Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive249

User:Makedonovlah reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 2 weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "(Makedonovlah moved page Aromanians to ALIENS 1: WE DONT FIND OURSELVES GUILTY. KLAPIDAS THE WIKI ROMANIAN STARTED. WE ARENT A PEOPLE. ONLY A SHADOW.)"
 * 2)  "at wikipedia doesn't matter the ethnicity but every contributor have the right to play with every strange article? Without consult those of whom the article belongs? If in a big news paper someone says The Romanian Language doesnt exist, we can add this?"
 * 3)  "Mister Plakidas, if you are greek as you pretend, must have respect for our name and values but you dont and you are not greek. Take care our wiki page. It's yours, whoever you are!! Congrats!!"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Edit warring on Mina Minovici
 * Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Gheorghe Hagi
 * Warning: Edit warring on Cristian Gațu


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


 * Comments:

has been edit-warring across many Aromanian-related articles. His latest foray is in the Aromanians article where he is edit-warring since at least 31 May converting their origins and changing their onomatology without supplying sources. He has already been blocked twice, the first time for disruption, the second for edit-warring. I have tried to explain to him through warnings and other messages that what he is doing is disruptive but to no avail. This report is technically not a violation of 3RR in 24 hours but it should be taken together with this user's large-scale disruption and long-term edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Now he has resorted to vandalism again: Moved Aromanian language to ALIENS. (On 31 May he moved the article on Greeks to Greeks (Ancient Dacians)). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * – Two weeks. His recent article moves appear to be vandalism. He seems to be very disappointed that Wikipedia isn't sympathetic to his POV about the Aromanians. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, he seems to think that his background should be taken into consideration when editing this type of articles and he has proven very difficult to persuade otherwise. It is a difficult situation. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:82.132.234.244 reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 614253216 by FreeRangeFrog (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 614252402 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 614251794 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 614251161 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 614250817 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 614204460 by Mdann52 (talk) cant delete previous discussions."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Warned on previous account/IPs about EW. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  17:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * . If they jump IPs, semi-protection will be forthcoming. Favonian (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI, they are a know sock on a dynamic IP. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  14:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

76.99.126.199 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported: (and other IPs)

Previous version reverted to: 23 June 04:17 (first rv.); (subsequent rvs)

Reverts:
 * 1) 24 June 14:20
 * 2) 24 June 19:13
 * 3) 25 June 11:38
 * 4) 25 June 13:09
 * 5) 25 June 14:53

Warning:

Attempt at discussion:

Comments:

The three IPs,, and , are evidently the same user; all resolve to the same geolocation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Indefinite semiprotection. The problem is long term socking plus warring by IPs who don't wait for consensus on the talk page. Editing of this article is subject to WP:ARBMAC. Behold the vastness of the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&page=Bulgaria existing protection log]. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:I.Bhardwaj reported by User:Faizan and User:Smsarmad (Result: Both articles locked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted to revision 614280140 by I.Bhardwaj (talk): Reverting vandalism by IP. (TW)"
 * 2)  "please see the link"
 * 3)  "Added  tag to article (TW)"
 * 4)  "link says "40 per cent of population is below poverty line", this is latest 2013 figure, List of countries by percentage of population living in poverty has outdated figures"
 * 5)  "revenue figure is Rs 1939bn in 2013"
 * 6)  "labor force is 59.74 million according to Labor Force Survey by Pakistan Bureau of Statistics."
 * 7)  "occupations by sectors according labor force survey of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics"
 * 8)  "Added  tag to article (TW)"
 * 9)  "citation needed tags"
 * 10)  "latest figure for labor force"
 * 11)  "occupations by sector"
 * 1)  "latest figure for labor force"
 * 2)  "occupations by sector"
 * 1)  "latest figure for labor force"
 * 2)  "occupations by sector"
 * 1)  "latest figure for labor force"
 * 2)  "occupations by sector"
 * 1)  "occupations by sector"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Edit-warring with multiple editors at the article, he is a suspected sock of User:Sudhir7777. Filing an SPA too. Edit-warring and source misrepresentation. Fai zan  06:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Part of the edit warring is with an IP that another administrator has blocked for disruptive editing. Indeed, you reverted an edit that the administrator had just reverted before you, meaning you reverted the admin. As far as I can tell, the editing on the article is a nightmare. Please also see my comments at Sockpuppet investigations/Sudhir7777.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 22 October 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18 May 2014
 * 2) 10 June 2014
 * 3) 11 June 2014
 * 4) 19 June 2014
 * 5) 23 June 2014
 * 6) 24 June 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EW warning

Comments:

Repeatedly trying to add the same content. Earlier the user edit warred to add a slightly different version of it (1, 2, 3). -- S M S  Talk 07:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * and why you only reported me? There was Mar4d who reverted me calling the source editorial which is actually a comprehensive report from a reliable source, diffs, . I was also reverted by his sock IPs, see the history. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both articles have been (full) for one week. During that week, I suggest the parties resolve the content dispute. If someone thinks this is a behavioral issue, then, depending on the relief sought, WP:ANI or WP:AN would be a more appropriate venue than here. As for the sock puppet issue, the report filed against I.Bhardwaj has been closed with a finding that they are not a sock puppet of Sudhir7777.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Sky0000 reported by User:Chema (Result: Blocked; warned)
Page:

Page:

Page:

Page:

User being reported:

Hi, I need an administrator to do something about this user; he spends a constant edit wars. I already have explained in a thousand ways and this user does not seem interested in anything. Items En Otra Piel and La Impostora were protected because of this user, all it does is add primary and information sources without references, apart from irrelevant information.--Chema (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Comments:

He hasn't explained me anything, he just undoes all my edits without no reason, I have told him a lot of times, that Wikipedia's not for him it's for everyone. He just wants, that people would not get more information about cast. My edits are necessary, because of person, who doesn't understand, why he/she died in telenovela and can't watch telenovela from internet, he wants to know and then he can use Wikipedia. Please, that person doesn't fight only with me, he had also war in article Lo Que La Vida Me Robo. He harms Wikipedia. I hope you understand me. Sky0000 (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Just enough to see discussion, Where I have left several messages. I explained that their issues are irrelevant; if someone wants to know how the characters die you see the soap opera that was created for that. This user and was previously blocked by the same.--Chema (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Look at behavior of Chema. He has been also blocked for editing this information. I talk about, when he didn't see an episode, where was death, and he can't watch it from internet. Then he sees Wikipedia. Chema is perhaps scared of deaths and because of it, he says it's irrelevant information. I hope you understand, that he harms Wikipedia. Sky0000 (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've blocked Sky0000 for one month for sock puppetry and his puppet, User:Bbbbb000, indefinitely. That said,, you have been blocked recently for edit warring. The way you are going about this is inappropriate. I'm not sure if you suspected sock puppetry, but you don't appear to claim it as an exemption from edit warring. You are warned that if you persist in battling in articles rather than engaging in content dispute resolution or to an appropriate venue for behavioral issues, you risk being blocked again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:108.64.172.207 reported by User:ProgGuy (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

An anonymous editor is repeatedly adding "death metal" to the article Mr. Bungle despite it being unsourced. Repeated warnings have gone ignored and no attempt has been made to justify these edits. ProgGuy (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been following this edit war for several days now and want to say that I believe ProgGuy is equally, if not more at fault than 108.64.172.207. For four years, "death metal" has been listed as a genre in this band's infobox based on one of the many styles the band does perform. Recently, ProgGuy decided that he did not want that there and not only removed it but added genres that he decided on himself, without any talk page discussion. None of the existing or added genres were sourced within the infobox itself. However, death metal has been sourced as one of the styles the band played in the "Styles and Influences" section of the page. Ska punk, frequently added by ProgGuy, however, has not. When ProgGuy decided to place a warning on 108.64.172.207's talk page, I made mention of these facts and suggested talking about genres on the band's talk page instead of making the decision himself. For that, I was accused by ProgGuy as being the coward behind the death metal changes. I can assure you that I am not. If an admin wants to do an IP check on me, by all means please do. In fact, he is also accusing other articles, such as the Mudvayne talk page, of being the anonymous account "vandalizing" the Mr. Bungle article. I just find ProgGuy to be very hypocritical in this situation and it needs to be addressed. In my opinion, BOTH users need to handle this better and discuss it with the many other users who edit the page. Accusations of vandalism against a user who is just maintaining information that has been accepted and sourced for at least 4 years is unjust. Additionally, the uncivil approach via unfounded accusations is not appreciated either. Thanks, NJZombie (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Semi'd for three days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:82.8.252.13 (Result: IP blocked)
Page: Various.

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]
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Preston_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614381851
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Murphy&diff=prev&oldid=614381935
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delta_Burke&diff=prev&oldid=614382133
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rod_Taylor&diff=prev&oldid=614382180
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary_Harris&diff=prev&oldid=614382370
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Kiley&diff=prev&oldid=614382512
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andrew_Stevens&diff=prev&oldid=614382441
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rex_Reason&diff=prev&oldid=614382576
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brian_Kerwin&diff=prev&oldid=614382631
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Payne_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614382672
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Frank&diff=prev&oldid=614382714
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Drago&diff=prev&oldid=614382784
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darleen_Carr&diff=prev&oldid=614383485
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Carey&diff=prev&oldid=614383399
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Napier_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614383342
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Smith_(actor)&diff=prev&oldid=614383307
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reid_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=614383137
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Becker&diff=prev&oldid=614383018
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stacey_Nelkin&diff=prev&oldid=614382965
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brett_Cullen&diff=prev&oldid=614382918
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bruce_Boxleitner&diff=prev&oldid=614382878
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Zerbe&diff=prev&oldid=614382824
 * et al.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.8.252.13&oldid=613180701, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.8.252.13&oldid=614351222 and Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion

Comments:

MarnetteD has chosen to ignore the discussion, enforcing their own point of views with over four reverts in some instances. Tried to gain consensus to remove the category, failed, but has proceeded to enforce their own POV regardless. Editor has a history of 3RR, but in this case has crossed the line by inventing consensus, abusing a block time, and now claiming "BRD". In short, tendentious/battlefield editor who needs a smack on the wrist and told to avoid WP:OWN as well as a disregard for IP-editors, WP:BITE, not conforming to WP:CONSENSUS and inventive revert claims. Editor failed to address the comments raised at the CFD page or my IP talk page, despite admin involvement. Has a bullyish attitude, low-tolerance for IPs and fantastical interpretation of guidelines as "strict policy" in an anti-WP:BURO style manner. As a result of his inability to holster this attitude his reverts and proving disruptive, made with an authoritativeness unwelcome in a collaborative environment, lacks civil graces, and despite WP:IAR being raised to make efforts, this editor clearly wants to "champion" the articles he watches and prevent anyone doing anything against his personal ideals. Further to the point, editor has never made any attempts to confirm that there are no sources, as he claims, and has made reverts blindly, disrespecting the efforts made, ignoring all common sense. Looking back through theie edit history we can see a massive amount of reverts made by this editor, often with weak reasoning. This editor lacks collaborative sense and is highly motivated by ownership, which affects anyone trying to better a wide selection of articles which bear his scrutiny. No editor has the right to mass-revert another editor's contributions and "warn" them with uncivil gestures, and ignore them, it is the height of pig-ignorance, and prevents anyone getting anything done respectably. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by MarnetteD

 * Quoting from Categorization

"A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc."


 * The IP has, from the beginning refused to acknowledge this. The conversation continued for awhile and got heated. The IP then launched into a series of unfounded "Personal attacks" and accusations so I disengaged from their talk page and opened a discussion that wound up here Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. The discussion there was sidetracked into what to do with the cat and my main point was not addressed. Neither was the cat given full approval to be added "ad hominum" to the article for any actor who had appeared in a TV western, thus, there was no "consensus." It should be noted that a) I did not take the category to CFD and b) I did not remove it from actors that had sourced info that the western TV genre was a defining part of their career. The fact that this report contains yet another personal attack is not surprising. Nor is the lack of proof of any "ownership" on any of the articles involved. Yes, reverting vandalism means that any editors editing history will contain reverts. I also have a large number of edits designed to improve articles, but that is a matter for an RFC/U and not for answering the accusations posted here.
 * One last thing. Ignoring this concepts regarding categories was the chief problem that got User:CensoredScribe blocked. Note: I am not saying that the IP is CS. He/she is not that editor. Nor am I asking that this IP be blocked, in spite of the personal attacks, I am mentioning the CS situation as my experience of the guidelines and policies used there lead me to understand that they apply here. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Since when does anyone "need approval" to do anything which contributes to the project? - unnecessary WP:BURO claim.
 * You removed Eric Fleming from the cat. Clearly you don't know what you're doing if his career is "not defined by Western TV acting" - laughed my ass off at how bad that revert was.
 * You've also removed John Payne (actor). - Funny that, the lead makes reference to his career in Western TV. Your link to WP:DEFINING states that something in the lead is worth of being a category. Like Fleming, you simply removed because you prefer throwing blind punches than knowing where you're hitting. Evidence that you're being tendentious, not logical.
 * You failed to gain consensus to remove actors names from the cat, CFD acting as a fom of BRD. Yet you went ahead and removed them anyway, and are using "personal attacks" as a diversionary tactic here to sidetrack that point, that you invented consensus in bad faith, manipulated a block period, misquote guidelines as "policy" and have reverted close to breaching WP:3RR. It's all about your POV and not about anything being discussed.
 * "Chief concepts" are simply those, concepts, not strict policy, not WP:5P, guidelines. You've removed cats that have tertiary sources leaving no sourcing. It's not a NPOV.
 * You appear to have cherry-picked who to remove from the cat. Again, POV reverts done without due care. Mistakes have been made in that you have failed to address. I am reluctant to "BRD" with you because it's all "me, me, me" and no give and take.

82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that, with this post, that the IP has expressed an intention to "sock" edits in this situation. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Haha, no it didn't, it expressed nothing of the sort, it simply stated that "I could sock if I wanted to" it doesn't prove that I do, have or will. Shouldn't put words into people's mouths, it has a habit of coming back and biting you on the ass. Misinterpretation is also your problem when it comes to policy, so don't start with complex people until you grasp the basics of wiki. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing where the violation of 3RR allegedly took place? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because this page does not state that it is only for 3RR reports. It says: "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule." MarnetteD is an edit warrior who falsifies consensus in order to perform his reverts, which is why there is a problem here. 3RR is easy to evidence, but an editor who manipulates consensus and policy to achieve their own ends needs investigating because they are a threat to the collaborative process. He keeps moving the goal posts to suit his own POV, changing his tune several times whereas I've maintained one line of reasoning all along. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether that's the case or not, a violation of 3RR requires more than 3 reverts. Do you have links to more than three reverts on the same page? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just explained it to you in plain English, what else do you want? I'm not reporting a case of 3RR violation, the top infobox doesn't say this ANI is "only for 3RR violations", I'm reporting it as "edit warring" which is also in its remit. If you're going to respond to this case please at least look at the purpose this page has and don't subject it to something it is not exclusively designed for. 82.8.252.13 (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * for personal attacks or harassment by .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference the duck test strongly suggests this IP is blocked user . See also, in the same IP range. —S MALL  JIM   11:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Thanks for your work in getting to the bottom of this . MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Skylar3214 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* The Little Things Give You Away */ new section"
 * 2)   "+comment"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Necessary? */ +comment"
 * 2)   "/* Necessary? */ +comment"


 * Comments:

I don't know why only two reverts are showing up, but if you look at the exchanges on User talk:Skylar3214, User talk:Sergecross73, Articles for deletion/The Little Things Give You Away (2nd nomination) and Talk:The Little Things Give You Away you will find that the user is being particularly bullish regarding maintaining the redirection of an article, based on a consensus seven years ago, despite the newer version of the article meeting WP:GNG (in my opinion at least). If someone would please help me ram home that consensus can change, the flagrancy with which he violates WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT and that the song thoroughly deserves an article (I have started an AfD for the article because I suggested it and he ignored my suggestion, making clear my argument and his). I take the view that if the song was not notable, it would probably have been AfDd at the time it was created due to its DYK nomination, where one editor actually said "Good work, Launchballer, for taking a contested article and making it Wikipedia-worthy!". Sorry for rambling, but I do feel passionate about this and will be shortly going to bed to calm down. Laun chba  ller  22:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * for disruptive editing/edit warring. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the other party was also blocked for edit warring, about 45 minutes later. Just for the record.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tuvixer reported by User:Jaakko Sivonen (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 27 June 08:35
 * 2) 27 June 09:45
 * 3) 27 June 10:42
 * 4) 27 June 10:55

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments: User Tuvixer is edit warring in this article against the majority view of users on talk page, and is now breaking the 3RR rule. He is reverting without discussing; though he has left a couple of messages on the talk page, he has refused to wait for responses before acting. From the edit summaries above you can also see that he is using personal attacks, accusing users who disagree with him of being vandals. Previously he has also accused other users of "trolling" for disagreeing with him: --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Gabrielthursday and User:Jaakko Sivonen reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported: ,

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 07:19, 27 June 2014
 * 2) 09:35, 27 June 2014
 * 3) 10:05, 27 June 2014‎
 * 4) 10:50, 27 June 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gabrielthursday#Stop_vandalizing

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Users Gabrielthursday and Jaakko Sivonen are changing together an important article about European elections, trying to change facts and history ignoring arguments of other users who do not agree with them. Talking about a consensus where there is none. Talking about things they don’t understand. The leaders in the infobox have not been changed before the elections. Why are they trying to change it now? One month after the elections changing the infobox. While the article in that matter was not changed for about a year when the “Spitzencandidates” were presented. Tuvixer ([[User talk:Tuvixer|talk] 12:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Jaakko Sivonen is removing the warning on his talk page:


 * The definition of 3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period.". I and Gabrielthursday are different editors, so there was no 3RR violation, unlike in your case (above). In addition, your so called "warnings" don't even mention edit warring or 3RR (instead they include a personal attack), and they were posted long after all the reverts. You are the one, who has been edit warring without discussing first, as the article talk page reveals. As to removing a comment from one's own user talk page, that is allowed under WP:DRC policy. Repeatedly restoring those removed comments, like you did, is forbidden. There is an ongoing case on user Tuvixer on the many personal attacks he has launched: --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC) --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * based on a look at the talk page and interactions between the editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tuvixer reported by User:Gabrielthursday (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)

Comments:

User:Tuvixer briefly came to our attention a few weeks ago when he made a personal attack in an edit summary: He was warned on that occasion:

In this episode, User:Tuvixer has accused both editors maintaining the page of vandalism on their user talk pages: and  as well as in his edit summaries (see diffs above).

Finally, the edit being reverted by Tuvixer was the result of a long and detailed discussion on the talk page that took place over a week and which he did not participate in. His conduct, in light of the efforts of myself and others to reach consensus on this issue, is particularly galling. Gabrielthursday (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus. Gabrielthursday, Jaakko Sivonen and Otto, are for your changes. Rubiscube, barjimoa, Webdriver Torso, Captain frakas, RJFF and Tuvixer are against. Tuvixer (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now posted an answer to that on the talk page; as you can see from there, several users whom you cited as being on your side, actually favour removing the top candidates provided that certain conditions are met. In any case, this isn't a proper defence of committing a 3RR violation, and the proper place for the discussion on the article's content is the article's talk page. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * per the above thread. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jaakko posted his report while I was compiling mine, thus the repetition. Gabrielthursday (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Socialgoverment reported by User:Sjö (Result: 24 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "edited this page as i started this page to inform not to start a warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism"
 * 2)  "During The last 3 years several editors have taken control of page for political purposes.  This PAGE WAS STARTED TO INFORM but instead SO CALLED SOURCED EDITORS have started a personal attack."
 * 3)  "This Page has been HIJACKED BY writers with a PERSONAL goal to kill and attack."
 * 1)  "This Page has been HIJACKED BY writers with a PERSONAL goal to kill and attack."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * for disruptive editing &mdash; MusikAnimal talk 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:62.193.158.242 reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) diff 19:56, 25 June 2014
 * 2) diff 20:24, 26 June 2014
 * 3) diff 15:03, 27 June 2014
 * 4) diff 19:02, 27 June 2014
 * 5) diff 19:48, 27 June 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This IP has become engaged in a dispute which had already been taken to the talk page before it boiled over into an edit war. You can see the discussion here: Talk:Kosovo_War. Everyone on the talk page seems to be in agreement. I've told this IP twice to take it to the talk page 1 and 2.I've raised the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to the IP's attention but the IP chose to ignore.

I've felt the need to bring it here because I don't want to get involved in an edit war. I don't want my name against Requests for arbitration/Macedonia again. This IP is edit warring (having made the same revert 4 times within a 24 hour period) and refuses to properly discuss on the talk page. Perhaps a semi-protect for the article might be healthy? Regards IJA (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 62.193.158.242 is certainly edit-warring, but it looks like a more experienced editor who has logged out. bobrayner (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:SMcCandlish reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Both Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

SMcCandlish made several changes to this template documentation earlier today, some of which was controversial (it relates to a long-standing dispute at WT:MOSICON that has no clear consensus). I reverted some of the changes because I felt that they were not NPOV and others because they were wrong (i.e. claiming that the standard template usage was deprecated, which has not been agreed anywhere). SMcCandlish then reinstated his preferred version. I again removed the controversial elements, and asked him to respect WP:BRD. He reverted again, as did I, and again requested that he respect BRD.

SMcCandlish has since added his preferred text for a fourth time, and basically stuck two fingers up to me by saying You've hit WP:3RR in his edit summary. The edit summary also states "BRD is not policy." I really don't feel that this is acceptable behaviour, and would appreciate some neutral oversight of what has gone on. Thanks, Number   5  7  13:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:


 * both editors. Need to discuss this on the template's talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thing is, we're not simply editwarring.  I'm making policy-based edits, someone else is reverting them and doing nothing constructive, nothing conductive to compromise, just taking a WP:OWN position, and I'm restoring my material and (this is the important part), then majorly re-editing it to try to address the other party's concerns (to the limited extent they make sense).  I've fully justified what I'm doing, in detail here, Number 57 is putting up objections I've already shown to be demonstrably false on their face. That's the D in BRD.  Running to ANEW to WP:FILIBUSTER any further progress is an abuse of process.  Nothing useful is going to come out of re-forking the discussion to the template talk page, when the only issue in question is actually the application of MOS:ICONS to football articles more broadly, whether via this template or not. The proper venue for that discussion is the one already being used, WT:MOSICONS.


 * 1) Unclean hands: .  Also, WP:CANVASSING at WT:FOOTY. At my user talk page, his explicitly stated assumption of bad faith, and a personal attack in an unveiled accusation of dishonesty.   WP:BOOMERANG comes to mind.
 * 2) My restorations of the policy-supported edits to that documentation page have been progressive, and respective of the concerns raised, addressing them to the extent they're defensible at all.  The guideline and policy facts under dispute are already covered in detail, so I needn't rehash them here, other than to say a) MOS:ICONS very specifically and clearly addresses when flag icons are and are not permissible, b) the template in question is frequently used in ways MOS:ICONS says no to, and c) its documentation was actively encouraging this. One editor refusing to see that MOS:ICONS says what it says does not mean that the guideline doesn't say what it says.  The same editor's misunderstanding of the larger discussion at WT:MOSICONS, which was a failure to reach consensus to change MOS:ICONS, doesn't mean there "is no consensus" at MOS:ICONS. The objections of a WP:FOOTY editor on "our project does it our way"-type grounds raises serious WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN concerns, too.
 * 3) There's actually more than one OWN concern. Unrelated to the MOS:ICONS disagreement, Number 57 also reverted my use of an example of traded players to illustrate the other parameter, (note he reverted rather than fixed it) and told me that there's a Wikiproject (i.e. local) consensus against such information being added to articles in this form..  But I actually copied this material out of an association football article, Boca Juniors, and the only other person arguing favor of Number 57's views about any of this, used that very data in that article as exemplary of what football/soccer articles should be doing with flag icons!  I couldn't make this up, it's in the first three paragraphs opening the huge discussion  about maybe changing MOS:ICONS [it did not arrive at a consensus to do so] to be more lax with regard to sports articles: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons.  At any rate, whether the editors participating in a particular project agree on something among themselves does not mean they can dictate to others what they can write in relevant articles, much less how they document examples in a template related to relevant articles.
 * 4) Number 57's reverts have simply been reverts, which he cannot justify or explain other than vaguely and/or on false bases, and with no attempt at compromise or understanding.
 * 5) This isn't about "preferred text" but about whether the instructions in the documentation comply with MOS:ICONS and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy (I actually reverted myself and deleted quite a lot of my text, while retaining that compliance, which Number 57's reversions keep undoing, willy-nilly, with no effort to improve and find common ground).
 * 6) It's perfectly civil to remind someone of WP:3RR, and certainly much nicer than hoping they didn't notice and will revert again, then running to WP:ANEW to get them blocked.  Everyone is responsible for their own emotions, and I have no control over whatever "fingers" Number 57 wants to imagine in place a simple reminder.  I've also reached the 3RR point myself now, probably (even if my last version is substantively different and not simply a revert.)  Not a big deal; there's lot of other stuff to work on.  Four in rapid succession  be a big deal, and that was the point of the reminder.
 * 7) WP:BRD  policy, and one of the first things it says are that it isn't mandatory. It's not "unacceptable behaviour" to note this, or to act on it.  BRD does not work when one side has their facts wrong and will not even examine them to see if they do.  Especially if they do not understand WP policy well, and (for example) cite WP:NPOV as their revert reason, when NPOV applies to article content, and there is no "neutral point of view" to maintain about whether templates should or shouldn't comply with site-wide guidelines like MOS:ICONS.
 * 8) I have actually satisfied WP:BRD anyway, by opening a discussion at which I explained the edits and their rationale under current policy and guidelines, and why Number 57's complaints are not valid.  He then simply reiterated the complaints and reverted again, meanwhile I've re-re-explained why he's provably wrong, and then bent over backwards to address his concerns anyway.  At some point, doing what the guidelines and policies say is more important than continuing to try to discuss the matter with someone engaging in WP:ICANTHEARYOU tactics or simply confused.  WP:FILIBUSTER does not permit someone with an obstinate objection to indefinitely postpone editing progress just because they're disagreeable or don't understand something.  Meanwhile, WP:BOLD  policy.
 * 9) See also WP:Revert only when necessary, paragraphs 2, 3 and 5, all of which apply to Number 57's reverts.  By contrast, when I've reverted I've immediately and extensively edited further to try to assuage Number 57's concerns.
 * 10) Finally, the kinds of MOS:ICONS-impermissible [mis]uses of flag icons that Number 57 is trying to stop me from deprecating in the template documentation, because the parent template, Template:Football squad start, puts a "Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." notice at the top of the table, making any attempt to use the flags to show something else (e.g. players' countries of birth or residence) is already self-contradicted, and the resulting tables would be confusing and make no sense to readers!


 * — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think both of you have something to add to this conversation (noting that, at least for myself, this is something merits-wise not something I'm familiar with). I've taken note of your diffs above, SMcCandlish. I think it'd be prudent for both of you to take a breather from this page for now. I think we can all agree that in the broad spectrum of disputes on WP, this is pretty lame. At the moment, I don't have the time to go through the entire history of this issue to work it out, but I'd be more than happy to work with you two on--at the very least--trying to get a common understanding of what's going on. At the core of most disputes, as it seems with this one, is a failure to agree on past consensus (if there was one) or process. I'm a member of the Mediation Committee so I have some experience with that if you think that'd be worthwhile. Cause, whatever the case, seeing these fast-paced reverts isn't going to be productive at the current rate. Fair? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure; some neutral mediation would be helpful. To get up to speed on this without reading 50,000 words, it's very instructive to read the two short archive pages and the MOS:ICONS debates they relate to. What this shows is a crystal-clear pattern of some fractional minority of WP:FOOTY participants not being happy with MOS:ICONS (ever), and filibustering all attempts to get this template to comply with it.  It also handily summarizes at least 3 years of repeated (cf. WP:FORUMSHOP) attempts by them, at great lengths, to get MOS:ICONS changed to reflect what they want, none of which have been successful.  The archives also link to various debates from WT:FOOTY and its archives that demonstrate the same pattern - years of attempts to comply with MOS:ICONS, and handful of tendentious editors blockading this process again and again.  No other sport wikiproject's participants evince anything like this level of recalcitrance.
 * MOS:ICONS has not changed in the least on bad ideas like misusing icons to indicate misc., unclear things, like what country someone was born in, what country their last team was in, what country they reside in, what country they're a citizen of, etc., or using them them even when they're redundant (e.g. putting an Argentina flag in front of every player name in every use of this template in an article about a sub-national team from Argentina, when we already know everyone on every team in the article is on an Argentine team). The archives show that various WP:FOOTY participants (among others - this is not, or should not be, about "what a wikiproject wants" – it is not a hive mind) have been working for several in good faith to comply with MOS:ICONS and have simply been blocked at every turn by the holdouts, so much that they have to create multiple content-forked alternative templates to work around the filibusterers (Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 2 mentions at least two such forks, which are still in use).  Part of my goal here is to massage these templates toward merging (not just the association football ones).  It's notable that not a single  change I've made has been reverted or even questioned.  Number 57 and his lone (now back-peddaling) supporte at the WT:MOSICONS sub-thread about this simply don't want me to  MOS:ICONS in the documentation.  Last I looked, WP doesn't operate on any sort of hush-hush policy.
 * The ultimate source of the disagreement coming from a handful of association football editors (note: pretty much no one else, and not all editors of that topic) is that they note that some off-WP sources use flag icons completely indiscriminately, so their idea is that WP "must" do so too. Their side of the very long debate at the top of WT:MOSICONS consists of little but variants of this theme, repeated like a broken record. It's a terrible misapprehension of the "follow the sources" idea, mistaking off-WP stylistic shenanigans for something akin to reliable sourcing of facts about a topic; it's the WP:Specialist style fallacy.  WP does what WP needs to do for itself stylistically, via WP:MOS and subpages thereof, based on broad (not inconsistent, subject-by-subject) consensus about what works best here for our readers.  Our collective decision-making in this regard are not tied to what topical sources like soccer fansites and football magazines are doing with flag icons.
 * Here's a key quote, from a football/soccer editor, at Template talk:Football squad player/Archive 1 (23 July 2010):
 * This is important for three reasons: 1) It's shows that progress with guideline compliance has been blocked at this template alone for almost four years, and more broadly at this project for several more years before that. Resolution of this is very long overdue, perhaps even WP:RFARB-overdue. 2) Some members of the wikiproject consider that project itself to be forging  consensus to always use flag icons, no matter what, despite the fact that we have a site-wide guideline to definitely not do that, obeyed by everyone else; this is an undeniable WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy problem.  A participant in that project is clearly observing that others at it have a "to hell with flag [guidelines]" attitude. 3) Even back in 2010, opponents of MOS compliance were using precisely the same "you haven't discussed this with WP:FOOTY and gotten  consensus to proceed" tactic.  That 2010 quote from a WP:FOOTY editor trying to do the right thing is correct: "There [is] no need to consult WP:FOOTY again."  We have a well-accepted, stable guideline (which its straggling detractors have failed to rend apart), we have obvious ways to improve the code and its documentation, and we have everyone's buy-in but (today) two editors (presumably a few more might pop up from previous versions of this debate if they were prodded to do so).
 * Disclaimer: I'm one of the principal authors of WP:Manual of Style/Icons, and I've previously tangled with WP:FOOTY participants over MOS compliance, but not at this template, and not in any depth over flag icons. Much of the non-article editing I do is finding where wikiprojects are violating LOCALCONSENSUS policy to push anti-MOS positions and behaviors, and then I work to unravel those knots of discord.  This prolonged period of insular, organized "wiki-insurrection" needs to draw to a close.  These disputes are only WP:LAME in their particular, minute details.  Taken as a whole, they represent an ongoing tide of erosion against Wikipedia's unique form of consensus-building, a pressure applied largely unconsciously by topically-based special interests in the form of wikiprojects, frequently more concerned with mimicking offline publications in every possible way on WP:ILIKEIT / WP:IKNOWIT bases, than writing the encyclopedia in the ways we collectively determine best serve our ultra-broad readership.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the in-depth review of the situation. I think I understand where you're coming from far better now. I don't want to flood this noticeboard thread with intimate discussion, but I'd be grateful if could respond with (a) areas of SMcCandlish's summary above they agree with and (b) their own perspective of the situation. Nothing too detailed, but if we could work on avoiding further issues on these pages--at least try, that is--I think we could spare a lot of grief for everyone. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with pretty much everything SMcCandlish has written above - it's a highly biased viewpoint and not a true reflection of the situation. I won't waste time responding to each individual bit that's wrong, so here's a more accurate (and brief) summary of the situation:
 * The wider (and main) dispute is not over whether MOSICON should be implemented or not (pretty much everyone accepts that it's an official guideline) but is instead about the interpretation of what the guideline says. There are some sections of it that are crystal clear (e.g. "Avoid flags in infoboxes") and with which there is little problem with implementation (I myself remove flags from infoboxes whenever I see them). However, the subject of the dispute is Football squad, which produces a table of a club's current team. The guideline currently states that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." What the dispute is therefore about is whether the nationality of players is pertinent in the context of club football (the table is used on articles about clubs (see an example here). There appears to be agreement amongst WP:FOOTY members that nationality is relevant to club football. However, some of the enforcers of MOSICON (who do not write about football) disagree. The entire purpose of the discussion at WT:MOSICON was about clarifying the wording to try and put a stop to this endless debate. As you can see, there was no agreement.
 * There is a secondary issue over the country name not being displayed on the template, which is recognised as being a problem as is non-compliant in that regard. The editor who started the discussion at WT:MOSICON proposed an amendment to the template to resolve this, but this was ignored (and therefore not implemented) as the enforcers focussed only on the complete removal of flags from the template.
 * This more specific dispute (over the table documentation page) revolves around SMcCandlish attempting to insert their opinion (i.e. the enforcer view) on the debate into the template's documentation. As you can see here, i did not revert his entire addition to the template, but only removed wording so as to couch the issue in neutral terms (i.e there is a dispute) rather than make a clear judgement on which side was right or wrong, which is what SMcCandlish's additions were an attempt to do. His changes to the template also included the claim that the common use of the template (with flags) was deprecated. This is clearly not true, as there has never been a discussion that resulted in this being agreed. Number   5  7  12:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First, an entire essay could be written about this fallacy: "the enforcers of MOSICON (who do not write about football)...." Oh, wait, we don't need, to – there are already two formal policies about it: WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Number 57 reiterates this thinking frequently, e.g. with "There appears to be agreement amongst WP:FOOTY members...", as if never understanding that a wikiproject is just a page at which some editors agree to collaborate, it is not a rule-making body.
 * Second, and we all know this has already been addressed in detail at WT:MOSICONS: Using flag icons (at all, ever) for purposes of showing someone's birthplace or country of residence (the disputed purposes this template is being abused for) are specifically forbidden in the "Unacceptable uses" section. This is one of the very "sections of it that are very clear".  It's basic, incontrovertible logic: If we already know for a fact that these uses of flag icons are not appropriate then they cannot magically be decided to be appropriate on someone's whim just because they seem pertinent; the "pertinence" provision cannot be applied to uses that are already disqualified for other reasons.  By way of analogy, if you know that stealing is illegal, it doesn't matter how much you want or need something, it's still not okay to steal it.   The dispute is  therefore about whether the nationality of players is pertinent in the context of club football.  That's, because it does not override the rule against using flag icons to show birth, citizenship or residence nationality in such a way.  If it needs to be included, then use the note parameter, and don't insert a flag there, either.  There is no rational path from "we want to include this information" to "violate clear guidelines against flag abuse instead of just presenting it as text, and then editwar to keep it out of guideline compliance".  The guideline is fully supportive of showing  with flags and a text country identifier, when it's useful to do so, and the template itself says that it shows the formal FIFA sporting nationality with a note at the top of the template that's very clear about this. But editors like Number 57 insist on abusing it to show other forms of nationality anyway, against both the template's own wording and against MOS:ICONS in at least two sections.  What "the dispute is therefore about" is tendentious editwarring and filibustering in violation of two policies and a guideline, to thwart attempts to document the template properly so this blatant abuse of it stops.  No one has ever made a WP:IAR case about this, and it's unlikely that a plausible one could be mustered. It's pure WP:ILIKEIT.  Some (not all - see quote above and previous debates where plenty of WP:FOOTY participants are trying to get their fellows to comply with MOS) editors who participate in that project just really, really, really like flag icons, and no logic against applying them in unhelpful ways seems to sway their emotional, subjective attachment to them.  Well, WP:Get over it.
 * Third, no one in the debate has ever suggested completely removing flag icons from the template; "the enforcers focussed only on the complete removal of flags from the template" is patent falsehood, and a red herring. The idea is not even part of the conversation.  I.e., that was a non-substantive, misdirecting response on Number 57's part.
 * Fourth, Number 57 does not seem to understand what "deprecated" means. If a template can incidentally be bent to actions that a guideline or policy says should not take place, then those [mis]uses of the template are, by definition, deprecated. "there has never been a discussion that resulted in this being agreed" Wrong. The entire history of WP:Manual of Style/Icons and its extensive talk page archive  that discussion, it just didn't happen to be all about football, because the world doesn't happen to revolve around football, and it is not any more important a topic here than other topics.  This entire "deprecation" stuff has been a pointless red herring, however, as the re-re-re-draft (presently the locked-down text of the /doc page) not longer even uses the term.  That was another non-substantive, misdirecting response on Number 57's part. And his note about what he did and didn't revert doesn't even make sense: The table in question wasn't one I added, it was the original, MOS-violating example in the documentation when I got there!  What Number 57 reverted (among many other things) was the observation that the example unequivocally violates provisions of MOS:ICONS.
 * Fifth, The entire purpose of the discussion at WT:MOSICON was about clarifying the wording to try and put a stop to this endless debate. As you can see, there was no agreement. Yes, which means nothing at MOS:ICONS changed, so it's all still applicable.  This debate is a waste of time.
 * Sixth, yet another red herring is the "country name not appearing in the template" matter, which is not connected at all to dispute over documenting the template to stop mis-applying the flag icons to non-sporting nationality. (Number 57 and I even both agree on what the solution to that separate issue is.)  That's three attempts at misdirection in one post.  Anyone trying to hand-wave that much instead of sticking to the actual topic doesn't have an argument.
 * Seventh, referring to people actually trying to comply with policies and guidelines as "enforcers" is at best the fallacy of argument to emotion and ad hominem, as well as a violation of both WP:Assume good faith (note same user's previous blatant accusation of bad faith) and WP:Civility, even if it stops short of WP:NPA. It's no different from labeling anyone who disagrees with this (or whatever) MOS rule to be "wikicriminals".
 * Finally, Number 57's response simply evades almost every substantive point raised, and re-iterates arguments already debunked in multiple forums. One cannot use a claims of brevity to refuse to actually engage in a debate without effectively conceding it.  And the conciseness claim can't be taken seriously, since what Number 57 really did is waste space and time inserting a whole trio of extraneous arguments.  If this continues to protract along similar pointless, time-wasting lines, I'm perfectly happy to take this to WP:RFARB, honestly.  It's been several years since ARBCOM last looked at this kind of insular "our Wikiproject is its own sovereign fiefdom that can make up its own rules" nonsense and restrained it.  That's how we got WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy to begin with, but various projects are still not taking it seriously.  This is actually an ideal test case in at least five ways.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Artichoker (Result: Declined)
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: (Warned him. He proceeded to remove the warning from his talk page and continue edit warring.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It is important to note that this user has a long history of edit warring and multiple blocks. Even after all of this and continual promises that he will cease this behavior, he continues to edit war a week or two later and nothing ends up changing. Apart from even the aforementioned edit warring above, a particularly interesting note is that this user was reported here for violating 3RR and edit warring on the same article just a few weeks back, which shows that his behavior has not changed. A link to the report is here.  Artichoker [ talk ] 23:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the edits are removals of different pieces of content. The first three diffs are all essentially the same single edit I performed (because there was no one editing the page in between any of those diffs), not to mention the third diff listed above cannot even be considered a revert at all considering discussion on the talk page on that content died exactly 2 weeks ago.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are still in violation. Please read WP:3RR. A relevant excerpt from it: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours."  Artichoker [ talk ] 00:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you barely have 3 as it is. I do not think that removing content that had been contentious two weeks ago that no one acted on counts as a revert here. And that first diff barely counts. It probably counts as something that I should have left a user warning template for.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And now I've self reverted because I am tired of this god damn bureaucracy. Do you want me to self revert the not very good edit left by the editor whose sole edit is to add a poorly formatted addition that says "we don't know Canada's release date" or what.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) 5 reverts. And no, removing the material for which there was clearly no consensus to remove, does count. Just because you waited to two weeks to try and unilaterally remove it without discussion doesn't make it any less of a revert.  Artichoker [ talk ] 00:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was discussion and it was leaning towards removal in two different places.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And really, all this is telling me that people on this website don't have the fucking decency to accept that they were reverted in the first place because I certainly would not be at five at your count if Tezero didn't revert me reverting him 4 days ago.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 00:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I count three reverts by Ryulong in a 24 hour period. The first 3, 17:39, 17:41 and 17:42, count as one revert since there are no intervening edits. Then one at 19:07 and a final one at 23:34 (this has now been self reverted) which would drop it to 2 reverts. GB fan 00:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . is absolutely correct. Even before the self-revert, there was no breach of WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:The Shadow Treasurer reported by User:DMacks (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "That scene is the most notable of the entire movie and it is not unimportant."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 441980025 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
 * 3)  "Basically there is no other reason for people to remember this movie than that scene."
 * 4) 22:51, 14 November 2011 UTC) "Undid revision 457915761 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)" + "Trailers shows the prominence of that scene plus Roger Ebert's comments about it"
 * 5) {{diff2|497023382|07:25, 11 June 2012‎ }(UTC)}} "Undid revision 495055105 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
 * 6)  "That previous remark is abusive and I request that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz be thrown out of Wikipedia."
 * 7) 01:52, 25 July 2012‎ (UTC) "This is the resolution of the matter and there should no more excuses for its removal."
 * 8)  "Undid revision 504054413 by DMacks (talk)"
 * 9)  [no edit-summary]
 * 10)  "IMDb has spoken on this and DMacks leave me alone."

Note: many of these are old, because the same situation keeps flaring over many years (I can't find centralized list of the diffs from previous behavior-discussions).

Note: editor has made it clear via edit-summaries and talk-page comments that he does not wish to be contacted by (specifically) me or certain others who participated in talk-page/AN discussion of (generally) or others regarding his edits.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

There's consensus on talk-page, including discussion of reliable sourcing, and we already had a trip to WP:AN (Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive761) regarding behavioral requirements for collaborative editing and discussion of disputed edits. Editor was not willing to accept this outcome when it occurred 2–3 years ago, has now come back after little or no editing of WP and immediately returned to the same WP:EW and non-WP:DR behaviors. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * indefinitely for WP:NOTHERE. I must admit that when I first looked at this report, I was surprised to see an allegation of EW based on a couple of reverts after such a long spell of nothing. However, following the links DMacks put in above, I saw that although the user edits sporadically, they almost never do anything constructive when they're here, and they don't listen to anyone or collaborate with anyone. Essentially, they see themselves as an island at Wikipedia and subject not to the policies and guidelines of the project but to their own inner compass, which wouldn't be quite so bad if that compass weren't so fundamentally flawed in so many ways. I then saw no middle ground in terms of sanctions, and an indefinite block seemed to be the most appropriate result.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jersey92 reported by User:Wikiweb10011 (Result: Wikiweb blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Abusive tagging from user jersey92 without any the actual improving of the article (all tags and no actual writing or benefiting for the article) -- Edit warring and abused tagging reported for user Jersey92 (talk). Also, vandalism reported for user Jersey92 --

Noted abusive tagging warning to: Jersey92(talk) -

Reported Vandalism: Jersey92 – actions evidently indicate vandalism by user Jersey92 for article: [1], Abuse of tags. Repeated inappropriate tags without any actual contributing to the article. ignored warnings. talk 06:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Reported by Wikiweb10011 (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikiweb10011 by .--Bbb23 (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

- It looks like User:Wikiweb10011 might have a WP:COI (per prior editor comments) and might be creating sockpuppets to keep on vandalizing. Please see the actions of new user User:Webmastermeyou (Deleting my comments on AfD and violating Wikipedia policy) and new user User:Stevejohnsonhere undoing my tags as discussed above and adding a non-notable article with a lack of references and questionable edits all related to the original article that I tagged Madison McKinley. All while this discussion is going on. Can you block by IP or lock somehow? Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Still going on with another new account... User:Usercatch... --Jersey92 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've indeffed the two new accounts and increased the master's block to one month. More socking will result in an indefinite block for the master. I'll watch the article, but please let me, Panda, or some other administrator know if there's further trouble. I haven't semi-protected the article, but that, of course, can be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you semi-protected the article and addressed the sock puppetry. Thanks. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:DavidJac123 reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 614114531 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 614610522 by Vanamonde93 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 614627212 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 614636754 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 614660953 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk)"
 * 6)  "Undid revision 614668204 by WeijiBaikeBianji (talk)"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 614714568 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 614757990 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"

Warned here by TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Again, I have not made such an attempt, but attempts have been made, by the other editors involved, such as here (Although the attempt was in fact initiated by Davidjac themselves.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * Comments:

By my count, this user has seven reverts on this page. They also are going against consensus, and appear to be tag-teaming, if not socking, with a couple of IPs. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * And yet another revert, here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * and warned about DS on articles relating to Race and Intelligence. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Ifinteger reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, although much of this material has been discussed before.

Comments: This is a clear breach of WP:3RR by a new SPA editor. Several editors have reverted the user, including me. There are WP:BLP issues involved, particularly WP:UNDUE, WP:COATRACK, and arguably WP:BLPCRIME. There's an outstanding request at WP:RFPP brought by another editor for pending changes. The reported user is autoconfirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * and PC protected for one week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:177.125.112.14 reported by User:Takinzinnia (Result: Protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=612461208&oldid=612458788]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 21 June 2014: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=613826798&oldid=613624388]
 * 2) 26 June 2014: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=614542785&oldid=614269203]
 * 3) 27 June 2014: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=614639028&oldid=614600525]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:177.125.112.14&diff=614672457&oldid=613833810]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=612906070&oldid=612514006]

Comments: Since 11 June [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=612501412&oldid=612461208], three IP editors have repeatedly added a certain game to the List of Wii U software without citing any source, reliable or otherwise. After failing to find any confirmation of the game's existence, I have reverted most of these edits while inviting the participants to discuss on the talk page in my edit summaries [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=613616579&oldid=613615676][//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=613616579&oldid=613615676], on the article's talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wii_U_software&diff=612906070&oldid=612514006], and the most recent IP user's talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:177.125.112.14&oldid=613833810]. So far, none has responded to these invitations and each one simply reverts without comment. Takinzinnia (talk &bull; contribs) 19:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * for one week. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:EkoGraf (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

1. ""Krasnyi Lyman" is the proper spelling, WP:CLAIMED, copyediting, avoid WP:LABEL "rebels", WP:NUMERAL" 2. "They didn't claim anything, they said it. We provide both views, and we say who said them. WE do not say they "claimed", implying falsity or guilt. There is no "military" of Ukraine, which only refers to ground forces anyway. It is called the Armed Force." 3. "WP:CLAIMED our MoS is clear. We do not copy the commentary of the sources, only the facts. We use "said", because they "said" that. We do not imply that they claimed "anything. Military is incorre..." 4. "I will not tolerate your corruption of the English language. "Military" is incorrect, and you are violating WP:ENGVAR. The correct translation is "Armed Forces". Report me all you like, I will always be a crusader for good language."
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:

I warned him during our discussion at his talk page User talk:RGloucester in the section Ukraine Views that he was about to break 3RR. He in essence said he didn't care, told me to report him and that he would revert me until death.
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Made attempts to talk to him at his talk page User talk:RGloucester in the section Ukraine Views. I even went so far as to drop one of the two problematic issues since I saw he was not going to compromise. However, he continued to push his POV on the second issue even after I pointed out that per Wikipedia definition of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that they are the military of Ukraine he continued to claim that there is no military of Ukraine, proceeded to make borderline insulting/hostile comments and called himself the crusader of the English language who will die before he lets me make a mockery and corruption of the English language and that I will be haunted for eternity.
 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


 * User:RGloucester's comments in this section of their talk page as well as the edit summaries almost resulted in topic ban as well the block. Given the incivility and battleground approach evident in that section I've decided to block for a day and not sanction User:EkoGraf (only an alert to the discretionary sanctions). However I will be keeping an eye on that article and further edits from both of you, any incivility or other breaches of conduct policies will result in appropriate sanctions. A general message to both of you: discuss it on the talk page, don't keep reverting especially on pages covered by discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Mosesben (Result:No violation )
Page:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Here he calls Scheduled castes who are considered as Untouchables calling them CRIMINAL CASTES.
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 1)

He removed the sourced quotation and removed Dr.Ambedkar's Image.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, although much of this material has been discussed before.

Comments: ONE USER HAS ALREADY TRIED TO HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THIS USER BUT HE REFUSES EVEN TO GIVE A REPLY.This man is anti-Dalit user and an Orthodoc Hindu. Dalits are those who are socially backward classes. Various editors have tried to seek consensus from this man but he never responds and when he responds he responds in a negative manner.

Comment You might want to be very careful about labelling a group of people as socially backwards if for no other reason than WP:Boomerang. Amortias (T)(C) 11:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I note that Bladesmulti's mention of criminal classes is misrepresented, the sentence was " Because nothing new is coming out at all now. "criminal caste", "Schedule caste", "tribal castes", and many others, these castes never exists, they were created by british." And that was 5 months ago. Bladesmulti's edits to the page in question were in December last year and were clearly not edit warring. I have removed a blocked editor's name from this report as that editor doesn't seem to have anything to do with this report. User:Mosesben I think you need to read our policies and guidelines more carefully and refrain from name calling. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But he has been removing the sourced content. Regarding the Social Backward class called Dalit, they are backward class in India and that is considered in Wikipedia too. He has been removing the sourced content. He has been in Edit warring SOME FEW DAYS BACK User:Dougweller. Mosesben (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Considering Bladesmulti hasnt made any edits in almost a week eveidence for his recent edit warring is going to be pretty much impossible to find. Also its worth having a look at MOS:ALLCAPS with regards to your writing style. Amortias (T)(C) 12:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:220.245.146.235 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Semi)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 614845399 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 614845237 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 614845043 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 614844702 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 614844007 by 80.6.172.150 (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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

The first IP to start the warring was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.146.235 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Result: Semiprotected 3 months. Constant addition and removal of unsourced material. EdJohnston (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by User:TheIPInfo (Result:No violation; blocked TheIPInfo)
Page:

User being reported:

Reverts:
 * 1) 16:14, 29 June 2014
 * 2) 13:49, 29 June 2014
 * 3) 13:01, 29 June 2014

Warning: Had to report him here as his talk page is protected

Comments:

Future Perfect at Sunrise has been reverting comments from Bulgaria talk page a number of times, he has been insulting other editors calling their posts "blathering", attempting to bully other editors with aggressive language like: "This will not be tolerated, full stop" and "Debate over." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIPInfo (talk • contribs)
 * You've only provided evidence of one edit and two reverts to restore that edit, not more than three reverts. You did not warn nor notify the user on his talk page, nor did you even try to have a discussion about it.  That no one else has bothered to uncollapse your comments indicates something like consensus that the comments are in bad faith, unnecessary to discussion, and should be collapsed.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * TheIPInfo for 72 hours for making personal attacks and for trolling. Besides the contributions to this board, the only edits the user made were to that one talk page, and they consisted of attacking Future Perfect and edit warring over their comments being hatted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:99.46.209.18 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments: The IP kept changing the date contrary to MOS. When I reverted, their edit summaries got more and more aggressive. On one of my three reverts, I put MOS:DATEFORMAT in the edit summary. When that didn't work, I went to the trouble of explaining it all to the IP on their talk page (see diff above). Clearly, the IP was having none of it. The IP's 4th revert occurred outside the 24-hour window by about 1.5 hours. Actually, I prefer that the IP "get it" rather than be sanctioned, but I'm not sure if that's possible.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Warned. No more reverts since 03:08 on 28 June. If he continues a block would be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:177.104.88.198 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Stale)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Nigeria vs Bosnia and Herzegovina */"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 614530178 by PeeJay2K3 (talk) I am not saying about quarter-finals but the previous round. Also, I'm saying about NO debutant teams, all the others had"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 614658871 by PeeJay2K3 (talk) Sure, I'm not blind, so I could check and affirm this. Or should I pay a website to post it and then you can be pleasured by a ref tag?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 614664917 by Walter Görlitz (talk) The source is my own research I have done in all World Cup articles here."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 614666648 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Stop being lazy and prove that this information is false. It's already saying that needs a citation"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 FIFA World Cup Group F. (TW)"
 * 2)   "please source it"


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


 * Comments:
 * Result: Stale. The IP broke 3RR on 27 June but there have been no more reverts since then. If this resumes then a block or semiprotection should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:89.110.19.176 and 91.122.6.3 reported by User:Nightscream (Result: stale)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) First edit by 89.110.19.176, which is traced to the Russian Federation
 * 2) Revert by Nightscream
 * 3) Revert by 91.122.6.3, which is also traced to the Russian Federation
 * 4) Vanamonde93 reverts 91.122.6.3's revert and leaves a message on that IP's talk page
 * 5) 91.122.6.3 again reverts Vanamonde93
 * 6) Nightscream reverts the article again, and try to caution 91.122.6.3 in his edit summary and on 91.122.6.3's talk page about edit warring.
 * 7) 91.122.6.3 reverts my revert, and makes no acknowledgement of my message or the policies and guidelines I linked him to.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Record of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (actually the reported user's talk page): diff

Comments:


 * . I think semi-protection can be forgone for now, but post to WP:RFP if this changes. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

User:190.102.28.173 reported by User:4idaho (Result: Semi)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP keeps adding a disputed section template to a certain section. At first they claimed the information wasn't in the source, then they claimed the source was wrong. Continued to edit war after being asked to stop and being warned on the talk page.

They did eventually post on Talk but continued to edit war while doing so. Also, if you check both IPs are the same the person. They changed the IP after receiving the 3RR warning. Cheers. --4idaho (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Semiprotected two months. IP-hopping edit warrior, violation of WP:SOCK. The first IP, 190.102.28.173 is publicly advertised on a list of proxy servers. Not sure whether the second one is a proxy. User:4idaho should try not to violate 3RR even if he is warring against socks. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't have more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. I was careful not to break the rule. Thanks for the semi-protection. Cheers --4idaho (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you should be more careful about being careful. Your fourth revert was about 2.5 hours outside the 24-hour window. Although there is no hard-and-fast time frame, "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." Your assertion of being "careful" could be construed as an admission of gaming the system. I'm not advocating that you be sanctioned. Just friendly advice for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:DaveSmythe (Result: Reporter blocked as sock)
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: [link]

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

Comments:


 * This is self-evidently a sock of the banned antisemitic former contributor User:Mikemikev. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Dougweller (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

This is an article subject to 1RR

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've given the user the option to revert herself. She declined.

I made a faulty complaint late last night (Kipa made two quick edits, the first reverted, I opened the same diff twice which made me think it was two reverts in breach of 1RR, we all know I was wrong). Seeing as this account is well aware this in not a breach of 1RR but filled anyways I would suggest a block for being pointy/disruptive/battleground mentality. Sepsis II (talk) 05:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC) I would like to add that Sepsis II removed two WP:ARE warnings on his talk page, which he is not entitled to do. Besides, in return for respectful talk page discussion, detailed sourcing and lots of patience, he always responds with reverts, silence, reverts, disruptive editing, and occasional personal attacks on edit summaries and talk pages. In my opinion, this extremely POV user should have been blocked or topic banned long time ago.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * . This has a bit of a tortured history. The reporter brought Sepsis II to WP:ARE. You can read the "result" there, but it was closed based on a report being filed at WP:SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/Kipa Aduma, Esq.. The CU found no technical relationship between the claimed master and the other accounts. The SPI is awaiting "administration and close". I personally have not looked at the history of the article itself to see if Sepsis II breached WP:1RR, and, if so, whether he is exempt on some basis. I'll leave it to others as I have to go off-wiki shortly.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I did not bring Sepsis II to WP:ARE, it was the other way around - a false, baseless allegation that was quickly closed. There are 2 diffs there - all you have to do is click on them, Bbb23. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Kip Aduma. User:AmirSurfLera brought the report against Sepsis II. Sepsis II brought a report against you.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The second edit is by no means a revert. Sepsis II (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it is - the article used to say 80% because some editor put that in, and you undid that, and changed it to 87%. Kipa Aduma, Esq. (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OH NOES!!! I deleted your precious message off my talk page! I should be arrested at once! I need an anti-static strap, socks keep sticking to me (I'll be filing an SPI in a minute). Sepsis II (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you keep accusing other users of sockpuppetry without evidence, also breaking basic civility rules. Only for this you should be blocked. You already filled SPI against me, but you didn't provide any convincing proof. Keep in mind that Sean.hoyland, a respected editor with much more experience and intelligence than you, was blocked exactly for doing that. I suggest you to learn from his experience instead of being so arrogant and aggressive.--AmirSurfLera (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have so far encountered Sepsis II on several occasions, dealing with similar behavior of his involving harsh edit-warring, inability to follow community consensus and highly uncivil approach to other editors, often accusing others on sockpuppetry and canvassing, and rarely supplying any evidence - there have been perhaps 10 cases filed by Sepsis II in the last few weeks, making his ARBPIA complaints into a weird kind of "sports". I would like to emphasize that recently (21 April) it was specifically pointed out by administrator Sandstein that "Sepsis II engages in the inappropriate casting of aspersions by alleging sockpuppetry without any evidence" and that regarding Sepsis II and Plot Spoiler, it was added by the administrator that Sepsis II is a single topic editor and "On this basis, I favor a lengthy topic ban for both editors, with the instruction that, after the topic ban ends, they must edit in this topic area in such a manner that an outside observer would not be able to tell from their article-space edits which if any side of the conflict they favor". I doubt that think single topic editors, who are so deeply emotionally involved in the topic are helping to make wikipedia better.GreyShark (dibra) 21:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A number of ideological editors here on wikipedia hate me. Sepsis II (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ., please explain why you think the second listed edit in this report is not a revert. I'm looking into the latest report you filed at SPI: Sockpuppet investigations/AmirSurfLera.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How could it be edit warring, I have no clue how many years ago an editor wrote the wrong number there. Who could I edit war with? I don't know.
 * I let stand the poor edits made by Amir and Kipa per 1RR, (they were of course in the end properly reverted by another editor). I'm careful with 1RR, if I thought it was a revert (and if I had remembered that I had made a single edit to the page 21 hours ago (A day ago in human terms), I wouldn't have made the correction. Sepsis II (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , that's not a good answer. Anytime you make a change to an article, you should assume that it's probably a revert. Someone, sometime put in the information you changed. The only exception is when you make a brand new addition (never been added before). There are, of course, changes that are in an administrator's discretion to overlook, but those are usually minor and insubstantial. Changing 80% to 87% is hardly minor. And although it's not strictly relevant to edit warring, the cited source seemed to me to support 80%, not 87%, but I'm hardly an expert in these matters.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, nothing personal but what you have done there is collaborate with an obvious sockpuppet/advocate who should be blocked on the basis of WP:DUCK. And yes, just to make it crystal clear, I have just done exactly the same thing there that recently resulted in my being blocked for 48 hours by Sandstein for describing a sockpuppet as a sockpuppet. I made it as my very first post-block edit. You are welcome to apply another block. I don't mind. It will serve as another example of admins collaborating with sockpuppets in ARBPIA through poor judgment when they should have the experience and common sense to know better.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 06:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who is the sockmaster in Kipa Aduma, Esq's case ? It doesn't matter and filing an SPI report won't help if the sockmaster knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the cost to the community of trying to figure out the sockmaster and processing a request at SPI far outweighs the near-zero benefit derived from blocking an account as a result of an SPI report when the person can and will simply create another account. Obvious socks should be blocked on sight at zero cost to the community by admins using their judgment.
 * This is something like the 3rd time I've seen experienced and reasonable admins effectively collaborating with sockpuppets in recent weeks. A pattern is emerging. It sends a message to the community that admins lack the competence and common sense to provide adequate protection for the topic area and its editors.
 * @Bbb23: I don't know what can be done, but the sock situation is out of control and established editors on the other side are being purposely harassed with nonsense. No one can identify the sock master because there are dozens of candidates. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with both of the two above. This is driving away content contributors. Huldra (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Grammarkönnig and User:Curly Turkey reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Grammarkönig blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: DG CT DG CT DG CT DG CT DG
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614875946&oldid=614873537
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614874523&oldid=614197692
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614878224&oldid=614875946
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614929179&oldid=614878224
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614962138&oldid=614929179
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=614962138&oldid=614929179
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=615006598&oldid=614965412
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=615006598&oldid=614965412
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_infinitive&diff=615009629&oldid=615008735

 

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

Comments: User: Der Grammarkönnig is already blocked. User:Curly Turkey, who reported this at WP:ANI, was also edit warring and needs a warning. If the edit warring resumes, page may need protection for two days. Really more appropriate for here than at ANI, since purely an edit war.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Grammarkönnig already blocked. The reaction from CurlyTurkey wasn't great, but I would tend to consider at least the material reverted the first three times to have been so blatantly and self-evidently unacceptable that I would be extremely reluctant to apply sanctions against them here. Seriously, should we get rid of involuntarily the freedom to correct obvious glaring errors? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor has made it clear they have no sources and have no intention of ceasing to push their POV, including removing sourced material without even bothering to explain why in an edit comment. Context is everything, Robert McClenon, and if you're going to split hairs over the letter of policy you should ensure that you follow the letter of those policies yourself—as in the  at the top of the page: You must notify any user you report. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Grammarkönig blocked 24 hours by Future Perfect. No action was taken against Curly Turkey. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:64.4.93.100 reported by User:Benhen1997 (Result: Both IPs blocked)

 * Pages:, , ,
 * Users being reported: ,


 * Previous version reverted to:

(see above page links for more)
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "WP:BLP WP:NOT"
 * 2)  "WP:BLP WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
 * 3)  "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
 * 4)  "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
 * 5)  "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"
 * 6)  "WP:NOT WP:QUOTE"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Oona King, Baroness King of Bow. (TW)" (First IP)
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Oona King, Baroness King of Bow. (TW)" (Second IP)


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1) "Not Wikiquote"
 * 2) Discussion  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.96.50 (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

is stalking me and undoing my edits for no good reason. They have continued to re-add unsourced and unencyclopedic content to this WP:BLP and others as well. They should be blocked instead. They have also used to stalk me and possibly others too. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * If you wish to report other users here, then you may also do so. I will check on other 3rr violations by other user after I finish this post.  In the meantime, I have found a multitude of edir warring/3rr violations on several pages by this IP and others.  BenYes? 20:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the other IP is stalking me and restoring inappropriate content for no reason on many BLP articles. They are continuing to do so even now, including on the article you reported. 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Both IPs' activities are not limited to one page, and are in fact spread across multiple (example). Recommend both be blocked. TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  20:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why? It's not my fault they are stalking me and restoring bad content on BLP articles. They are also removing sources and doing other bad edits . 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, let's just establish something. "Stalking" is not a technical violation.  Anyone on the internet can see any contributions that you made to any page on Wikipedia.  That's what I did to find all the pages on which there was an edit war between the two parties.  The "right" party (as you claim yourself to be) is just as wrong as the "wrong" party when there is a question of a WP:3RR violation, except in cases of vandalism, about which you did not inform the other IPs.  You also made no attempt on any article talk page to resolve the dispute, hence the empty sub-section above.  BenYes? 20:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Stalking like they do IS a technical violation WP:WIKISTALKING. Also BLP is a WP:3RR exemption, plus this edit is vandalism and you don't HAVE to inform him. What article talk page? They don't give any reason to undo my edits, I give them policies that explain what doesn't go on Wikipedia. If they don't give anything to discuss but still make bad edits what can I do? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, yes it is a violation for the disruptive behavior, but it would not ordinarily be. The quotations look sourced to me.  BenYes? 20:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , you saw above my edit-summary WP:BLP WP:NOT Wp:QUOTE because there is a citation needed tag so WP:BLP and the quotation belongs on Wikiquote so WP:NOT WP:QUOTE. But then the other IP re-adds the content without a citation and you report me for removing it. I have found the article talk so I can discuss what doesn't belong on Wikipedia but the other IP gives no reason for edits, just "undo, undo, undo" stalking me so what can I do about that? 64.4.93.100 (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm with 64.4.93.100 on this one. While edit warring is never a good solution to solving any dispute, I think the removal of the miscellaneous quotes section is justified as per WP:QUOTE and the other IP should have tried to resolve things on a talk page, like 64.4.93.100 tried to, instead of continually reverting. There was hardly any communication from the other IP. I just think both anon editors need to cool down and get consensus from other people before making any further edits there. I do however agree with Velella, and think that 64.4.93.100 needs to consider how much information is being lost when bulldozing down every single quote they find, and be a bit more careful in the future. Just my two cents - BZTMPS ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have also had a run-in with this IP's editing where a perfectly sound quotation which added value and understanding to an article was removed. In the end I had to spend some time embedding the quote in the article to persuade the IP to leave it alone - work that she/he could have more profitably done rather than simply going for a mass deletion policy. I suspect that some of this may stem from a belief that WP:QUOTE is a rigid policy. It isn't. It is a guideline to assist editors and should be interpreted with care and discretion to retain value and depth of coverage in Wikipedia article. I despair when I see some very useful information being lost, even though much of the pruning may be justified.  Velella  Velella Talk 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We're having a little chat about it here. 85.210.96.50 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I agree with the comments of Velella above. I too have had a run-in with this IP's editing on the Ann Druyan article. Several important quotes were deleted twice with no proper explanation, except for WP:QUOTE. This unregistered IP seems to be on a mass deletion policy, without any thought of the result of a mass of information lost.  I fear that this vandalism will take a long time to put right. David J Johnson (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Both IPs blocked three days for edit warring. Consider getting talk page consensus about the quotes. Mass addition or mass removal of quotes is likely to be considered disruptive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt (Result: Protected)


Hi, there is currently an edit war going on at UFC Fight Night: Te Huna vs. Marquardt, I am not naming anyone because I am NOT getting involved. I have been blocked for edit warring my self in the past but have since changed my ways, I am merely letting it known because something should be done. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anybody? Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * – 5 days. Protection may be lifted if consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:MJJFFF reported by User:Dwpaul (Result: Two weeks)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */ Please do not continue to reinstate information that was not a part of the original entry. I am restoring the page to it's original form."
 * 2)  "/* Personal life */ Please do not continue to reinstate information that was not a part of the original entry. I am restoring the page to it's original form."
 * 3)  "/* Opposition to Wind Energy */ Editing the content"
 * 4)  "/* Opposition to Wind Energy */ This is political information and needs to be removed. This is a biographical page ONLY"
 * 5)  "/* Publications */ This is the original content. I've removed the inserted content"
 * 6)  "/* Personal life */ Just placing the original content back into the Wikipedia profile"
 * 7)  "/* Personal life */ Removed irrelevant information and keeping paragraph as was in original form."
 * 8)  "/* Views on the Wind Industry */ This content is"
 * 1)  "/* Personal life */ Removed irrelevant information and keeping paragraph as was in original form."
 * 2)  "/* Views on the Wind Industry */ This content is"


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


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* This continuous edit-warring has got to stop */"


 * Comments:
 * The edit warring on this article is ridiculous, and while neither MJJFFF or the pro-wind energy editors have been terribly helpful in working towards consensus, at least the other side shows up on the talk page. MJJFFF has been previously blocked for 3RR, and doesn't respond to any talk page discussions, either on his own talk page or the article talk page. He's still blindly conducting revert wars and it's getting tiresome to say the least. Also, to make things clear: while I've reverted him in this instance of removing information, I'm not part of the broader edit war on this article besides trying to whack both sides heads together and get them to talk to one another. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct - I am user MJJFFF and I say that the edit warring is ridiculous. This is a biographical page, NOT a political page. I am simply editing the content and restoring the information to it's original form. Please refrain from editing the page further. Take note of other similar pages, and you will see that they are kept to a biographical form only. Please refrain from making further political insertions into a page that is biographical only — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJJFFF (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Honey, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "original form" that editors have to "refrain from editing further", and most articles on politicians contain some information about their views where this is notable. You need to discuss these things on the talk page instead of consistently reverting. You also seem to have some fairly significant misunderstandings about how Wikipedia works, but this is something that again, could be solved if you actually used the article talk page. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * MJJFFF, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the purpose of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, and as such any article on a politician is going to include political content. And furthermore, the 'original form' of an article has no special status - any edits need to be considered on their merits, and cannot be reverted simply because they weren't in an earlier version. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines before you find yourself blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In particular, I suggest that MMJJFF read Ownership of articles.  Dwpaul  Talk   02:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This article has two hard line editors, each welded to some particular point. Minor points, in my view, and I really wish that there could be some give and take, some meeting of minds. I'm concerned that any blocks handed out - and well-deserved blocks - are just going to amount to a temporary ceasefire, with hostilities resuming as soon as the clock ticks over. I don't think that there's any real solution beyond a willingness by both ends to listen to the middle, because neither is going to get all they want here.

Thanks to DW for her efforts at diplomacy and mediation. --Pete (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * – Two weeks. User:MJJFFF is showing an amazingly poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. This is their second block in a week. Others have also joined in the war. I'm sure it will be inconvenient if the article has to be placed under long-term protection, so please follow WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:66.87.81.15 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: IP blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Episode list */"
 * 2)  "/* Series overview */"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615062775 by EvergreenFir (talk)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Caution: Unconstructive editing on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Vandalism on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
 * 3)   "Final warning: Vandalism on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"
 * 4)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Grojband episodes. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

This is getting tiresome. AIV is being slow Also see User_talk:EvergreenFir EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for one hour and asked him to reply to your talk page. Let's see what happens after that. Please don't keep reverting - is it really so important that the IP's version isn't allowed to be there for a short while? It isn't 100% obvious vandalism (unless/until we can show that it's a known vandal/sock).  —S MALL  JIM   21:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: IP blocked one hour by User:Smalljim. User:EvergreenFir also broke 3RR, since the IP's edits were not obvious vandalism. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Both warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615022057 by Uishaki (talk) totally unnecessary"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615038154 by Walter Görlitz (talk) why? what's so good about the template?"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 615045546 by Walter Görlitz (talk) there is absolutely no need to ever edit these tables ever again, so again, what is the benefit of the templates?"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 615063437 by Walter Görlitz (talk) stop it now, dude"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

Seasoned editor who knew that he was violating 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I was abiding by WP:BRD. User:Uishaki was bold, I reverted, and no one ever made any attempt to discuss the issue in good faith except me (although I admit I should have done that on the article talk page rather than via edit summaries). Intentionally or otherwise, Walter Gorlitz misinterpreted my concerns and was, in fact, the instigator of this edit war. My feeling is that he deliberately goaded me into this situation and I respectfully request an apology. – PeeJay 20:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The revert, revert, revert and attitude you always have, goes against the "discuss" element you claim. I’m sorry. if you were in discuss mode, I didn't see it on the article talk page or mine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: Both warned. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Biruitorul reported by User:Remus Octavian Mocanu (Result: No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_I_of_Romania&diff=602303715&oldid=602302863]

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

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_I_of_Romania&diff=611322414&oldid=609991554]

"Deleting Repeatedly Large Block of Text that is Abundantly and Verifiably Sourced - Probable reason: simply being critical of historical figures"

Still waiting the reply after my objection (to deleting text heavily sourced) expressed on the user page User_talk:Biruitorul (Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

As in the equivalent article in Romanian language, many Romanian users still feel very uncomfortable with Wikipedia articles containing in addition to some flattering (if frequently unsourced) descriptions, also the sourced critique of national historical figures as it appears in the more objective Western academic historiography:

Remus Octavian Mocanu (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No violation. One revert on June 3rd and a second one on June 30 doesn't violate 3RR. User:Remus Octavian Mocanu has yet to post anything on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:SaudAlkhaldi reported by User:Shrike (Result: Indeffed for sockpuppetry)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

The artice under 1RR per WP:ARBPIA.The user is new so maybe a warning from admin will be enough.


 * I have warned SaudAlkhaldi (pending a block upon further reverts). This type of unfounded name-calling though is unacceptable and will equally result in a block if it continues. De728631 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * just appeared and continued where SaudAlkhaldi left off. OK, OK, WP:SPI is that way. Favonian (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The quacking is loud in this one! I have therefore indeffed them both. De728631 (talk) 20:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:101.0.94.153 (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Removed by the user here: )

Comments:

A few days ago I started a request for comment to resolve a content dispute on this article. I included a separate section for uninvolved editors to comment, which I understand is standard in a RFC. (See this earlier RFC on the same article.) After the first uninvolved editor commented, disagreeing with TheRedPenOfDoom, TheRedPenOfDoom removed this section heading so that his own comments would be in the same section as those from the uninvolved editors. His reverts have not been all identical, but they all have the same effect of erasing the distinction between involved an uninvolved editors in the RFC. (Despite classifying himself as an "outsider", TheRedPenOfDoom is one of the original parties in the dispute, as can be seen in the article's edit history.)

Also note that his edit summaries notwithstanding, I have not actually altered his comments. He has altered mine, however, by changing/removing the section headings that I added when creating the RFC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.0.94.153 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 1 July 2014


 * You appear to be refactoring in a way by moving TheRedPenOfDoom's comments to the section of your choice. Why did you not just reply saying that you felt they were not "uninvolved"?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (non-admin comment) While there does seem to be a bit of an edit war here, it seems to me there might be a bit of violation of the talk page guidelines here as well, all reverts were to restore the user's comment to where he originally placed it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like I wasn't the first to point this out either ♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀
 * Note: Notified user in accordance with policy. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @EvergreenFir: apart from his user talk where he immediately removed my comments, I tried to discuss this with him in my own user talk. His only response there was that I can't make other editors follow divisions between involved and uninvolved, although I know this is done in RFCs all the time. In any case, his comments make it clear he doesn't care whether classifying himself as an "outsider" is inaccurate. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This case is not so quite clear cut as there are violations of WP:TPO involved. If he is moving himself and labeling himself as a non-party, he is free to do so.  Rather than move his comments, it is much better to just leave a note saying that he is in fact involved under that comment, but he has the right to place his comment where he wishes within guidelines. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  06:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a 3RR exception for a user's own userpage/comments, unless covered by other policies? Or am I imagining seeing that somewhere? Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What talk page policy did I violate? In REFACTOR, one of the legitimate types of refactoring is "Moving a comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion". Moving a comment by an involved editor so it isn't in the "comments by outsiders" section seems like it's an example of that. 101.0.94.153 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is a speedy close possible here? The whole issue of race and intelligence is under discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBR&I) and an IP should not be using this page to report that they have been unsuccessful in their attempts to refactor another editor's comment or to impose certain RfC procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action against TheRedPenOfDoom. The temptation to block the IP-hopping submitter from 101.0.*.* is strong. If you read the entire page at WP:REFACTOR you'd surely notice "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted."  EdJohnston (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Plot */"
 * 2)  "/* Hallmarks */"
 * 3)  "Loren Bouchard is the creator of the show. I'll take his word over yours any day of the week. reverted to my edit."
 * 4)  "/* Characters */"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 615105170 by EvergreenFirAgain, Loren Bouchard said directly the show is not set in any particular place. Unless you can find me an RS that states he said otherwise, your edit is OR and invalid."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 615111211 by EvergreenFir (talk)stop making unconstructive edits."
 * 7)  "Loren Bouchard said it does not take place in any particular area. Your sources are not reliable."
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615111211 by EvergreenFir (talk)stop making unconstructive edits."
 * 2)  "Loren Bouchard said it does not take place in any particular area. Your sources are not reliable."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Only warning: Vandalism on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob's Burgers. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Location */"
 * 2)   "/* Location */"
 * 3)   "/* Location */"
 * 4)   "/* Location */"


 * Comments:

User has a history of this behavior. Refuses to discuss changes despite previous local consensus. Only argument is "I am right and my source is the only one".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please 05:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the argument is whether or not the show is set anywhere and I have cited this interview series creator Loren Bouchard gave to Entertainment Weekly as proof that EvergreenFir's position is incorrect. The exact quote that invalidates the theory that the show takes place in New Jersey: "It’s a semi-Springfield. It can’t be San Francisco, which is what many people think. It has all that Victorian architecture from San Francisco because I was living there when we developed the show, but we set it firmly in the Northeast because of the way Linda sounds, and Teddy. There’s just so much East Coast in those voices, we just couldn’t take it out. It would’ve been too weird to have her doing that voice — you’d have to constantly be explaining that she’s a transplant or whatever. And because it’s this seaside, past-it’s-prime, dusty old town, we kind of felt like that puts it pretty close to those Coney Island, New York-New Jersey shore parts. I grew up in the New England area, and there were lots of beach towns like it, though we don’t want to be in New England party because Family Guy has Rhode Island sewn up. But basically I picture it somewhere in the outer boroughs or on the northern Jersey shore.” As far as I'm concerned, that makes the case pretty open and shut: the word of the show creator vs. three questionable sources, one of which is the episode itself (which if I remember correctly is not automatically an RS). I don't see what the big deal is. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note this editor has reported me to AIV under the same circumstances, and stress again that his sources are largely non-RS and that my source is an RS and contradicts all three of his sources- and since it is an RS, it is therefore not vandalism. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

this is a funny place - why would Evergreen Fir block anyone for war when they .....

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=614967742&oldid=614967484 Revision as of 03:53, 30 June 2014 EvergreenFir (Undid revision 614967311 by ChrisP2K5 (talk) it's clearly NJ.)

2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615100719 - Revision as of 03:37, 1 July 2014 (edit) (undo) (thank) EvergreenFir (Reverted 2 edits by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615110400 Revision as of 05:00, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

4 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=next&oldid=615111308 Revision as of 05:02, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I realized my error and self-reverted to ChrisP2K5's version why this plays out. I should have reported sooner but was treating this as vandalism (hence my report on AIV) and not edit warring.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I did not report the extra revert fifth war removal you took down yourself - only the four you did not take down. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

5 - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob%27s_Burgers&diff=615112166&oldid=615112033 Revision as of 05:11, 1 July 2014 EvergreenFir (Reverted 1 edit by ChrisP2K5 (talk) to last revision by EvergreenFir

Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted in the edit reason, I self-reverted while this plays out. I am unaware of how to get Twinkle to transfer edit info without reverting.  My edits are in good faith.  Note I also tried to engage the edit warrior in discussion multiple times.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So are ChrisP2K5 edits in good faith - do please stop referring to him as an edit warrior when you are an edit warrior also - Chris has as much talkpage efforts at chat as you - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob%27s_Burgers&action=history - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Only after violating warnings. Made no effort to discussion before templating.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What templating? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChrisP2K5 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Me templating the user on their talk page after initiating discussion. As I said already, their only discussion was to say they are right and it's not edit warring if they are right.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - you User:EvergreenFir are the only templater - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChrisP2K5&diff=prev&oldid=615111247 - Chris never templeted you even once - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, yes... that's how it works usually. I fail to see the issue here.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, you were warring and wanted another writer banned for warring - hello - Mosfetfaser (talk)
 * Which is exactly why I initiated discussion on two talk pages first. Makes sense.  Good night.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:EvergreenFir Your attempts at discussion in all this are no more that Chris's - you were warring your position, plain and simple - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, timing and intent. Good night for reals.  Way past my bedtime of 2AM.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "timing and intent" are no excuse for your warring - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that it is the reporter being engaged in the edit war and the unconstructive editing. Especially when he says "it's clearly NJ" when the man who created and developed the series said otherwise. Even if you consider the episode as an RS, there still is no clear indication that the show is set in New Jersey because the car scene (which I have to believe he's citing) just shows the car starting from some point in the New York metro area. How can you decipher it as New Jersey when the car is touching Long Island and southern Connecticut, not to mention eastern Pennsylvania as well? I think it lends to the ambiguity of the setting as well and refutes his argument further. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I offer 3 sources more current than the one you offer. You offer no newer sources and continue to revert despite consensus for its inclusion.  You claim you are not in the wrong because you're right (which I disagree with), but you still edit war and initiated the edit war.  Your first edit was itself a revert to old wording (see here).  You claim, without backing or discussion, that an old interview with the show's creator trumps the reality of the show, more current episodes, and more current sources.  I will again point to the fact that you have a very very long history of this behavior (which I wish I had noticed earlier and would not have treated you as a vandal, though your behaviors are unconstructive, as I mentioned above).   Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And I point, again, to what the creator of the show has clearly put on the record. And his exact words, which are posted here and on the talk page of the article, state that the show is not set in any particular state. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And as I discussed it appears to have changed. But it would have been nice if you started discussion after your first edit or 2.  I am done making my case here and done defending myself from boomerang.  I did my best to engage you in conversation on your talk page and the article's talk page.  You refused until the last two edits after violating 3RR and 4im.  This is no longer about your source's quality, it's about your actions.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please  06:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it is also about your action User:EvergreenFir and you have been at war also as the links above clearly show - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This wasn't an edit war. This was you (EvergreenFir) disregarding a sourced edit that clearly contradicted your position, that came from the source of the show itself, and that has not been refuted by him. There wasn't anything to discuss, your information was not correct no matter how current it was. And no matter how many times you bring up my past edit history or claim I did something wrong, it doesn't change that. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to note on the talk page, EvergreenFir is continuing to assail my position and accusing me of having a crystal ball mentality and not letting his edit stand because I don't like it. This leads me to believe that he will continue his disruptive editing and not allow the word of the show's creator to be the definitive answer as to where the show is set. It would be like someone submitting their own opinion to where Springfield is as fact despite Matt Groening having made it ambiguous. I mean, Loren Bouchard said it's ambiguous. What more is there to say?? --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Article protected five days, on the last version prior to the edit war. The alternative would have been to block both participants. Two parties who are each 110% confident that they are right is the usual recipe for an edit war. EdJohnston (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Notavulgarusername reported by User:Solarra (Result: Blocked reported user and IP)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

Two warnings for edit-warring, user continually removing sourced consensus content from target article. Non responsive to multiple editors, appears to be a single purpose account. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  02:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . I blocked the reported user for 48 hours for violating WP:3RR and IP 68.39.152.45 for 24 hours for a similar violation + personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Hmich176 reported by User:124.186.240.203 (Result: IP blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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:

Vandalism after final warning. Hard block on user and on talk page. Blatant abuse of talk page. Backendgaming (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I only reverted 3 times, not 4, just for clarification. -- hmich 176 08:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:124.186.240.203 reported by User:Rovine (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615262910 by Backendgaming (talk)"
 * 3)  "←Blanked the page"
 * 4)  "←Blanked the page"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:
 * Materialscientist (talk) 08:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:190.44.133.67 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "No-one is prepared to explain in the article what was important about this speech.  Peacock words don't suffice."
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615247064 by Timeshift9 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 615251512 by MelbourneStar (talk) see talk"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 615252585 by MelbourneStar (talk) look again"
 * 5)  "You are not entitled to make stuff up.  There was no consensus for your preferred version.  It's just infantile to try to lie that there was."
 * 6)  "Undid revision 615254183 by The Drover's Wife (talk) see talk"
 * 7)  "Undid revision 615254577 by I am One of Many (talk) explained at length.  dishonest edit summaries don't make you look good"
 * 8)  "Undid revision 615254840 by Babitaarora (talk) rv unexplained edit"
 * 9)  "Oooooh it's sourced, so we must include it!  When did the intellectual standard of editors drop so low?  See talk."
 * 10)  "Undid revision 615255322 by Solarra (talk) rv unexplained revert"
 * 11)  "Undid revision 615255665 by The Last Arietta see lengthy attempts to discuss on talk, if demented editors haven't already removed it"
 * 12)  "Undid revision 615255833 by MelbourneStar"
 * 13)  "Undid revision 615256141 by Solarra rv unexplained revert"
 * 14)  "Undid revision 615275365 by Alans1977"
 * 15)  "Undid revision 615280089 by Alans1977 see talk"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615280089 by Alans1977 see talk"


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


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


 * Comments:

IP has been asked to discuss their continuous removal of content and gain consensus; instead, they continue to remove content, edit war, despite no consensus to do so. Additionally, the IP in question continues to make personal attacks directed at editors:, – despite an only warning not to do so (would report at AIV, but already on an AN board). —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 06:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And is removing warnings. Note, this user has been previously blocked for the exact same issue on the exact same article, but does not seem to care. See User talk:187.17.52.174 - it is the same user. Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Was just coming here to make the same report. Previously blocked for 3RR and incivility, pays no heed to talk page warnings. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also filed a report, not realizing this was here. Previously blocked for 3RR. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  06:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And a 5th revert, 6th revert and 7th revert after this was posted. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * And continued removal of others' comments., , and . TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Made the same report before I saw this one. This user has been at this before. Alans1977 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Reported as being a suspected Sockpuppet Sockpuppet_investigations/190.44.133.67 Alans1977 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 *  Acroterion   (talk)   12:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:69.86.101.218 reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: 69.86.101.218 blocked 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:69.86.101.218 reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: Ignored as user blocked for edit warring already)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The edits involve non-WP:RS and writing stuff that is not even in the sources WP:SYN. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Toatec reported by User:Kipa Aduma, Esq. (Result: Topic-banned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: And previous notice of WP:ARBPIA restrictions:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article (and specifically, content that attempts to classify it as being in the "Occupied West Bank" vs. "Judean Desert") falls under the 1RR restriction that applies to all articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict


 * I've topic banned them from all WP:ARBPIA articles as they are an SPA. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That might be a reason to topic-ban Kipa Adumah as well… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given the discussions which have already taken place about that, I'd rather it was submitted to WP:AE with evidence. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Wikieditorpro reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated deletions (reverts) of the work of other editors work violating 1rr restrictions on Israel Palestine related topics in 2 consecutive 24 hour periods. Editor has been notified of the restrictions and sanctions under ARPBIA and previously blocked for edit warring IP related articles. the account is essentially dormant, activating periodically to edit war hot button IP topics away from WP:NPOV Dlv999 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are all completely different edits based on completely different rationales:

Edit 1 - Was based on the rationale that the infobox should be limited to the events itself rather than other events that happened at the same time. (see the talk page where I brought about dozen other examples). (See lengthy discussions at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#tangential_material_in_infobox )

Edit 2 - Was a non-controversial edit. The argument brought by editors for including the information from my last edit, was that the deaths in operation Brother's Keeper should be included in the infobox, therefore I left that information. No one has claimed anywhere that deaths outside that operation should be included too, nor is there any rationale for this. (Again as per discussions on the talk page. (See discussions at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#tangential_material_in_infobox )

Edit 3 - Was simply removing old speculation based on dated news stories -- information which has now been proven to be incorrect. (See discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#Justifications )

Edit 4 - Was removing unsourced photos. (See discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers#photo_caption:_Street_in_Ramallah_after_IDF_raid. ) Wikieditorpro (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, User:Wikieditorpro, although User:Lord Roem has fallen for this explanation, be advised that the definition of WP:REVERT, especially where discussed on WP:EW does not provide for exemption simply because you were editing different areas of the article. It's revert per article, not per area of the article  the panda ₯’  00:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After looking through the edits on that article, I find the complainant's actions curious and hypocritical. In the time that I made four edits to the article, he made six. And whereas I explained all of my edits on the talkpage and engaged with all who disagree with me by providing numerous examples and arguments to bolster my case, he has refused to do so and instead engaged in baseless ad hominem attacks -- a tactic he resorted to once again here. I hope that this will be followed up further by any administrator who sees this. Wikieditorpro (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The edits aren't reversions of the same (or substantially the same) material multiple times, i.e. doesn't appear to be edit warring over some added material. For the 1RR stuff, I think it'd be best to bring this to WP:AE where more admins can review the situation. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - This interpretation of whether an edit (or rather an uninterrupted sequence of edits to an article by an editor) should be regarded as a revert is not the same as some other admins. See  this recent discussion at the ANI noticeboard. I'll ping  and . Would it be possible for admins to initiate an discussion between admins to settle this once and for all so that there is clarity and consistency ? For the record, I don't think it really matters which interpretation is used, but do I think it's important that all admins and editors use the same one, particular in a topic area like ARBPIA covered by discretionary sanctions/1RR. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this may very well be a case requiring AE actions to be taken, but in the context of this board, don't think it falls under 3RR. Or, it's at least not as clear-cut as most others I've acted on here, where the editor(s) who ends up blocked fought with another on the same sentence/paragraph or idea. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'm not taking any position on this particular case because I haven't looked at it, but addressing 's question, a revert, as defined by policy, is undoing another editor's action. It doesn't matter that the material is different from the last revert or the next revert. The undoing doesn't mean the immediately preceding action. Thus, for example, if you delete a sentence in an article, that would be a revert because some editor or editors added that sentence, and it wouldn't matter if others weren't currently warring with you over that sentence. said what amounts to the same thing above.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Bbb23. Although I have an opinion about this (which is closer to Lord Roem's view), my opinion doesn't really matter, and I don't need to be involved in the discussion which I think needs to be sorted out between admins. I don't mind which interpretation is used. They both have advantages and disadvantages. I would just like to make sure there is only one (or one-ish because things can get a bit complicated in practice). <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're on the same page. Probably imprecise wording on my part; was just saying this didn't look like either the typical 3RR violation or--on first glance--edit warring. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Dmrwikiprof reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Publications */ Restoring Articles subsection removed without WP:Consensus."
 * 2)  "/* SPECT scanning */ Removed incorrect material.  While those numbers were in the Chancellor article, the source cited by the Chancellor article makes no reference to those numbers."
 * 3)  "/* SPECT scanning */ This quote could be easily paraphrased into something much shorter.  It is also repeats the same statements that are already in the article.  This is undo repetition"
 * 4)  "/* SPECT scanning */ If the quotes that GeorgeLouis proposed we add are original research and not needed, then this quote is most certainly unnecessary."
 * 5)  "The references used in the article cited for this sentence do not contain the stated numbers."
 * 1)  "/* SPECT scanning */ If the quotes that GeorgeLouis proposed we add are original research and not needed, then this quote is most certainly unnecessary."
 * 2)  "The references used in the article cited for this sentence do not contain the stated numbers."


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


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


 * Comments:
 * there are actually 4 participants involved in this edit war, with MrBill3 being one of the main people, Dmrwikiprof is also a main participant, but GeorgeLouis and Alexbrn are also involved. Only MrBill3 is talking on the article talk page.  So perhaps all others should be asked to discuss it there. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to the characterization of my editing of the article as edit warring. I have added sourced material to the article in response to a concern that a generalization in WP's voice was not accurately reflected in the sources. Of all my edits two undid other editors work, both were to restore previously existing content. One restored a reference and the other restored the generalization (summary paraphrase) after adding support and discussion on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? The first edit was made at 4:30 a.m. 1 July and the third edit was made at 6:31 a.m. 2 July. Isn't that more than 24 hours? Anyway, DMR hasn't made any edits recently, so maybe a warning is sufficient. We all jump the mark sometimes. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that a warning will do for this and a discussion will be more fruitful than a block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A warning would be duly noted. I will be sure to consult the talk page before continuing with multiple reversions in the future.  Dmrwikiprof (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider this an adequate resolution. I look forward to Dmrwikiprof's continued participation on WP, with an urging to engage on talk pages and base contention on policy and sources. This may be closed as far as I am concerned. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * and glad to see the two parties working forward on this. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Declined)
Page:

User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  15:27, 1 July 2014‎ -- info removed from refs
 * 2)  11:36, 2 July 2014‎  -- info removed again
 * 3)  11:45, 2 July 2014‎ -- info removed yet again
 * 4)  11:51, 2 July 2014‎ -- info removed for 4th time in less than 24 hours

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

This arise out of a discussion on User talk:Nikkimaria where I unsuccessfully pleaded with the editor not to remove info from incomplete references. The discussion was removed as "trolling".

I set out to revert some of the damage done by this editor to other articles, by restoring the status quo ante, per WP:BRD. (The edits in between the diffs listed are those where I restored the info removed by Nikkimaria). Sadly, Nikkimaria has preferred to edit-war. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I found 4 articles from which info had been removed with inadequate explanation, and reverted those changes. The articles, with accompanying diff on Nikkimaria's removal and my revert are Gerald Garson (as linked above), 1815 North Carolina hurricane (Nikkimaria's removal, my revert), Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan (Nikkimaria's removal, my revert), Charles J. Hynes (Nikkimaria's removal, my revert). In the last three case, Nikkimaria did eventually provide an edit summary explanation for the removals, and in those 3 cases I accept the explanation. The problem is in the pattern of Nikkimaria's persistent removal of material from articles without due explanation, with terse and often misleading edit summaries ... and then edit-warring to assert the edits rather than explaining the changes either by discussion or edit summary. For example:
 * . I'm about to go off-wiki, but, in the meantime,, could you please elaborate on what you mean by "other articles"?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. After my futile attempt to persuade Nikkimaria to stop removing info from references, I looked at some of their recent contributions to see how widespread the problem was.
 * 1815 North Carolina hurricane -- removal of a see-also link with edit summary "mos, refs"
 * Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan -- removal of a see-also link with edit summary "mos, doc"
 * Charles J. Hynes -- removal of a whole cited para with edit summary "mos, refs, rm nn"
 * In each case, Nikkimaria's response to the reversion of the removal was to repeatedly reinstate their edit without any further explanation until their 4th edit (on the 2 hurricane articles), and their 3rd edit on Charles J. Hynes. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, Nikkimaria also breached 3RR on 1815 North Carolina hurricane and Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan. Having finally got an explanation for those removals, I am persuaded that those changes to the hurricane articles were appropriate, but in both cases Nikkimaria repeated the same edit 4 times in less than 24 hours. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * More correctly, no one has breached 3RR on any of those articles. You would breach it if you were to revert again, but as you say you've accepted that my edits were correct, hopefully that won't be a problem.
 * What is more concerning, though, is how this set of edit-wars arose. As you noted, you and I disagreed about the references on the article on James Balfour. You ultimately restored your preferred references and, though I disagreed, I left them alone. That should have been the end of the matter, but then you threatened to abuse your advanced permissions to revert good-faith improvements on the basis of the edit summary alone. I and another editor pointed out how utterly inappropriate that would be; having seen those responses, you nevertheless went ahead and reverted not "damage" but good-faith edits, most of which had nothing to do with the issue about which we disagreed.
 * So I won't be breaching 3RR here even if you do, as I'm not interested in your efforts to use adminship and administrative processes as a weapon. I hope you reconsider your approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

In the other cases, I found that relevant see-also links were being removed without any reason being given. In each case, I took the time to explain why I was reverting its removal. Removing material from articles is much easier than adding it, but if it is removed with an edit summary which clearly explains what was removed and why, it may be found if another editor looks at the revision history. I had not encountered Nikkimaria's drive-by removals of content until I saw the edit to an article I had created, but it is clear that this is a well-established pattern of editing by Nikkimaria. It has been challenged by other editors with no success, and I have been surprised by the number of thanks I have received for challenging it. This is not the appropriate venue to continue to this discussion ... but if Nikkimaria to continues to undermine content creation by systematically removing material from articles using cryptic 8-letter edit summaries rather than a good and clearly stated reason, then sooner or later it will end up at some dispute resolution channel. Over and out for now. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC) It took a ridiculous amount of drama to prod Nikkimaria into a change of approach, but thankfully we seem to have gotten at least part way there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * . I don't see how blocking Nikkimaria for breaching WP:3RR on the Garson page is going to solve anything (yes, Nikki, you in fact breached 3RR), particularly because BHG is edit warring even though she carefully stops before the 4th revert. I'm certainly not going to block Nikki for improving an article just because she technically violated 3RR and BHG acknowledges that Nikki's edit was correct but she should have explained it better or BHG wouldn't have reverted. Did you put any thought into the revert, BHG? I also don't like Nikki calling BHG a troll; nor do I like BHG theatening to rollback Nikki's edits based on an edit summary alone. This is all an incredible waste of both of your skills as experienced editors, not to mention administrators, and certainly doesn't cast either of you in a favorable light. If you want to duke it out, then do it on a board like WP:AN, which is more equipped to evaluate complex issues than this board is. But my recommendation, fwiw, is to either stay away from each other or try to resolve things in the usual way, through dispute resolution. As BHG would say, over and out. And if this drags on much after my decline, I'll close it (just to give you advance warning), although another uninvolved administrator is welcome to say whatever they wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did pout thought into the reverts. In the case of Garson, I was restoring information in refs which would assist in completing those references. Sadly, since my reverts did not stand, that info remains absent from the article.  Why? Because Nikkmaria acts as a style-cop who enforces some pedantic interpretation of a referencing guideline, and is snidely dismissive of requests to either improve the refs or let the info stand. Sorry, Bbb23, but Nikkimaria's removal of referencing information from Gerald Garson does not improve that article.
 * I spoke too soon. Nikkimaria's latest edit does trim the Google Books links, but also uses the info in those links to improve the refs by adding page numbers. So it's constructive and helpful edit, even tho the edit summary is still terse and cryptic.
 * Yeah, slap both your wrists: the two of you are BETTER than this and SMARTER than this. the panda ₯’  00:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Unequivocal reported by User:Backendgaming (Result: Semi-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:
 * (semi) for one week by .--Bbb23 (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Lisa Bathgate reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615318963 by ClueBot NG (talk) No, it is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615318963 by ClueBot NG (talk) No, it is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615318963 by ClueBot NG (talk) No, it is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615318963 by ClueBot NG (talk) No, it is not vandalism"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615318963 by ClueBot NG (talk) No, it is not vandalism"


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


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


 * Comments:

User continues to edit-war over musical genres on A.K.A., and has done soft-editing on Unapologetic. Contunues to accuse others of edit-warring, while ignoring their own warnings. Attemped on the Unapologetic article to tell user about the consensus on the talk page, only to be told source over "opinion". User's username may also violate Wikipedia policies. User also warned twice on their disruptive and vandalism, only to remove all warnings and continue their editing.  livelikemusic  my talk page! 14:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Long-term genre warring on a number of articles. User has never posted to an article talk page, but tries to enforce her own genre preference by reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Thainguyencc reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "disputed image, not page(s) number"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This editor has made two edits since his previous block for these exact same edits []. Shows a history of edit warring please block extended period as last one month block apparently did nothing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is one of the previous discussions [] where the source was approved by the community also see the exact reasoning used in unblock request [] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What? This image has unknown source, no pages number or link, I can remove it after many months.--Thainguyencc (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Would you please show the consensus of the change? I'd be very interested in that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Robert O'Rourke reported by User:NeilN (Result: Indefinite block by Kww)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615495274 by Location (talk)"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 615579452 by Canada Jack (talk)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 615586894 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 615586894 by NeilN (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Discussion:, <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ., unless the July 3 edit is re-inserting the tag after it had been removed recently, it is not a revert, and there is no breach of WP:3RR. The reported user could still be sanctioned for edit warring, but I'd like this report to be clear before making that decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 So now we're saying there has to be five edits affecting the same material before the bright line is crossed? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Neil: It's three reverts, so under normal interpretation of 3RR, there hasn't yet been any 3RR violation, there would need to be a fourth revert to violate 3RR.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there has to be 4 reverts. The first edit doesn't count as a revert. I'm assuming the answer to my original question is that the POV tag was brand new.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there's been a shift recently to define a revert more strictly (may just be my impression, though). In the past, reporting any four edits in a 24-hour period was a no-brainer. I'll keep this in mind. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , just to be clear, four non-consecutive edits in 24 hours may be a breach of 3RR. Often, the first edit does undo something and therefore meets the definition of a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The POV tag was new. I agree with Bbb23 on this. I don't think the interpretation has really changed, but its enforcement may be somewhat more consistent these days.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Robert O'Rourke has asserted his intention to edit war here on NeilN's talk page: "I will revert any future removals as long as this dispute exists, obeying the three-revert rule at all times." If he won't withdraw this promise I think a block is appropriate.  This is playing games with the policy, as described in WP:GAME. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indefed, per the promise to edit war forever.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

User:Soffredo reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see comments below

Comments:

Normally I wouldn't report something as prima facie minor as this, but it's just the latest in a long pattern that the user has consistently failed to recognise. The edits in question were about adding the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to the List of sovereign states page. This was discussed back in January, and that discussion continued on for a few months, and no consensus was formed. Soffredo was part of this discussion. Their edit summary on the first of the revert difs above was "Can we not waste time discussing this? It has multiple citations, two oldish and one new", which shows the user has ignored the archived discussion they participated in, where the same sources were already discussed and found lacking by the other editors. Soffredo has a long history of edit warring, but it's probably fair focus on just the recent occurrences, given they were blocked by User:Spike Wilbury for their instances before that at the end of May (specifically for edits on Elizabeth II). However, after the block expired, Soffredo went ahead and made the same edit on Elizabeth II that had them blocked the first time, which Spike gave another warning/note/advice. Since then, they have edit warred on Lugansk People's Republic and List of states with limited recognition, the latter of which they were warned about by User:Danlaycock.

The issue is again being discussed on the article talkpage, and who knows, maybe consensus will change. However, if it does it won't be because of the same sources that were discussed before. The issue here isn't the latest two reverts in isolation. It's that Soffredo seems unable to understand, even after a block and subsequent warnings, that something that has already been discussed without a consensus to add forming is not something one should be trying to edit war into the article again. CMD (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Chipmunkdavis has well described the ongoing problems with Soffredo's civil POV pushing and WP:edit warring against consensus. A similar pattern is currently ongoing on International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia where the editor is adding content based on a misinterpreting of the sources, and continues to add it (with no explanation or edit summary) in spite of objects.  The user seems to think that if they don't agree with the consensus then the solution is to wait a few days and then try to edit warring the changes into articles again.  Or to make the issue a WP:Fait accompli by making the changes in many articles in spite of objections, and then citing those changed articles as justification on the articles where the changes have been reverted.
 * Quite honestly, I think we are at the point were a WP:RFC/U and topic bans/revert limits are necessary. TDL (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've left a message for User:Soffredo, asking for him to promise to behave differently in the future. Since the past blocks (including the one in late May) have failed to get his attention, the next one should be longer. EdJohnston (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure any type of long block is necessarily warranted. However, I've been involved with Soffredo before, in the equivalent of edit wars, and I find him nearly impossible to deal with. He just doesn't look at the talk page, no matter how many times one asks him to do so. He continues to insert changes against consensus until multiple editors finally manage to stop him for a while. Then he comes back, does the same thing, and continues to ignore discussion on the talk page about whatever it is that the war is about. He needs to be told to interact on the talk page, so that we can actually resolve whatever disputes that arise. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)