimea into those of Russia, unless a valid source provided. But instead of providing sources EvergreenFir has preferred to participate on the Talk page with discussion of doubtful necessity.
 * Last but not least, I never said that 'All Russian sources are not valid'. Instead I wrote that 'A source close to the Russian Government is not neutral and definitely insufficient to push a POV in the lead'. Silvio1973 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Issue of sources is being discussed at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Does not negate your edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ., you violated WP:3RR. Your comments don't change that. , although you did not violate 3RR, you edit-warred (your fourth revert was outside the 24-hour window and enough outside to avoid gaming but ...). Hopefully, both of you and others involved can work this out. However, if either of you resumes battling in the article, you may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , I would honestly prefer to be blocked along with EvergreenFir rather than leaving him free to do what he does. His/her behavior is closer to that of a agitprop than of a WP contributor.--Silvio1973 (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't get to pick and choose whether or who gets blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks from Silvio1973 I see. Probably gonna open an ANI tomorrow.  Thanks for reply to this  EvergreenFir (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever reported by User:JakIIDax (Result: JakIIDax bocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

This user has been intentionally reverting my edits. He has even admitted in his edit summaries that he is intentionally trying to get me to break 3RR policy. Unlucky for him, the link he gave me would turn on him.

Here a couple diffs showing that this users will continue to do similar reverts on all articles I am currently contributing to:



Shows this user will not stop and will continue across multiple articles.



Shows the user is intentionally trying to start multiple edit wars because he wants me to violate 3RR. Which lead me here.

Other recent reverts:

 

I think this user needs a break, and maybe the user may need to be patrolled in the future. If not, there is no guarantee this user will stop with the constant reverting. I've attempted to ask the user to stop in edit summaries and his talk page. JakIIDax (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You violated WP:3RR by reverting every single one of my edits on all of the articles you edited in one day. I did not violate WP:3RR on Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts because only 3 edits there were reverts coming after Jak's first revert. The other two reverts I made did not count as 3RR violations. JakIIDax, like Jakandsig, is aggressive and disrespectful and disruptive. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 19:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And JakIIDax is wrong. I reverted Jak's edits because they were poor and not constructive enough. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 19:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting because I count 5 edit summaries saying "You reverted JakIIDax" today. Blocking mods, notice that the other links show this user is intentionally trying to cause edit wars and have done so on more than one article as well. This will continue to happen if this user is not controlled. JakIIDax (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

*Blocked for 24h There a clearly four reverts there, and a reasonably experienced editor should know that. Also, claiming that you are reverting something "poor and not constructive" doesn't ring very true when a sentence (unsourced) that you were inserting ("Many criticized the main gameplay mechanics were a majority of the criticism came from and said that the worlds seemed too empty") actually makes little sense. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Special:Contributions/JakIIDax, along with three other Jak sockpuppets (Kaboom! Roger Red Ant, TheRealAfroMan, and CrimeInvestigation&Patrol), have been blocked indefinitely by Sergecross73. }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 04:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Waiting - SPI in progress, there may be socking issues here. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Papapow reported by User:F (Result: Blocked 48hr)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * 1) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 603871736 by 107.171.197.18 (talk)")
 * 2) 12:53, 12 April 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 603871897 by F (talk)")
 * 3) 13:05, 12 April 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 603873222 by 46.59.18.120 (talk)")
 * 4) 13:08, 12 April 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 603873386 by 107.171.197.18 (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

F (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * D P  11:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:AngieWattsFan reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "They are annulled."
 * 2)  "They have been annulled."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Alfie Moon. (TW)"
 * 2)   "/* April 2014 */ cut it out"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Roxy and Alfie's annulment */"


 * Comments:

While this editor has not exceeded 3RR they have persistently edit warred (including under block evading socks) at this article, Roxy Mitchell and Sean Slater despite an earlier block for doing so. They show no signs of stopping their persistent reinstating of a minor point without a reliable source, and despite detailed discussions on the relevant articles' talk pages, an example of which is here.  Flat Out  let's discuss it  04:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Esco83 reported by User:Velella (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 603982259 by 122.109.43.27 (talk) Looks like someone is trying to sell their RO systems through wikipedia, as they keep removing my comments that are backed by reference!"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604006379 by Velella (talk) Of course it does, read the documents first and discuss after! This water is acidic!!!"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 604007106 by Sjö (talk)Okay removed the part where water's molecules  are bigger than synthetic chemicals, as I have seen it with my eyes and they are not a source to quote here."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 604008218 by Sjö (talk) HA HA someone is selling RO around here :). Read the document issued by WHO in 2004, The name of the document states clearly that there are RISKS!"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 604010748 by Velella (talk) Yes please DO NOT remove my comments anymore.There isn't a single scientist, doctor or toxicologist that suggest RO water is an adequate source of hydration"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "#1 advice"
 * 2)   "/* April 2014 */ violation of WP:3RR"


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


 * Comments:

Appears to have a particular point of view that sounds pseudo-scientificy but is not supported in any way by the World Health Organisation report quoted  Velella  Velella Talk 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous and insulting! I have not reverted anything, just added useful info. It is not humane to mislead people through FALSE information! My sources have clearly stated and concluded that there are risks involved when consuming RO water! Wikipedia can't be used as a selling point for one product or another! The info I have added is adequate and correct I have reliable sources and information, others could just add to my info instead of removing it!? Seems to me that some editors are biased and this is not healthy for Wikipedia nor humane towards it's users. World Health Organization clearly states: For about 50 years, epidemiological studies in many countries all over the world have reported that soft water (i.e., water low in calcium and magnesium) and water low in magnesium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to hard water and water high in magnesium. Recent studies also suggest that the intake of soft water, i.e. water low in calcium, may be associated with higher risk of fracture in children (16), certain neurodegenerative diseases (17), pre-term birth and low weight at birth (18) and some types of cancer (19, 20). In addition to an increased risk of sudden death (21-23), the intake of water low in magnesium seems to be associated with a higher risk of motor neuronal disease (24), pregnancy disorders (so-called preeclampsia) (25), and some cancers (26-29). More recent studies have provided additional information about minimum and optimum levels of minerals that should be in demineralised water. For example, the effect of drinking water of different hardness on the health status of women aged from 20 to 49 years was the subject of two cohort epidemiological studies (460 and 511 women) in four South Siberian cities (55, 56). The water in city A water had the lowest levels of calcium and magnesium (3.0mg/L calcium and 2.4mg/L magnesium). The water in city B had slightly higher levels(18.0 mg/L calcium and 5.0 mg/L magnesium). The highest levels were in city C (22.0 mg/L calcium and 11.3 mg/L magnesium) and city D (45.0 mg/L calcium and 26.2 mg/L magnesium). Women living in cities A and B more frequently showed cardiovascular changes (as measured by ECG), higher blood pressure, autonomic dysfunctions, headache, dizziness, and osteoporosis (as measured by X-ray absorptiometry) compared to those of cities C and D. These results suggest that the minimum magnesium content of drinking water should be 10 mg/L and the minimum calcium content should be 20 mg/L rather than 30 mg/L as recommended in the 1980 WHO report (3).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esco83 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the sources do not support the information, as has been repeatedly pointed out. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Capes123 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: indef - sock)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 604032448 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604031884 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
 * 3)  "look back at the 1965 war article neutral sources which are non indian"
 * 4)  "indian sources are not reliable"
 * 1)  "indian sources are not reliable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Editor is making changes to cited content, he figures that as the sources are Indian then they must be "biased" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Now if I added a Pakistani source all you white english fucktards would cry its biased you miserable bags of puke Capes123 (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Should have guessed, Nangparbat. Block this sock please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Done. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:96.59.223.143 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "He was placed under house arrest in April 2003. Spare me your threats. Read this http://kronosadvisory.com/Kronos_US_v_Sulaiman_Abu_Ghayth_Statement.1.pdf"
 * 2)  "Once again, they were under house arrest in Iran. Do you know how to read?"
 * 3)  "I already explained it. Knock it off."
 * 4)  "Questionable. Both were under house arrest in Iran at the time."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Introducing factual errors on Saad bin Laden. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:FrostPawn (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JoJo%27s_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle&oldid=603846639]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JoJo%27s_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle&direction=next&oldid=603823852]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JoJo%27s_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle&direction=next&oldid=603941861]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JoJo%27s_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle&direction=next&oldid=603958449]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JoJo%27s_Bizarre_Adventure:_All_Star_Battle&diff=prev&oldid=603958449]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FrostPawn&oldid=603988047]

Comments:

I have warned this user of edit warring on multiple occasions and have received only rude responses with no logical base. I will no longer deal with the article at hand and will leave it to the administrators. ―FrostPawn (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Only two reverts in a 24-hour window (just like FrostPawn). I haven't looked at the supposed "rude responses".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Linguisticgeek reported by User:Foolsscholar (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogendra_Yadav&diff=603872726&oldid=603871946]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogendra_Yadav&diff=603971836&oldid=603942793]
 * 2) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogendra_Yadav&diff=603722574&oldid=603697024]
 * 3) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogendra_Yadav&diff=602446563&oldid=602441592]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yogendra_Yadav#RfC:Should_the_words_AKA_Salim_be_used_in_the_intro_para.3F]

Comments:

This user has a history of multiple reversions to include a nickname in boldface next to the name of the individual the article is about.
 * . Not even close to enough reverts in a 24-hour window to violate WP:3RR and if you view it as a very slow edit war, the reporter is as "guilty" as the editor being reported., next time follow the instructions and notify the user as is required at the top of this page in the instructions. In addition, please learn to WP:SIGN your posts.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Phill24th reported by User:Laveol (Result: )
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: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

There has been some discussion on the article talkpage, but the user involved in the edit-war seems unwilling to explain why he is adding all those tags. He has also deleted every warning he received and responded by attacking the users warning him. -- L a v e o l  T 20:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess we should also note that Jingiby reverted three times, accusing him once of being a sock. Then, as if summoned, two mildly active editors with very similar editing styles covered the reverting for the next couple times. I agree with the copy-edit tag, just looking through a few sentences. Jingiby's English has never quite been up to par. As for the OR and refimprove tags, I haven't checked the sources to be able to say if they're okay or not. And, Laveol, you tried to discuss the issue on the talkpage for about 10 minutes, then brought the issue straight here. The entire talkpage discussion covers a span of less than three hours. Give it a bit more time, I think. This seems to be the first edit war he's encountered and may not fully be aware of the 3RR. -- Local hero talk 04:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The user has shown nothing, but utter aggression. I brought it straight here since he had already reverted the page five times and showed no willingness of stopping. Further, he repeatedly removed 3RR warnings from his talkpage. It seems to me he simply does not care if he is being disruptive or not. Mind you, he is yet to come up with any justification, although he seems active even as we speak. -- L a v e o l  T 11:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Hwasus reported by User:HCPUNXKID (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 14:32, 14 April 2014
 * 2) 14:39, 14 April 2014
 * 3) 19:06, 14 April 2014
 * 4) 19:08, 14 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has break the 1RR on the Syrian civil war articles not once, but two times on a day. He has been warned of the sanctions on the Syrian civil war articles, but it seems he dont care. Note also that all his reverts and edits had been done without any type of explanation or sources.-- HC PUNX  KID 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts, was previously warned and even given a chance to self-revert. Kuru   (talk)  02:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Widewindow reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: 24h, DS notified)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - disruptive behavior on another article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm not involved in this particular edit war, but it appears this is a WP:SPA, possible WP:SOCK, who is only editing here to POV-push on content related to the dispute between Ukraine and Russia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's pretty obvious that this is the same user as User:EK728, User talk:BadBoyz1, User talk:Equilibrado as well as numerous IP accounts. And that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. These are all throw away SPA accounts but there's probably a sock master sitting behind them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cachi43 might be involved as well . All of the accounts seem to be editing the same topics and have not made edits anywhere else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also in common the usage of RT as a source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict - saying the same thing as Knowledgekid87 above) Also this one User:Cachi43. And this one User talk:180.149.192.139. And probably this one User:Hechos. And probably a few more... It's just a ridiculous situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just gave a 24-hour block and notified the user/sock of DS just as a formality. Has anyone filed an SPI? That would make things more easy.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Though it's really quickly, as I don't have time to hunt down every throwaway SPA this person has created and I got to go do some RL work now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I just filed one: . Personally, I'm not sure I see the User:EK728 connection, but the other editors do appear to be related, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I watchlisted both SPI requests and will keep an eye on this.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "read the sources - ALL of them"
 * 2)  "and the other source literally states that they have been accepted - and it comes from the man who controls the agreement the team would need to sign to compete"
 * 3)  "but they *have* been confirmed by Ecclestone, who controls the Concorde, and thus would be in a pisition to comment - hence the footnote"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Forza Rossa - the new Sirotkin */ reply"


 * Comments:

Another in an ever increasing list of edit wars by this user. Although this one is not a direct violation of WP:3RR, it is still an edit war. The user reverted twice before going to the article's talk page and a third time later on despite having been explained by two users at that point that the reversions were unjustified.

A list of the edit wars the user has been involved in during the last twelve months: -June 2013 -August 2013 -5 January 2014 -12 January 2014 -13 January 2014 -30 March 2014

I would like to suggest that at the very least this user is subjected to 1RR in a bid to stop the repetitive behavior. Tvx1 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything Tvx1 has said about me could reasonably be said about him. He frequently edit-wars, operating under the mistaken belief that if he thinks he is right, then he is permitted to do so. He regularly posts 3RR warning templates on the talk pages of editors he is warring against, and eventually refers them here, which I believe is little more than an attempt to try and intimidate others into backing down and accepting his preferred version of edits. If he had taken the time to check the article in question, he would have seen that it has since stabilised, and that it stabilised once someone made an actual argument in favour of the changes he was pushing for. Furthermore, there is an open case at DRN which he started, and in which he clearly misrepresents the situation. Considering this, I believe that it is quite clear that Tvx1 has developed the alarming habit of calling the administrators down on anyone he disagrees with in an attempt to force though his preferred version of an article, as he is frequently in the minority when it comes to a consensus. As evidenced here, he edit-warred, even after being shown evidence that he should have considered; then came here at the first opportunity - even after the issue was resolved. If I am guilty of 3RR, then so too is he, and I implore any administrator reviewing this case to consider Tvx1's history of calling on admins to try and bully his preferred edits into an article. He is, for want of a better word, compromised by this behaviour and his own role in the disputes he brings to the attention of admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an unfounded personal attack and violation of WP:AGF. If it is necessary for the reviewing administrator to check my editing history. Be my guest. You'll find no such proof of frequent edit warring. In fact I strongly doubt you will find any violation of WP:3RR at all. I am not operating under the mistaken belief that if I think I'm right, then I'm permitted to edit-war by any means. I bloody well know that edit-warring is prohibited by policy even if one thinks one is right. I never make more than two reversions after which I will solely concentrate my efforts on the talk page of the article in question and if that fails I'll search for other solutions to resolve the matter like fore instance Dispute Resolution. If i report anyone here I do that under the belief that the user in question has broken one of the policies this noticeboard governs and administrator action is warranted. Regarding this particular article, I made one reversion, ONE, after Prisonermonkeys reverted my original edit. I don't know why I'm even remotely accused of having broken WP:3RR here. Tvx1 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is very, very difficult for me to assume good faith when I see a pattern to your behaviour. Given your tactics in other discussions - like the way you misrepresented the situation at DRN, like the way you have ignored a clear consensus in the past, like the way you stall at every opportunity - I am left wondering at this one. If it is your only intent to resolve issues diplomatically, why am I left feeling as if you are trying to force through your preferred edits every single time you do it? You take a minority position - in this case, you were in the majority, but only once someone did your job for you and made an actual argument - and edit-war just enough to keep your nose clean, and then threaten administrator action against any other party. And lo and behold, you get your way; the article is written the way you think it should be written, regardless of what a consensus might say. So I find it very difficult to assume good faith when you stand to gain so much from it. You know perfectly well that the DRN is coming up for review, and you know perfectly well that we argue opposing points of view in it. If any sort of admin action was taken against me, it would limit my ability to take part in that DRN, and the side opposed to you loses one of its biggest supporters. And here you are, twelve hours after an unrelated situation has been resolved - and you had to know it was resolved to get those edit differences - lobbying for admin action against me.


 * Like I said, if your only intention is to resolve a situation diplomatically, why am I left feeling like you are trying to force through the resolution you prefer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing one of the diffs in the report to an unrelated one won't help your cause either.


 * I post from an old mobile device. Sometimes when I make a spelling error - and especially if the section I am editing is lengthy - the auto-correct software inserts the correct word at a random point in the text window, often over-writing existing text. When that happens, the best I can do is guess at what the original text read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to lash out on me like this. You're the one who edit-warred and if the administrators consider it warranted to take action you only have yourself to blame for that. It took 6 editors, three of whom had to revert your additions to the article, to make you realize that you're edits were premature. So I don't see why you claim it is I who tried to force their preferred edits through. And I don't understand the claim that "someone else did my job for me" either. I brought the majority of the talk page input and the five of us who brought arguments against you wrote more or less the same: The content you were trying to add hasn't been confirmed yet, WP is not a news site so we can take the time to verify this, you misinterpreted Bernie's comments. Bretonbanquet added to that we should wait until we have FIA and FOM confirmation, something you had actually mentioned yourself earlier on. This report is entirely independent from the Dispute Resulotion on an unrelated issue we are currently taking part in. It's not even remotely my intent to try to prevent you from taking part in that, why else would I have suggested 1RR restriction in the first place you think, and I have never claimed that I would only accept the Dispute Resoultion outcome if it's my favor. The only reason why I have reported you hear is to make you finally realize that Edit-Warring is not a solution to resolve disputes. Again, these accusations you throw at me are entirely unjustified. Tvx1 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in another edit war on the same article.

Once again, you dodge the question. Why is it that every time you report someone for 3RR, I am left unable to shake the feeling that there is something in it for you - something more than stabilising the page or resolving a dispute?

You claim, for instance, that you will limit yourself to two reverts before moving to the talk page. But do you know what I see? Someone who edit-wars just enough to avoid getting in trouble, relying on the other party to continue edit-warring, and then posting templates on their talk page or coming here to intimidate them into standing down and/or accepting the edits you want. You claim you do nothing wrong, and yet here we are, having this discussion. The idea did not simply appear in my mind one day - there is a pattern here.

And, predictably, you sit on that article, watching that content, for the first sign of trouble. As I expected you would, and so edited accordingly. It is quite clear to me now that you are compromised. You claim to be acting in the interests of the article, but always get something out of it. You want me to be put on a 1RR; fine. In that case, I suggest Tvx1 be prevented from referring cases to ANI or posting warnings on talk pages until he learns that they are not a platform for him to try and manipulate content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't answer the question for yourself why you assume bad faith by default in another user's contributions. That's something you yourself have to find out. I have stated and I will repeat that my sole intention of referring you here is to make you understand that edit-warring leads to nothing at all. If you refuse to accept that than that is your problem. I'm really getting tired of this ridiculous bullying/intimidating accusations. Please tell me what I stand to gain from the dispute between you and Dr.kolles. If you really want to prevent me (or others) from warning or worse even reporting you than the only thing you have to do is not to edit war at all. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Benfold reported by User:Delibzr (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   05:24, 14 April 2014‎
 * 2)   15:45, 14 April 2014‎
 * 3)   16:18, 14 April 2014
 * 4)   17:06, 14 April 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:20, 14 April 2014‎

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

Comments:


 * - The complaint filer himself was in the edit war and desperately trying to block me as I didn't agree with his point of view. The very first rule the complainer broke was not giving any notice about this complaint against me on my talk page. Secondly, he was keep reverting here, and, again and again despite the talk page discussion. Moreover, both in article's talk page and at ANI thread[] his conduct towards other editors doesn't seem to have any desire for collaborative work. Finally, here is the 3RR warning he received. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note : I am withdrawing this report, because this user finally resolved the issue. Delibzr (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Munir hussain1 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: continuity of the previous edit war (see previous report)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 26 December revert by likely sock (SPI case page)
 * 2) 15 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning, EW block

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

Comments:

This user who appears to have COI related to this article has been persistently edit warring to remove maintenance tags. I understand that there is gap of about three-four months between the last revert of the previous edit warring stint and the latest revert but these reverts remain the same. And I don't see any improvement in the editor's behavior given that he is still avoiding the talk page discussion and not only edit warred but also used multiple accounts even after warning. Neither do I see any good in implementing the regular escalated blocks. -- S M S  Talk 09:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected one year, in view of the SPI case findings. Whether the registered account User:Munir hussain1 should be blocked is harder to decide. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anusha_Rahman&diff=prev&oldid=596809521 This editor's revert] is removing some aspersions from the Anusha Rahman article that were not fully backed up by the source, e.g. : [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anusha_Rahman&diff=prev&oldid=596809521 "she is enjoying a good status in PMLN circles and in the corrupt country known as Corruptionistan"]. Please try to open discussions with User:Munir hussain1. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Yagmurlukorfez reported by User:Zyma (Result: Protected )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 604294675 by 178.240.114.72 (talk) Don't starting edit war. The personel opinions don't belong to here."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604297018 by 178.240.114.72 (talk) It doens't mean to source is "naitonlist" or "unreliable" stop removing."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 604332840 by Zyma (talk) Again!? why evryones fight for this article? Stop the Vandlism. The source is totally reliable."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 604334286 by Zyma (talk) Wikipedia:HG unproved personel opinions"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 604339526 by 78.191.162.22 (talk) Vandalism. (Removing source)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 604340201 by 78.191.162.22 (talk) Again, vandalism (reported)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Andronovo culture. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Andronovo culture. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Afanasevo culture. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

3RR, Edit warring and POV-pushing. Diffs:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Zyma (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And his comments on Talk:Andronovo culture. --Zyma (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is certainly one sided and I just added published source. After that the user "Zyma" again and again reverted my minor edit and started edit war. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You just added unreliable content to Andronovo culture and Afanasevo culture. You ignored my edit summaries and warnings. You wrote wrong and disruptive edit summaries and finally instead of discussing your edits, you write a lot of forum-like comments on article talk page. Both of your edits on article and talk page are just battleground activity. Zyma (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * - While has violated WP:3RR, it takes more than one person to edit war. Seeing as Yagmurlukorfez has moved to the article's talk page and has ceased edit warring I'm not going to block them. Please continue discussing the issues on the talk page in a civil manner. Additionally, I suggest asking for a third opinion.   Tiptoety  talk 20:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Erzan reported by User:Widefox (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

previous:
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) (adding same issue to different part of article)
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604282604 by Widefox (talk)"
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 1)


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Sam Warburton. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sam Warburton. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning notice on Sam Warburton. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Edit warring / long term and mass changing of nationality without regard for consensus on several articles. Editor involved in discussion on talk page of this article - edits are against the rough consensus there. Previous 3RR 4th-7th April and before. Widefox ; talk 22:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 23:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:190.44.138.168 reported by User:ThaddeusB (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Consensus is toi include the info the IP is removing, see talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4) plus about 5 reverts on earlier days

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by TimL prior to latest revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP engaged on talk page, but then ignored the consensus

Comments: 3RR not technically violated, but edit war is clear. Each time the IP re-removed the material, a different user undid it so IP is only violator (plus consensus is to include per talk). IP's other editing is also problematic - there is a clear pattern of an "I'm right, deal with it" attitude. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Many/most edits are appropriate however the communication on edit summaries tend to be uncivil and rude. When an edit is reverted the user will not budge and borderline 3RR/war even after discussion (see Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) and talk).-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  16:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've seen this type of behavior repeatedly from this IP. Another editor and I had already noticed this IP's extremely abrasive editing behavior. No doubt this IP will continue clashing with other editors in bad faith in the future. This editor has no conception of consensus or dialogue, and arrogantly believes in their own superiority to everyone on Wikipedia, as indicated by the conversation on the IP's talk page as well as elsewhere where this IP has disruptively edited. I think a block is necessary in order to prevent future edit wars and disruptive editing, unless the IP shows that they will try to cooperate rather than insult other editors in the future. – FenixFeather  (talk)(Contribs) 16:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: No violation. The dispute was whether to include the table of local times for the eclipse. The IP was removing the table but has stopped reverting many hours ago. There is no continuing war. If he removes it again, reopen the report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User has continued to remove it with no attempt to gain consensus. — TimL &bull; talk 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * for continuing to edit war after being warned not to, and for this comment where the IP makes it clear they intend to continue to remove the content. Tiptoety  talk 01:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:50.151.118.112 reported by User:David.thompson.esq (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

I'm not quite clear on what should be filled in here. This is a list of the diffs showing what has happened:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Please also note that in my edit summaries I asked the anonymous editor to please make his case on the Talk page.

Comments:

User:50.151.118.112 has deleted relevant, sourced information providing only flippant and conclusory reasons for doing so. When I reverted the anon user's deletion I created a section for comment on the proposed change on the talk page. When the non user failed to see or acknowledge the RfC, I sought advice from a more experienced editor:. Based on that advice, i reverted again and directed the anon editor to the talk page with a message that the change could be made, but consensus was needed first. That invitation has been ignored. David.thompson.esq (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In his last edit summary the IP stated, "I can remove this indefinitely. Can you keep putting it back indefinitely?" This appears to be a promise to edit war. I'm notifying the IP of this complaint to see if they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn. I just blocked the IP without being aware of this report. I unblocked now.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (ec) If there is no adequate reply, a longer block may be needed. Check the last six months of the IP's edit summaries. EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – One year. User is here to push an agenda. Was given some good advice here, last December but he edited the other user's words to turn it into a fake compliment. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping! — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.thompson.esq (talk • contribs) 03:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Boxfan6 reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: 24 hours )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */ Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery have nothing to do with Marquez."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604250889 by BearMan998 (talk)"
 * 3)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */"
 * 4)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */  It is clearly a smear tactic."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 604241914 by BearMan998 (talk) What happened to "Don't remove sourced content."?"
 * 6)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */  More sourced content."
 * 7)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 604046868 by BearMan998 (talk) Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery having nothing to do with Marquez. Put that information in the Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery page."
 * 9)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */  That has nothing to do with Marquez. It is an obvious attempt to cast a cloud over Marquez's accomplishment."
 * 1)  "/* Marquez vs. Pacquiao IV */  That has nothing to do with Marquez. It is an obvious attempt to cast a cloud over Marquez's accomplishment."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Repeated reverting - April 2014 */ new section"


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

Another editor started a talk page discussion and this editor was pointed to it. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 03:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . Tiptoety  talk 03:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: No violation)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 604027609 by Summichum (talk) It is immaterial what is topic of article, you cannot put anything abnormal about living person on Wiki against its BLP policy."
 * 2)  "Matter written as reported, don't add your own research to divert/dilute the fact
 * 1)  "Matter written as reported, don't add your own research to divert/dilute the fact


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "General note: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or references on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on 53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra). (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Quote from pritish Nandi */"
 * 2)   "/* Quote from pritish Nandi */"
 * 3)   "this is not BLP article, rather controversial event"
 * 4)   "/* Succession controversy */"


 * Comments:

This user has also been reported at COI noticeboard, third party experienced user Anup mehra agreed to the fact that Md_iet has conflict of interest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Mufaddal_Saifuddin Summichum (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . I'm not sure I see edit warring here to begin with; certainly not a 3RR. He's also correct in his read of our BLP policy; controversial or disputed information about living persons must be meticulously sourced on any article, not just biographies.  Kuru   (talk)  02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks but, User:Kuruin that BLP policy page it lists articles where this is not applicable, it includes controversies and the above page itself is about the controversy surrounding the person. Nevertheless please verify the diffs he has tried to remove that atleast 3 times at different period of times. Moreover it is well sourced info from reputed source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 05:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summichum, you should also be sorry to harass genuine editors at your will to force your POV. The matter in subject is direct blatant allegation to a reputed living personality, a head of community, without any proof or evidence given. Removal of the matter is already decided on the subject main page. This fellow wants to force his POV in whatever manner he wants. --Md iet (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * please see WP:CRYBLPand WP:BLPFIGHT, this policy clearly says that BLP policy does not apply to controversy related articles, it has valid source and reference from a leading news paper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend user:Summichum to READ the same what he has suggested and also WP:Gossip.This issue has been resolved why not take your discussion to talk page.Rukn950 (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * @ User:Kuru,The user:Summichum has taken all the command in his hand any tried to challenge already decided matter. He has deleted your para:

"*. I'm not sure I see edit warring here to begin with; certainly not a 3RR. He's also correct in his read of our BLP policy; controversial or disputed information about living persons must be meticulously sourced on any article, not just biographies.  Kuru   (talk)  02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)" intensely and blanked the result part, which I restored.

Stern action is to be taken. In addition to the finding of User:Kuru, I want to add following:

‘self declared new leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, the late Syedna's son, has asked all followers of the Islamic sect to not only declare their allegiance to him but abuse his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’
 * WP:BLPFIGHTonly allows material which is 'relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced'. In the present case it is relevant and reliably sourced, but not at all properly weighted. The statement is just issued in isolation. The article topic is mainly on politics, “The Mad Hatter’s ball begins..”. The author discussing Kalmadi and Pawan Bansal, Reddy, Tejpal, Chavan, Sinde of their scandals, suddenly started talking of a prestigious religious community head, which is far away from any party politics and blatantly blames that:

No background, no references, no justifications, just all direct, blatant, allegations with full confidence. Can you call it ‘properly weighted, never ever. The article claim:

‘self declared’: What proof this Mr. Nandy have. If we don't consider earlier Nass done before 2011, then also Mufaddal was not present in London Hospital in 2011, his brothers informed him of incident, this is well proven and well reported fact, nobody can dispute. How can it be self declared, definitely his brothers are middleman involved. quote= "in June 2011, the late Syedna had reportedly said to have suffered a stroke and had made the same proclamation of nass in front of his sons"- Indian express.

‘asked follower to..declare their allegance’...: Is he called the hundreds of thousand DB in Mumbai on the day of late Syedna demise( Mufaddal was away Colombo). Is he asked all the DB to chant ‘Moula Moula” to him in the street of Mumbai when he was on the bridge near Raudat Tahera, at time of last rituals.quote="Tahera mausoleum after Syedna’s demise, lakhs of Dawoodi Bohras standing on the streets of Bhendi Bazaar screamed 'Maula' giving a clear indication of who they have believed to be their 53rd Dai al-Mutlaq."- Indian Express

‘his uncle who the Syedna had anointed as his spiritual heir 50 years back.’ : the claimaint himself says that anoinment was done in private and did not put any direct proof of incident. From where this Mr. Nandy got the proof and declared single headedly.. ‘had anointed’..quote= "Khuzaima Qutbuddin claims that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin performed nass on him 49 years ago, a ritual during which he appointed him as his successor in private, just before he was publically appointed as Mazoon, second-in-command in Bohras hierarchy."- Indian Express

The statement is not at all properly weighted and a just allegation, never ever suitable for inclusion in BLP cases as per Wiki guidelines.--Md iet (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Jjibber76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
 * diff the actual 3RR warning. Jim1138 (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff. Initial comment by Jjibber76 diff. Discussion diff

Comments:

No serious attempt at good faith policy based discussion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC) It would seem another spa editor has joined the edit war diff, diff. Notifications welcome with notice, warning (from other user), Notice of this posting - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Redjim987 comment diff, my response diff - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MrBill3 reported by User:Jjibber76 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:MrBill3 Has a non-NPOV and biased agenda as can be seen by the pattern of edits under this account: (cur | prev) 22:45, 18 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (27,582 bytes) (+8)‎. . (→‎History: fmt journal title) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:44, 18 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,574 bytes) (+250)‎. . (→‎History: change to include RS per talk) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 22:35, 18 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,324 bytes) (+23)‎. . (→‎top: change founding date in lead per talk) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:29, 18 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,301 bytes) (-25)‎. . (POV tag rmv'd. No active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:49, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (27,330 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Scientific evaluation: close quote) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 13:04, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (27,329 bytes) (+49)‎. . (→‎History: Adding/improving reference(s)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:50, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,280 bytes) (+152)‎. . (→‎Scientific evaluation: add Hines concurrence) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:24, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,112 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Scientific evaluation: close quote) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:23, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (27,111 bytes) (+2)‎. . (→‎Scientific evaluation: fix refs) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:22, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (27,109 bytes) (+534)‎. . (→‎Scientific evaluation: content withdrawal from study, Spitz quote) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 12:15, 6 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,575 bytes) (+16)‎. . (→‎top: adding original year of publication to source) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:26, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,581 bytes) (+25)‎. . (→‎History: primary source inline tag) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:23, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,556 bytes) (+418)‎. . (→‎History: term "hurt" and ref, director since 1980 and ref) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:19, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,138 bytes) (+18)‎. . (→‎Programs: naming ref) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:08, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (29,120 bytes) (+23)‎. . (→‎History: Adding/improving reference(s)) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:07, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,097 bytes) (+80)‎. . (work on lead per source, ref improve, rmv MEDRS tag) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 16:01, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,017 bytes) (-36)‎. . (new first sentence of lead per talk) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:52, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,053 bytes) (-49)‎. . (rmv NPOV tag) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:34, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,102 bytes) (-41)‎. . (→‎Scientific evaluation: rmv unreliable sources tag, no evidence presented, see talk) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:32, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,143 bytes) (+5)‎. . (→‎Programs for brain-injured children: improve ref) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:29, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (29,138 bytes) (+57)‎. . (→‎Programs for brain-injured children: fix ref template) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:24, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (29,081 bytes) (0)‎. . (→‎Programs: fix as of template) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:22, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (29,081 bytes) (+1)‎. . (→‎Programs for brain-injured children: fix ref) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 15:22, 4 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎. . (29,080 bytes) (+466)‎. . (→‎Programs for brain-injured children: add cost and ref) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 08:15, 2 March 2014‎ MrBill3 (talk | contribs)‎ m. . (28,614 bytes) (-69)‎. . (→‎External links: rmv name, " This name should succinctly and accurately describe the external link in relation to the subject. In particular, it should not include the article subject's name as the reader reasonably expects that all external links...) (undo | thank)


 * Hm, no breach of 3RR by MrBill3, as soon as Jjibber76 hits 3RR  a new account appears continuing to remove the same material. Going out at the moment but I hear quacking. Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Redjim987 indefinitely as sockpuppet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:187.146.31.102 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page diff 187.146.31.102's talk 187.146.31.102 has not responded at either location.

Comments:


 * Has been edit warring, but ceased when warned.
 * Is adding information suggesting that Arch Rivals was developed in Japan when I can not find a source suggesting so.

Another revert by 187.146.31.102: diff Jim1138 (talk) 06:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Appears to be insistent on Zero Wing as well. Jim1138 (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess that 187.146.31.102 is blocked user .--OskNe (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by User:Kralizec!. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:RedGerbera reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 8 April

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 9 April
 * 2) 9 April
 * 3) 15 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning

Comments:

Its an edit warring report, not a 3RR. -- S M S  Talk 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is about a politician not a cricket player(He is not known for the single match he played decades ago). I just noticed that the user who reported my edits has removed all links from article except the very unrelated cricket profile link which makes no sense to me. The page clearly is missing relevant external links. I was adding an official(although not verified by facebook) page to article, edit was reverted saying no FB links allowed. I read the policy and it says official pages are allowed so I added the link again. I don't know if only verified pages are allowed. However, its clear that the page has no relevant external link which I am trying to add. I still assume that Official pages are allowed regardless of if they are verified by Facebook or not ( EL: Link to official page). Admin guidance needed, Thanks. RedGerbera (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. WP:ELNO is advice about 'links normally to be avoided' and does not firmly decide any particular case. Editors should reach a consensus on the talk page. If people keep reverting the disputed links without any talk discussion blocks are possible. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you if you can't agree about links. User:RedGerbera is cautioned to avoid copyright violations [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nawaz_Sharif&diff=604361419&oldid=604358812 as noted here]. EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous user from 112.203.xxx.xxx subnet reported by User:178.252.126.70 (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previously reported here

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

--178.252.126.70 (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: The editor from 112.203.* who constantly removes the Washington Post citation is an IP-hopper. I've semiprotected the article for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Eastcote and BilCat reported by User:Duedemagistris (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)
Page:

Users being reported:

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

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

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

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

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


 * It looks like the dispute is about the issue at Talk:Scotch-Irish American. Duedemagistris wants the impolite terms such as 'redneck' and 'hillbilly' [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotch-Irish_American&diff=604486097&oldid=604485971 removed from the article], while the others prefer to keep them. The [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scotch-Irish_American&diff=600056257&oldid=597461660 first removal] by Duedemagistris was on March 17. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Accused editors are 1. not socking and 2. not in violation of 3RR. Reporter is in a long-term edit war and has hit 4RR, so blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mercy11 reported by User:Rococo1700 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Editor Mercy11 keeps reverting my assertion that Oscar Lopez Rivera has US nationality, and instead assigns him Puerto Rican citizenship. The latter is a highly controversial entity in itself, but regardless of that, the fact that OLR was convicted and remains jailed as a US citizen is without dispute. Mercy11 has staked ownership in these non-neutral positions throughout this article, as can be seen from the talk section, this is something observed by others. To redefine his citizenship would allow OLR to argue that he is somehow a prisoner of war or a foreigner jailed in the US, when he moved freely for years in the continental US as a Puerto Rican, with his birth citizenship, that is, US citizenship. There is no documentation that OLR is not a US citizen. Mercy11 has a tendentious alphabet soup wiki reply to a confrontation with facts. There is no This non-neutral behavior should force editors from Wikipedia to intervene in his editing of this entry. I am no the first to observe this behavior. He distracts from the central issue: does OLR have Puerto Rican citizenship as opposed to US citizenship, by asking me to argue the latter. Arguing PR citizenship is of no interest to me. What I can state, unequivocably, is that there is no legal documentation that OLR is a Puerto Rican citizen.

I would refer the authors to 7 FAM 1297 ATTEMPTS TO RENOUNCE OR RELINQUISH WHILE IN THE UNITED STATES (CT:CON-407;   06-29-2012)  by U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7 Consular Affairs Which states that: "a. CA frequently receives letters from individuals in the United States attempting to notify the U.S. Government that they do not consider themselves subject to the United States or the U.S. State of residence. We also receive letters from persons serving prison sentences in the United States who mistakenly believe that if they renounce or otherwise relinquish U.S. citizenship, they will be released from prison in the United States."

That is the non-neutral goal of Mercy11 in this dispute, to substantiate a change in OLR citizenship. All I am saying is that this is not factual. OLRs change of citizenship has not been accepted by any US consular official. It is only in Mercy11's wishes.Rococo1700 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mercy11 is on thin ice because there is no reference provided that Oscar López Rivera is even *claiming* PR citizenship, much less that he is recognized by anyone as a Puerto Rican citizen. Even so this case will probably close with no action because Mercy11 only reverted twice on 15 April. You need to show either four reverts in 24 hours, or a long term pattern of reverting without discussion. If there are more problems with their edits, please document them. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this falls within what we think as a 3RR/EW, but more of a WP:DISPUTE. However, I will respond here for the sake of finding a resolution, but can move elsewhere is the admin so desires.

My comment: The reporting editor, Rococo, changed an infobox field without providing a source. In addition, he also failed to provide any supporting info or sources in the article: per WP:IBX, the infobox is a "summarize [of] key facts that appear in the article." The information that was there previous to his edit (that is, this: "Nationality=Puerto Rican") was correct because the subject, Oscar López Rivera, was born in Puerto Rico which is sourced in this article, and undisputed. Another article, Puerto Rican citizenship also states (also with sources) that Puerto Rican citizenship is had by mere birth in Puerto Rico. Upon his first edit, I started a dialogue in the Talk Page HERE, but Rococo reverted me, arguing that Puerto Rican citizenship is controversial. He is incorrect in this because the courts have upheld it but, even if his claim was true (which it was not), that would had amounted to WP:SYN. In addition, he provided no supporting sources for his claims on his second revert, instead mudding the matter with an argument about ethnicity HERE. I continued that dialogued but he continued to revert the article to his preferred (unsourced) version. In all he reverted the sourced edits HERE, HERE,HERE, without providing any sources. He is also quite politically belligerent in his dialogue. Unexpectedly, he opened this WP:EW, when the article should remain as it was until he gets sources or he reaches WP:CONSENSUS or he seekes a WP:3O or is favorably decided upon at a WP:DR/N - none of which he did. No quarrel with that; simply stating he didn't follow the protocol for these cases generally followed among Wikipedians.

In any event, I also add that Rococo is currenly also involved in another unfounded change to this same article. He also wanted to inject into the article that OLR had committed a "violent crime" and (as he did here) unpredictably opened a WP:DR/N which is still open HERE. I think that perhaps Rococo is well-intentioned but not entirely familiar with Wikipedia policies. Per Wp:BURDEN, until Rococo can source that OLR has a different nationality, the entry in the infobox should remain as it was because it is substatiated as a consequence of having been born in Puerto Rico versus his claim to being an American national which has no sourcing at all. Mercy11 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some emphasis, anyone born in Puerto Rico is a Puerto Rican citizen. On teh other hand, Rococo fails to source that OLR's nationality is other than Puerto Rican. Mercy11 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned Mercy11 that they may be blocked if they restore again the claim about Puerto Rican citizenship, unless they get consensus on the talk page. The WP:BLP rules apply to this article, which forbid unsourced claims: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." We do not know whether Rivera claims to be a citizen of Puerto Rico. EdJohnston (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am Ok with the result. I do not want to argue the existence of Puerto Rican citizenship; I will leave that for others, and that debate is ongoing as the entry itself states. My point is that OLR was born an American citizen, as entailed by being born in Puerto Rico. He was arrested as a US citizen in the United States, and convicted as a US citizen. You cannot unilaterally renounce citizenship if you are a prisoner. OLR is a prisoner. Mercy11 is obfuscating the facts when he says that he placed in the infobox: Nationality = Puerto Rican, he did not. He placed Nationality = Puerto Rican Citizenship | Puerto Rican with brackets around that. I do not oppose OLR's Puerto Rican ethnicity, but to call him a Puerto Rican citizenship alters the facts under which he was convicted. A foreign citizen by definition should not be able to cause sedition against a country not his own. OLR was convicted of sedition. Rococo1700 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:78.143.141.2 reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 604579721 by Loriendrew (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604303386 by Loriendrew (talk) You don't stand a chance. I said, keep the Peppa until it rebrands back"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Vandalism on Nick Jr. Peppa. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Nick Jr. 2. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

User shows no citation/proof of rebranding of channel name. Website shows channel as Nick Jr. 2, no news reports about rebranding. User copy/pasted article to another redirect. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, see edits to Nick Jr. Peppa-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  14:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


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


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


 * Comments:

See Talk:Anca Heltne and BLPN  Neil N  talk to me  17:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 reported by User:206.162.160.197 (Result: Page semied)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:  (→‎Anti-semitic policy: Toddy1 please do not reverse again WP:3RR)

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

Comments: I do not have multiple accounts. I do not even have an account. What I wrote in that article is valid and with valid sources I think. If you disagree, there is the talk page. 206.162.160.197 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * IP user is named in an ongoing SPA investigation of a permabanned user. --Львівське (говорити) 20:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This IP-editor is a sockpuppet of blocked editor Cmoibenlepro, who has been using a variety of accounts and IPs on this and related pages. There is a report on Sockpuppet investigations/Cmoibenlepro.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Cmoibenlepro, if you are going to report people here, you should learn how to do diffs. Not a single one of your links are diffs.  They are links to different versions of the page.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Case in point, cmoibenlepro also didn't know what diffs were. --Львівське (говорити) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Page semied for repeated sock puppetry. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:24.165.101.206 reported by User:Prcc27 (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:
 * Keeps reverting without consensus and without going to the talk.


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

--Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I have seen no communication between the Ip and Prcc regarding the disputed edits other than one edit summary exchange that does not mention the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Response Actually, I did mention the talk page in the summary. I said "see talk." Also, they did go on the talk  but I undid their edit because they reverted my edit by deleting the section below "Older polls are consistently being added" --Prcc27 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . This is a content dispute. The IP has reverted only three times and not even within 24 hours. The worst thing they did was to remove comments from the article talk page. You need to work this out and obtain a consensus for which poll to use. Also, you are required to notify a user you report here; I did it for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:Geogene (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Petrarchan will not tolerate mention that a paper on increased toxicity applies specifically to plankton. See the thread at the bottom of the Corexit talk page where we tried to talk it over. Also, she undid my addition to cited information that some researchers she added to the article were in the employ of a law firm that was suing BP at the time. She undid that too, for no apparent reason.

Geogene (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No 3RR violation. Petra did not remove your bit about plankton. It was simply moved down lower in this edit, which is your third diff. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added my reasons as "edit summaries". Should I re-add them here? I "won't tolerate mention of plankton" - indeed I not only mentioned but elaborated on the plankton information in the body, which is better for hosting more technical information. I have, since late Febrauary, been raked over the coals by Geogene for a statement that has numerous sources.1 2 3 4 5 Geogene has been trying to change the wording regarding this particular study, and generally make the Corexit information prettier, for about 3 months, contrary to all these sources. She has taken me to 3 or 4 noticeboards over it, and apparently plans to continue.


 * I removed Geogene's editorializing from the Lede, which was an OR caveat she added to some research that supports this same conclusion (that the addition of Corexit solvent made the BP oil spill more toxic than if it hadn't been added). If this sort of edit is appropriate, that would be news to me.    petrarchan47  t  c   00:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * She changed back the meaning of the statement when she changed "52 times more toxic to plankton" to "52 times more toxic, and..." That's a reversion. Geogene (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for five days. Although violated WP:3RR, both Petrarchan and  have engaged in a fairly long-term edit war. I'm not going to delve into the history of noticeboards, etc. If someone thinks there's misconduct beyond edit warring, other venues are more suitable for such complaints.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:37.192.250.101 reported by User:Prosfilaes (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings and almost everything below that.

Comments:

This has been going on a long time; there's a number of editors reverting him, and someone from the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard left an opinion against him. As far as I can tell, no other editors support his case and certainly no non-IPs.Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Blocked one month. This editor has removed the section about an Esperanto translation 14 times in the last six months. An IP who could well be the same person was, but he has not been active since September 2013. If this were a registered account an indefinite block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Knisfo reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

May well be a reasonable edit, but it involves interpretation of a law that differs from what 2ary sources report. We should at least come to consensus on the talk page that an amateur reading of the law is acceptable in this case. — kwami (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the first time, see Talk:Same-sex union legislation, where if the edits by and  are included, 3RR was breached as follows: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_union_legislation&diff=prev&oldid=604368226 (1st revert)] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_union_legislation&diff=prev&oldid=604372352 (2nd revert)] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_union_legislation&diff=prev&oldid=604383180 (3rd revert)] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_union_legislation&diff=prev&oldid=604429583 (4th revert)]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:CouchTomato reported by User:Strfornawuks (Result: Strfornawuks blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

 
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Please block for his disruptive edits in the International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis page. He began his disruptive edits by reverte moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category. I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category" recognized states" category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid CouchTomato revision, again stated why it was wrong and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Wikipedia, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. Strfornawuks (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See also an April 17th report of the same dispute at WP:ANI. This article has sections both for states and for partially recognized states. Strfornawuks [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reactions_to_the_2014_Crimean_crisis&diff=next&oldid=604583304 wants Israel to be grouped with partially recognized states] in this article. The dispute has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_reactions_to_the_2014_Crimean_crisis&diff=next&oldid=604583304 going on since March 27] but so far neither party has used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This guy pretty much just took my comment from WP:ANI and changed the wording around. Note that I kept my justifications within the revision comments and not the talk page because arguing over groupings is not discussion about the article itself, nor has any relevance to it. He states "common standards in Wikipedia," but everywhere else, Israel is listed in states. "Partially recognized states" always includes states that are recognized by very few, often 0-2 countries and are not UN members. This was pointed to WP:ARBEURO, but frankly, over something so small like this, it's not even a matter of debate; there is no gray zone, as Israel has always been listed with other countries in all of Wikipedia. How can he be calling my reverts "vandalism" when all I'm doing is keeping the article in line with the rest of Wikipedia? Please note that I have absolutely no political agenda here. I do not care about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all and just made the edits because I stumbled upon and thought it was silly and wrong for it to be like that. CouchTomato (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Strfornawuks for 48 hours for disruptive editing, POV-pushing and edit warring. should have started a thread on the issue at the article talk page, but they did try to address it at ANI, and the edits by and attitude of Strfornawuks are disruptive. The status quo was with Israel in the recognized states list, and moving it to partially recognized makes no sense. The only reason there was a break in the edit war was because there was a break in Strfornawuks's contribution history. Strfornawuks has also removed two chunks of material from the article, one already mentioned at ANI, and another concerning Nicaragua. No one has reverted those changes, but the article has relatively few watchers. As for whether these edits fall under WP:ARBPIA, my view is no because it concerns Israel alone. Perhaps I'm missing something there. In any event, my block is not an ArbCom enforcement block.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Fredin323 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 604663666 by Contributor321 (talk)"
 * 2)  "incomplete data, does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, postgrad populations, 9.7% "Unknown" is not a race, race-conscious and therefore racist. it will not stay on this page."
 * 3)  "does not differentiate between grad, undergrad, and postgrad populations, the vast majority of Wikipedia university pages DO NOT include race-based statistics"
 * 4)  "Bahooka, please stop the edit warring, you are in violation of Wikipedia regulations and could have your editing privileges revoked. If you have a problem with the fact that most pages do not include race-based statistics, then change that. Not this."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Ongoing edit warring against consensus on talk page. Has been warned many times for awhile yet continues. Now has crossed 3RR bright line. Bahooka (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys reported by User:Tvx1, Relisted (Result: Declined; stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "read the sources - ALL of them"
 * 2)  "and the other source literally states that they have been accepted - and it comes from the man who controls the agreement the team would need to sign to compete"
 * 3)  "but they *have* been confirmed by Ecclestone, who controls the Concorde, and thus would be in a pisition to comment - hence the footnote"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:




 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Forza Rossa - the new Sirotkin */ reply"


 * Comments:

Another in an ever increasing list of edit wars by this user. Although this one is not a direct violation of WP:3RR, it is still an edit war. The user reverted twice before going to the article's talk page and a third time later on despite having been explained by two users at that point that the reversions were unjustified.

A list of the edit wars the user has been involved in during the last twelve months: -June 2013 -August 2013 -5 January 2014 -12 January 2014 -13 January 2014 -30 March 2014

I would like to suggest that at the very least this user is subjected to 1RR in a bid to stop the repetitive behavior. Tvx1 (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Everything Tvx1 has said about me could reasonably be said about him. He frequently edit-wars, operating under the mistaken belief that if he thinks he is right, then he is permitted to do so. He regularly posts 3RR warning templates on the talk pages of editors he is warring against, and eventually refers them here, which I believe is little more than an attempt to try and intimidate others into backing down and accepting his preferred version of edits. If he had taken the time to check the article in question, he would have seen that it has since stabilised, and that it stabilised once someone made an actual argument in favour of the changes he was pushing for. Furthermore, there is an open case at DRN which he started, and in which he clearly misrepresents the situation. Considering this, I believe that it is quite clear that Tvx1 has developed the alarming habit of calling the administrators down on anyone he disagrees with in an attempt to force though his preferred version of an article, as he is frequently in the minority when it comes to a consensus. As evidenced here, he edit-warred, even after being shown evidence that he should have considered; then came here at the first opportunity - even after the issue was resolved. If I am guilty of 3RR, then so too is he, and I implore any administrator reviewing this case to consider Tvx1's history of calling on admins to try and bully his preferred edits into an article. He is, for want of a better word, compromised by this behaviour and his own role in the disputes he brings to the attention of admins. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an unfounded personal attack and violation of WP:AGF. If it is necessary for the reviewing administrator to check my editing history. Be my guest. You'll find no such proof of frequent edit warring. In fact I strongly doubt you will find any violation of WP:3RR at all. I am not operating under the mistaken belief that if I think I'm right, then I'm permitted to edit-war by any means. I bloody well know that edit-warring is prohibited by policy even if one thinks one is right. I never make more than two reversions after which I will solely concentrate my efforts on the talk page of the article in question and if that fails I'll search for other solutions to resolve the matter like fore instance Dispute Resolution. If i report anyone here I do that under the belief that the user in question has broken one of the policies this noticeboard governs and administrator action is warranted. Regarding this particular article, I made one reversion, ONE, after Prisonermonkeys reverted my original edit. I don't know why I'm even remotely accused of having broken WP:3RR here. Tvx1 (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is very, very difficult for me to assume good faith when I see a pattern to your behaviour. Given your tactics in other discussions - like the way you misrepresented the situation at DRN, like the way you have ignored a clear consensus in the past, like the way you stall at every opportunity - I am left wondering at this one. If it is your only intent to resolve issues diplomatically, why am I left feeling as if you are trying to force through your preferred edits every single time you do it? You take a minority position - in this case, you were in the majority, but only once someone did your job for you and made an actual argument - and edit-war just enough to keep your nose clean, and then threaten administrator action against any other party. And lo and behold, you get your way; the article is written the way you think it should be written, regardless of what a consensus might say. So I find it very difficult to assume good faith when you stand to gain so much from it. You know perfectly well that the DRN is coming up for review, and you know perfectly well that we argue opposing points of view in it. If any sort of admin action was taken against me, it would limit my ability to take part in that DRN, and the side opposed to you loses one of its biggest supporters. And here you are, twelve hours after an unrelated situation has been resolved - and you had to know it was resolved to get those edit differences - lobbying for admin action against me.


 * Like I said, if your only intention is to resolve a situation diplomatically, why am I left feeling like you are trying to force through the resolution you prefer? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Changing one of the diffs in the report to an unrelated one won't help your cause either.


 * I post from an old mobile device. Sometimes when I make a spelling error - and especially if the section I am editing is lengthy - the auto-correct software inserts the correct word at a random point in the text window, often over-writing existing text. When that happens, the best I can do is guess at what the original text read. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no need to lash out on me like this. You're the one who edit-warred and if the administrators consider it warranted to take action you only have yourself to blame for that. It took 6 editors, three of whom had to revert your additions to the article, to make you realize that you're edits were premature. So I don't see why you claim it is I who tried to force their preferred edits through. And I don't understand the claim that "someone else did my job for me" either. I brought the majority of the talk page input and the five of us who brought arguments against you wrote more or less the same: The content you were trying to add hasn't been confirmed yet, WP is not a news site so we can take the time to verify this, you misinterpreted Bernie's comments. Bretonbanquet added to that we should wait until we have FIA and FOM confirmation, something you had actually mentioned yourself earlier on. This report is entirely independent from the Dispute Resulotion on an unrelated issue we are currently taking part in. It's not even remotely my intent to try to prevent you from taking part in that, why else would I have suggested 1RR restriction in the first place you think, and I have never claimed that I would only accept the Dispute Resoultion outcome if it's my favor. The only reason why I have reported you hear is to make you finally realize that Edit-Warring is not a solution to resolve disputes. Again, these accusations you throw at me are entirely unjustified. Tvx1 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Update: Prisonermonkeys has since gotten involved in another edit war on the same article.

Once again, you dodge the question. Why is it that every time you report someone for 3RR, I am left unable to shake the feeling that there is something in it for you - something more than stabilising the page or resolving a dispute?

You claim, for instance, that you will limit yourself to two reverts before moving to the talk page. But do you know what I see? Someone who edit-wars just enough to avoid getting in trouble, relying on the other party to continue edit-warring, and then posting templates on their talk page or coming here to intimidate them into standing down and/or accepting the edits you want. You claim you do nothing wrong, and yet here we are, having this discussion. The idea did not simply appear in my mind one day - there is a pattern here.

And, predictably, you sit on that article, watching that content, for the first sign of trouble. As I expected you would, and so edited accordingly. It is quite clear to me now that you are compromised. You claim to be acting in the interests of the article, but always get something out of it. You want me to be put on a 1RR; fine. In that case, I suggest Tvx1 be prevented from referring cases to ANI or posting warnings on talk pages until he learns that they are not a platform for him to try and manipulate content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 11:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't answer the question for yourself why you assume bad faith by default in another user's contributions. That's something you yourself have to find out. I have stated and I will repeat that my sole intention of referring you here is to make you understand that edit-warring leads to nothing at all. If you refuse to accept that than that is your problem. I'm really getting tired of this ridiculous bullying/intimidating accusations. Please tell me what I stand to gain from the dispute between you and Dr.kolles. If you really want to prevent me (or others) from warning or worse even reporting you than the only thing you have to do is not to edit war at all. Tvx1 (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted because no attention was given to the original reporting. Tvx1 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ., don't relist reports just because they didn't go the way you wanted them to. PM has not violated 3RR, and although I haven't checked whether the April 13 sequence is a violation, even if it were, it's stale. If you have a problem with a pattern of conduct by PM, take it to another board.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ., don't relist reports just because they didn't go the way you wanted them to. PM has not violated 3RR, and although I haven't checked whether the April 13 sequence is a violation, even if it were, it's stale. If you have a problem with a pattern of conduct by PM, take it to another board.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:67.242.113.32 reported by User:331dot (Result: 1 month)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Created page with '==Characters==  ===Main Characters=== * Eliza Jane (performed by Kathryn Mullen) - the main protagonist  * The Cat in the Hat - (performed by...'"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Creating inappropriate pages on Talk:The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss: Cool Sounds All Around!. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G8). (TW)"


 * Comments:

This user continually creates what I assume are meant to be articles, but does so in the talk namespace only, and not in the main namespace. They have done so with several pages; Talk:Carmen (film) is another example. The pages in question have been deleted several times, and a prior block did not alter their behavior. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I reported this once before (resulting in the prior block). 331dot (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – One month for disruptive editing. Misuse of article talk space in the effort to create articles of his own design. Admins will have to keep doing G8 speedy deletions if the user can't get with the program. Is it possible they are just confused? Unlikely. This user has received plenty of advice at User talk:67.242.113.32 since 15 March, but they have never responded. This block can be lifted by any admin if the editor will agree to follow Wikipedia policy. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Golem reported by User:Liongrande (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments: Persistent POV pushing, he was asked multiple times to provide sources and multiple users told him he's wrong, but keeps reverting.--Liongrande (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Article protected one month. Please use this time to reach consensus on the talk page. Protection can be lifted if agreement is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Article List of job scheduler software (Result: Blocks and semi-protection)

 * Page:
 * Users:
 * reporting this mess - looking for help
 * New SPA
 * New SPA with coi-username violation
 * New SPA
 * SPA

Spamming an entry for their software into List of job scheduler software, which has been going on since at least February (I may be overlooking an ip).

I'm assuming these SQM03, RevSoft, 165.228.54.71, and 101.165.196.165 are all one person. I'm concerned that there is a language problem here, or at least extremely poor understanding that Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes. I've self-reverted and am going to wait to see what others say on the situation.

Discussions at User talk:SQM03, User_talk:RevSoft, User talk:165.228.54.71, and User_talk:Ronz.

Also, I tend to avoid reverting in such cases, but this has been going on since at least February, so I've treated it as spamming for promotional purposes. Turns out it is for self-promotion, but I'd like suggestions on how to handle it better next time around. --Ronz (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Request page protection in this case.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . I blocked SQM03 indefinitely for sock puppetry and the master, RevSoft, for one month for the same. I semi-protected the article for a week against the IPs. I removed the promotional material from the article because of 's discomfort at doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone. Next time I'll be quicker to seek out help. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:BoboMeowCat reported by User:MastCell (Result: 24 hours)
Page: (subject to 1RR, like all abortion-related pages) User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 06:34, 17 April 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 20:47, 18 April 2014
 * 2) 18:01, 19 April 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified of 1RR on 19:43, 18 April 2014, prior to both reverts

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

Comments:

I think this is a straightforward 1RR violation, despite prior warning. MastCell Talk 03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see talk:Becky Bell. Serious concerns regarding violations of NPOV were reason for initial revert.
 * WP:NPOV "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." Reverted version also deleted significant amount of text referenced by reliable sources.  My revert was reverted, so this version currently stands.


 * Second revert (which involved content not changed in first revert, so not an edit warring situation) was to delete lengthy quote from a dead link attributed to a non-neutral source involving allegations of attempted murder. As I said in edit comment, are there any neutral sources for this such as police report?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – 24 hours for WP:1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:83.237.233.255 reported by User:Petr Matas (Result: 48 hours, Semi 1 year)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/604725726

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Special:Diff/604753374
 * 2) Special:Diff/604762896
 * 3) Special:Diff/604766696
 * 4) Special:Diff/604776152
 * 5) Special:Diff/604903182 (different, but similar IP address, outside 24h period)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/604772191

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/604810744

Comments:


 * The user keeps reinserting the sentence and does not discuss or provide edit summaries. It has been decided in the talk, that the sentence should be removed. May I treat it as vandalism and revert it repeatedly? &mdash; Petr Matas 18:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP should use the talk page to get consensus for their change. The question of how to describe the role of the observers has been extensively discussed on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Another IP address:
 * Special:Diff/604977215
 * Special:Diff/604981577
 * Special:Diff/604982555
 * &mdash; Petr Matas 06:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And another one:
 * Special:Diff/604995333
 * Please semi-protect the article. &mdash; Petr Matas 09:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected by for 1 year. &mdash; Petr Matas 10:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Davidoeoples reported by User:Murry1975 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Thomas Andrews (shipbuilder). (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Additional material also appears to be copyvio Murry1975 (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're aware that consecutive edits by the same editor are considered to be a single edit, for purposes of 3RR reports, right? the panda ₯’  10:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And continues.
 * @Dangerous Panda, sorry I taught that I had to include all parts of the revert/undo. Murry1975 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As he seems to be continuing, I've blocked for 24 hours. Kuru   (talk)  13:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:72.199.145.35 reported by User:Andyjsmith (Result: page protected)

 * 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:

3RR. User also seems to be a puppet of Skyhook1 - same edit pattern. andy (talk) 11:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Page was semi-protected by Mr. Callanecc. Kuru   (talk)  13:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:JeffLB reported by User:NeilN (Result: page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 604336212 by Lizzy B52 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 604820942 by Lizzy B52 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 604827772 by JeffLB (talk) Please see my reply to your comments in the talk section."
 * 4)  "Undid revision 604887534 by Iselilja (talk) I cited a secondary source, an article by a tenured professor at Cal State -LB, and offered to name more. Please see my notes in Talk.and reply."


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


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


 * Comments:

Discussion: Talk:Barbara_Lerner_Spectre  Neil N  talk to me  23:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Full protection was applied to the article by Mr. Courcelles. Kuru   (talk)  14:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Aimperator reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (June 2012)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (August 2012)
 * 2)  (September)
 * 3)  (September)
 * 4)  (March 2013)
 * 5)  (April)
 * 6)  (December)
 * 7)  (April 2014)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been repeatedly adding in unsourced claims relating to the age of the company for nearly two years now, despite being reverted by several independent and unconnected editors, despite explanations on the talk page and despite repeated requests to cease their activity at their talk page. The reason this has gone on for so long is because the low frequency of the edits (ten edits in a 20 month span) is easy to control, but if the editor isn't going to respond to reason then some sort of punitive action is going to have to be considered. At the very least the editor should refrain from making any such edits until there is a consensus for them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems a little pointless as going by the contribution history, they wont be back until September. Looking at their talkpage, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to help.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 16:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

User:PAPL8S reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

User warned about edit warring Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:

This is also occurring at Vehicle registration plates of Nunavut,, ,. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 00:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clear 3RR, was warned prior. Kuru   (talk)  00:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Dougweller (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 605023501 by Jérôme (talk) how is this 'uninformative'? We are supposed to attribute views where possible and that's what this does"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 605027227 by Jérôme (talk) Your 'explanation' suggests you utterly fail to understand the scope of encyclopedias, and you failed to understand per wp:attrib we attribute views"
 * 3)  "Uh oh, seems Doug Weller prefers to flare this into a dispute, says "attribution isn't necessary" for what European regime-paid scientists say, published views of Ethiopian scholars he deems irrelevant but theirs is the more prominent voice in that nation"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 605144684 by Dougweller (talk) restoring to previous attributed version,  pov pushing  your view against those you disagree with is unacceptable"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

No need to warn him as he's been warned enough before and has 6 blocks for edit warring and disruptive editing. His latest revert was after I stated in my edit summary I was taking this to WP:NPOV Dougweller (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have had about enough of bullying behaviour and arrogantly pushing their viewpoints and disregarding those they diasagree with, repeatedly from the same admins. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * for 2 weeks by dpmuk. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Gringoladomenega reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.
 * 1)  - This was after notice that this discussion was launched.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Talk:FC Barcelona
 * Also a discussion on the editor's talk page removed as described above.

Comments:

The editor is not a native English speaker and so communicating with the editor is not easy, however the editor has complaints on the editor's mentor's talk page: User talk:Always Learning and the editor has been blocked for edit warring on these exact pages before.


 * I'm not sure why nothing has happened here. We have seven reverts on this article alone in just over 25 hours, and edit wars on at least two other articles. We have blocks and locked articles on cases reported after this and no admins have commented on this report. It sends a very bad message to other users who have been blocked for four fairly constructive reverts in 24 hours. This cannot be closed as stale. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Astronautabhinavstar reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:
 * Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Hinduism and Buddhism =
 * 1) [diff] -
 * 2) [diff] -
 * 3) [diff] -
 * 4) [diff] -

B.R. Ambedkar =
 * 1) [diff] -
 * 2) [diff] -
 * 3) [diff] -
 * 4) [diff] -

Caste system in India =


 * 1) [diff] -
 * 2) [diff] -
 * 3) [diff] -

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Before, he used to blank the page Hinduism and Buddhism,,. Now he is violating WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, by removing sourced content and adding his own view as fact on these pages. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

He has also tried to remove this whole report.


 * . I'll note also that Astronautabhinavstar attempted to file a retaliatory report which was noted and removed for being imcomplete/malformed. Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Thefifthlord reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  - Note that this was restoring a fringe edit based on a single outdated bad source from last week
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User seems to be incapable of understanding that an offhand and uneducated comment in a single 19th century sectarian source and a few new-age sources does not trump nearly two millenia of mythology and theology, a thousand years of commentary on those, and two centuries of scholarship on those treating two figures as distinct. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson continues to revert to an article that is clearly based on sources that are solely WP:QS refusing to see that the primary sources mentioned in his secondary sources FAIL to validate their claims. Ergo they are covered under NOR regardless of how numerous and wide-spanned in a time frame they are and also fail WP:Verifiability as regards Wikipedia policy on secondary and tertiary sources.

User refuses to addresses my complaints and instead displays child-like behaviour that is possibly based on some internal bias and has continually reverted my changes without basis, on what appears to be his own private opinion regarding the notability of his sources which he did not even bother to verify. Furthermore, since User:Ian.thomson seems to be downright ignore Wikipedia policy on the verifiability of third party sources, I recommend he be barred temporarily from modifying the article Azrael. Thefifthlord (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You're calling sources from Brill Publishers, Routledge, and Gale (all academic publishers) questionable?! You're challenging Gustav Davidson's seminal Dictionary of Angels and Jacques Collin de Plancy's Dictionnaire Infernal (a historical standard) with Michael Ford's new-age "Luciferian Goetia" and the outdated sectarian "Jewish and Christian Ethics with a Criticism on Mahomedism" (the primary focus of which isn't even Abrahamic mythology)!  And you have the gall saying I'm using questionable sources?  You do not belong on this site.  You have no concept of or ability for scholarship.  Leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . Clear reverts, was warned. There's no exception to 3RR for perceived problems with V/NOR; you'll need to gain consensus for your position in this content dispute. Kuru   (talk)  00:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:DVdm reported by User:DParlevliet (Result: withdrawn)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [Double-slit_experiment&oldid=604855833]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) [Double-slit_experiment&oldid=604860015]
 * 2) [Double-slit_experiment&oldid=605028290]
 * 3) [Double-slit_experiment&oldid=605061090]
 * 4) [Double-slit_experiment&oldid=605124845]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [title=User:DVdm]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Double-slit_experiment#Unsourced content]

Comments:

The original addition to this article have been deleted every time without trying to improve and in such a short time that no other editors could improve. In the all comments I have asked not to delete and every time added the requested information. The improvements are details in the reference and needs no deletion of the whole part every time. Also DVdm did not explain which part of the edit he does not agree with.

Note After a final warning for addition of unsourced content on their talk page and a warning for 3RR, and having been pointed to wp:BURDEN, and after DParlevliet had finally shown exactly ( and ) where in the source the content was backed, I added the (slighly tweaked) but now properly sourced content to the artcle and explained on talk page. I also moved the notification of this entry from my user page to my user talk page. By the way, I had not noticed the message until after I made the above edits. - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The original edit was restored, so I redraw above edit warring reporting. DParlevliet (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're saying "withdraw", so I've marked the request accordingly. Kuru   (talk)  00:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:AngBent reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

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

Fairly blatant example of continued POV pushing on a topic subject to discretionary sanctions, previously blocked for exactly the same and narrowly escaped a block back in January for the same. As noted in the talk page he is removing cited text from reliable sources claiming they are a biased book from decades ago. The list of sources removed is at Talk:Avraam Benaroya all recognised works.

Raised at WP:ANI yesterday but attracted little attention.

Has not actually broken 3RR just yet. That may or may not have been an attempt to keep to 3 reverts in a 24 hr period but given previous history a fairly obvious edit warrior. I'm not reverting due to the discretionary sanctions but this is one of those obscure topics that attracts few editors and is a boon for POV pushers. WCM email 18:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments:


 * . Immediate resumption of edit warring on the same article he was previously blocked over after a long hiatus. Note; not technically a 3RR, but clearly edit warring. Kuru   (talk)  00:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sadshonen reported by User:Arxiloxos (Result: indef)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "warning re potential violation of 3 revert rule"


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


 * Comments:

ok thats my last time editing the groupie picture ok bt u need a picture up for groupie i'm tellin ya — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadshonen (talk • contribs) 21:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly inserted an inappropriate image on the page. This image has been removed by multiple other editors and explanations have been provided to no avail. Editor's responses:  and vandalism at another page  suggest editor is WP:NOTHERE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * by Mr. Kite for disruptive editing. Kuru   (talk)  00:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mpc755 reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see previous ANEW report

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lots of discussion, this was my last statement of my concerns.

Comments:

has already been blocked twice for edit warring over the insertion of this material (see previous ANEW report). Both I and DVdm have expressed objections and concern the material. Perhaps he is a little ignorant of how consensus works given his edit summary "there's no further conversation in talk. consensus is assumed if no conversation." (I gave my last comment 4 days ago and was waiting for him to respond in some fashion). I've attempted constructive criticism of the material and gave what I thought were reasonable conditions for keeping the material in some form, but I don't think he seems to grasp the suggestions or policies related to them. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 month. The user is just not getting the message. They are warring at Louis de Broglie to insert material that they previously wanted to insert at Double-slit experiment. This is their third block for the same thing since April 9. A previous [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mpc755&diff=next&oldid=603707846 request for unblock was declined] on April 11 with the advice to wait for consensus, but the advice seems to have fallen on deaf ears. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: 72 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Theroadislong (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Even without additional description by Theroadislong, it's clear Sopher99 is plain old edit-warring, and IIRC, this is not their first time. Not only a block, but perhaps some limited Topic Ban may be required from my recollection.  To make those types of edits to an article that is KEY to the religious background on the actual DAY is insulting/offensive  the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . This isn't the place to seek a topic ban. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:27.122.12.79 reported by User:Majogomezsz (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

User being reported:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/604464063

Comments:

The anonymous IP justifies the changes reverts with RS Policy but does not justify anything. On the other hand, the Naruto2839 user, requests to stop reverting changes without justification. The changes are the same in all editions.

In the last 24 hours, this article has had 30 reverts without sense


 * Due to the likely presence of proxy IP editing and socks. Named editors warned. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Aimperator reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 72h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This new edit is a continuation of the edits reported here: Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive242. has waged a slowburn edit war for nearly two years, altering and and adding content contrary to the sources relating to the age of the company. The editor was given a 48-hour block. They subsequently vowed "I will continue to edit that page or any page I choose to" and threatened to "discontinue my financial support of Wikipedia". While any sanctions are down to the admin prosecuting the case, my recommendation would be to indef the editor, a sanction that should only be lifted until one of the following criteria is met: 1) at least one other editor on the project supports their edits; 2) they agree to pursue a discourse on the talk page without editing the article until its resolution. At the moment they seem fairly adamant that they will add their own interpretation of the company's history to the article, which doesn't match up to secondary sources or even to the company's own blurb on its website. Betty Logan (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember someone posting "Seems a little pointless as going by the contribution history, they wont be back until September. Looking at their talkpage, they're clearly WP:NOTHERE to help" after the pointless 48hr block. Is there any good reason NOT to block them indef?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I endorse Betty Logan's report, and would add to it that the user is now engaging in vicious personal attacks against someone trying to explain to him our policies on verifiability. (I do think that Nightscream's characterization of Aimperator's behaviour could have been moderated, though that doesn't excuse Aimperator's rather extreme reaction.) —Psychonaut (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 07:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

IP editor reported by User:P199 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As an unregistered editor, his IP address keeps on changing, see list above. Even so, I have added the notice of this discussion to the talk page of each IP address.

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

Comments: I have tried to reason with the IP editor through the edit summary and contact him/her through the talk page, but it is ignored. Can the Surigao article be protected with a week-long lock against edits from unregistered users? Thanks. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/72.76.45.140 reported by User:Mike Searson (Result: Warned )
Page:

User being reported: {{userlinks|72.76.45.140}

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

A Single Purpose Account is attempting to introduce poorly sourced material. The aricle in question is the Bushmaster M4 Carbine. The SPA insists it was used in the Sandy Hook Shooting. The rifle in question was made by Bushmaster, but it is a different model known as the XM-15 which uses a different type of barrel than the M4. It is not even a variant of the rifle in question. This was discussed and resolved in 2012 on the article's talk page as well. Here is the source material from the investigation published by the State of CT that the user is attempting to insert: I'm not reverting anymore, because the policy is reading different than how I understood it prior to this. I would think using a source saying something completely different than what the editor is trying to introduce is pure vandalism, but maybe it's not anymore.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * - I have warned the IP. While I suspect they are aware of the rules and have edited from different IPs before, there is no way to prove it and we must assume good faith that they were unaware of Wikipedia's 3RR / edit warring rules. Tiptoety  talk 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Thanks for the speedy action.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

User:B01010100 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 31 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Probably the same user, different account rvt:.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12014/April#contrary_to_some_edit_summaries.2C_removing_original_research_is_NOT_original_research

Comments: This is yet another in a long line of SPA accounts which have flooded Ukrainian related topics since the topic has started. This one looks like a sleeper sock. Detailed knowledge of Wikipedia policies (though not the will to follow), history of esoteric disputes and he apparently referred to interactions I had with someone else as if they were with him (I think he lost track of the accounts he was using).

Comment by B01010100. First let me say that yes, i have participated in the edit war as being reported here. However Volunteer Marek is completely misrepresenting the context and making up baseless accusations out of thin air. Volunteer Marek has been engaging in POV edit wars over the Ukraine related articles for some time, as well as displaying unacceptable behaviour towards other editors who disagree with him. He consistently refuses to follow BRD, and when pointed out his response is to quickly make something up on the talk page and then immediately revert back to his preferred version - making it merely appear as if he's following BRD. He did this again in this instance, and the reason why i reverted him again was so that the page would remain in the same state while the discussion on talk proceeded so that any changes could come as a result of talk page consensus later. I know that constitutes edit warring behaviour, but with Volunteer Marek it is the only way to make sure BRD gets followed short of sanctions and i'm still in the process of putting together an ArbCom request. I would accept any sanctions here for my part in the edit war, but i implore you to also make sure that, at least for once, BRD gets followed here and Marek doesn't just revert back to his preferred version completely ignoring the consensus-seeking process like always.B01010100 (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, just to be clear, his comments above are completely baseless accusations.B01010100 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * for edit warring both with their account and while logged out and for repeatedly adding original research. Tiptoety  talk 00:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:64.12.116.71 reported by User:Cyphoidbomb (Result: 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

2011 version of the article citing "arms trafficker" as Khashoggi's claim to fame

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Firstly, this case refers to long-term edit-warring, not just the 3RR/24HR aspect of it. I don't recall what first brought me to the Bob Shaheen article, but what struck me as odd was the pointed language used to describe the subject in subsequent edits. I removed some POV content which seemed to paint the subject in a negative light, for example this odd phrasing. As the article stood, it was unclear to me why the subject was notable, but I performed due diligence and most of the resources I found via the Google books database contained news articles that kept referencing Shaheen as Adnan Khashoggi's "right-hand man". What soon became apparent, was that Khashoggi was notable for being one of the richest men in the world at one time, but drew more attention for being a central figure in the US Iran-Contra scandal, having brokered the various arms deals. The NY Times said of him "Mr. Khashoggi has been linked to — but never convicted in — almost every major scandal of the late 20th century" So I attempted to re-incorporate SOME aspect of Khashoggi's notability using softer (and ostensibly neutral language) to explain why Shaheen was notable, without implicating Shaheen in any shady dealings. Example: "...Khashoggi, a Saudi Arabian businessman and reputed arms merchant".

The reported IP has been removing any mention of "arms merchant" with no explanation, no edit summaries, and no discussion either on their talk page or on the article's talk page. Another IP, 108.67.14.186, has removed the same content, so I suspect sock/meatpuppetry, or more simply, IP hopping. I invited this IP to the discussion. , who has periodically edited the article over a series of years, is the only editor who has responded to my talk page query, and he and I appear to be on similar wavelengths, so the IP is basically editing against consensus.

Cullen's pointed out that the article has remained mostly unchanged over the last few years, but in 2014, a flurry of pro and anti activity has proliferated. It's fairly clear from the edit history that there are editors who want to make Shaheen look like a tyrant, but there are other editors who want to remove any mention to Khashoggi's newsworthy business deals entirely, and this doesn't seem consistent with numerous Wikipedia principles, from WP:NPOV, WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:SOAPBOX, etc. I requested page protection to dissuade IP edits but that didn't have a lasting effect. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Tiptoety  talk 06:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Bmwz3hm reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 01:16, 18 April 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 2) 07:21, 18 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 604703952 by Theobald Tiger (talk) What Dutch people consider promotion, other people consider simple facts.")
 * 3) 07:43, 18 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 604705395 by Theobald Tiger (talk) TT and I don't agree.")
 * 4) 07:47, 18 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 604706054 by Theobald Tiger (talk) You do all the edit warring here. Nobody else disagrees with the content of the Heleen Mees article.")
 * 5) 16:56, 21 April 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 17:19, 21 April 2014  (edit summary: "Undid revision 605173431 by Theobald Tiger (talk)")
 * 7) 06:30, 22 April 2014  (edit summary: "")
 * 8) 09:49, 22 April 2014  (edit summary: "The original text of the article is more balanced and informative than Theobald Tiger's and AussieLegend's draft. So if you want to edit the page, this text should be the starting point.")


 * Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18 April 2014, 21 April 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

has been making contentious edits at Heleen Mees and refuses to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. On 18 April, made several edits to the article, which Bmwz3hm reverted without explanation. The two editors then got into an edit war but stopped after each had made 3 reverts. To his credit, after his second revert Theobald Tiger started a discussion on the article talk page, but Bmwz3hm has refused to participate. subsequently left 3RR warnings on the talk pages of both editors. On 21 April, after more than 3 days without comment from Bmwz3hm, Theobald Tiger restored the edits that had been removed by Bmwz3hm, but Bmwz3hm almost immediately reverted, in the process restoring an image that has been deleted from commons several times. Atama then left a final warning on Bmwz3hm's talk page, stating "Revert again before engaging in the discussion (and resolving it there) and I will block you". After noting that some editors had expressed concern that Bmwz3hm may have a very problematic COI issue (I'm trying to avoid WP:OUTING here), I decided to closely look at the edits made by both Bmwz3hm and Theobald Tiger. Ultimately I concluded that Theobald Tiger's were preferable to those made by Bmwz3hm and edited the article appropriately, noting that I did have some minor concerns with Theobald Tiger's edits on the talk page. Despite the warning on her talk page, Bmwz3hm has reverted again, reverting not only the edits I made, but again restoring the deleted image and all without any explanation. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, Theobald Tiger has replaced the entire content of the Heleen Mees article without barely any explanation, let alone prior discussion. Bmwz3hm (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC) has responded to the editing war that was thus launched by Theobald Tiger, addressing his arguments and offering to work on a draft together. But Theobald Tiger has simply refused to do so, and has kept replacing the original article by his own text. Moreover, the photo Heleenmees2.png under license cc-by-sa-3.0 (confirmed by Wiki Commons) has been deleted time and again. Why? Because it is a nice picture of Heleen Mees and the content of the Heleen Mees article can be anything but nice. It's an illusion that Theobald Tiger or AussieLegend are anywhere objective on the topic of Heleen Mees. Bmwz3hm (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Theobald Tiger has provided edit summaries for all but one of his edits, and that one was for a spelling fix marked as minor. On the other hand, your summaries have been absent or argumentative and you haven't chosen to participate in discussion on the talk page. As I have explained, I reverted your second to last revert because it restored the invalid image link and damaged the infobox by partially removing a parameter, as well as restoring the contentious edits that you had made, but I see you have since reverted that, demonstrating exactly why a block is warranted. Where exactly is the post that supports your claim that you have offered to work on a draft together? I have explained in your talk page why the image was deleted. As for the claim that "It's an illusion that Theobald Tiger or AussieLegend are anywhere objective on the topic of Heleen Mees", that's utter rubbish, at least regards me. I had absolutely no idea who Heleen Mees was when I saw her on the news. I still don't know why she was on the news in Australia. It must have been a slow news day. Getting back to the point, after receiving a specific warning that if you reverted again before engaging in the discussion you would be blocked, within a day you've now made two more reverts, both without discussion on the talk page. We're really at the point where you need to explain why you ignored that warning -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the image was deleted because it was deleted from Wiki Commons. But why has it been deleted from Wiki Commons even though it has the license requested by Wikipedia? Because the article about Heleen Mees for sure may not look nice in any way, that's the only reason. I have explained the edits several times, but Theobald Tiger just presses ahead with his edits. Anyway, the info box looks fine now so that can hardly be an excuse for you to completely alter the article of a woman you hardly know anything about, except the one time you saw a news report on tv. And the newspaper articles you read may not be the most reliable sources for an Encyclopedia. Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

And here you find the discussion about the photo that has been deleted for no reason from Wiki Commons, and thus from the Heleen Mees article: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JurgenNL#File:Heleenmees2.png Bmwz3hm (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't press ahead with my edits. I have started a discussion on the talk page, but bmwz3hm has not left a single post there. The copyright issue should be adressed on Commons. I have no COI regarding this article. I am neither pro nor anti Mees. I am against non-neutral edits and against edits clearly revealing a COI. Newspapers are perhaps not the most reliable sources, but there are no others, because Mees is known in the Netherlands as a columnist expressing provocative feminist views and as a person who is accused, deservedly or mistakenly, of stalking Buiter. With regard to the court case there is some malicious delight in the public attention, deplorably so, but that is not something Wikipedia should or could correct. We can only be reticent with regard to the biographies of living persons. I have no objection to the minor concerns AussieLegend has with my edits. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue about the photo is not going to be resolved because people will delete it even though the photo has the required license. Your text for the Heleen Mees article is short-sighted/myopic, unbalanced and unfair to her. Moreover, you push through everything in the English article that you did not get support for in the Dutch article about Heleen Mees, talking about unresolved issues Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)s.
 * This is a deliberate and malicious lie. If you lose a discussion, don't resort to ad hominems or speculations about the motives of your opponents. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue surrounding the image on Commons is irrelevant on the English Wikipedia, as is any discussion of the content of the Dutch Wikipedia. What I do see is ownership and an incredibly massive misunderstanding of WP:CONSENSUS, and ridiculous edit-warring.  The element of question is not "to block Bmwz3hm or not to block them", but "for how long" based on these multiple infractions PLUS the personal attacks.  the panda ɛˢˡ”  11:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have blocked Bmwz3hm but I'll leave it up to your judgement. Typically I'd block for 24 hours for someone with a clean block log who is edit-warring but you're right that there are other offenses here. --  At am a  頭 13:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm not the malicious liar here. The issue with the photo of Heleen Mees is highly relevant as it goes to show that people will do anything to present a negative picture of Heleen Mees. Theobald Tiger is a case in point. Bmwz3hm (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please cut out the personal attacks. Comment on content, not the contributor. No, the image is not relevant at all to your edit-warring, other than it was but one part that you persistently restored, even after it was deleted. What is relevant is your edit-warring and failure to discuss, which you have not explained. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend, I appreciate that you only heard about Heleen Mees through a single tv report in Australia, and that you did not follow the discussion on the Dutch talk page with Theobald Tiger. If you would have, you would see Theobald Tiger's true colors. Bmwz3hm (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I am prepared to defend and to adstruct my edits on the talk page on nl.wiki - there is nothing I am ashamed of; bmwz3hm has only one minor contribution on that talk page in June 2013 - I think it's better to discuss matters here as they are on en.wiki. My true colors are already unfolded. Theobald Tiger (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * My contributions on Dutch Wiki may not have been properly administrated on the talk page, but we discussed TT's contributions at length and concluded that his contributions were not up to par. Now he uses the English Wiki page as an outlet which makes it all the more confusing. Bmwz3hm (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your contributions anywhere other than Heleen Mees are really not relevant here. As an uninvolved editor I reviewed the edits made by both Theobald Tiger and you and concluded that the edits by Theobald Tiger, with some minor exceptions, were more encyclopaedic and less self-serving, and that's really all that matters. so, please stop commenting on Theobald Tiger's edits elsewhere. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate somebody drawing attention to your edits at Willem Buiter. As I've said before, your edit-warring and failure to discuss, which you have not explained, is what is relevant so please concentrate on that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Bmwz3hm just reverted again. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heleen_Mees&diff=605273361&oldid=605272932 --TheCockroach (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . For the love of Pete. I'll be monitoring this user after the 24 hours to see if any of the advice they've been given sticks. If not, it will be a longer block. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Resumption of edit-warring after release from block
Only 5 hours after release from the above block, Bmwz3hm made a series of edits that reverted the article to a version that is almost identical to the version that resulted in her being blocked. The initial edits made significant, undiscussed changes to the page. These were opposed by another editor, after which she reverted the changes she had earlier made and then reintroduced the version from 2 days ago. The first edit today did not revert directly to her previous version, and the next edit was exceptionally minor, albeit being contrary to MOS:LQ, but the next edit was an almost complete reversion to the disputed version that resulted in Bmwz3hm being blocked. This included reintroducing errors into the infobox and was a significant change from Bmwz3hm's first edit today. Subsequent changes were only made to the lead, removing the birth place and inexplicably removing dates from the citation. This is something Bmwz3hm has done in the past, which is why I had to restore it a few days ago. After explaining all of this on the talk page, I left an adittedly terse warning on Bmwz3hm's talk page, and then reverted the article. After that, I notified the blocking admin, but while I did so, Bmwz3hm reverted again. I've left another note on Bmwz3hm's talk page suggesting she self-revert, but that has not happened. Even after explained edit-warring in simple terms, Bmwz3hm's response is "I'm not edit-warring", -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with AussieLegend. --TheCockroach (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)