Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive263

User:TheSawTooth reported by User:Widefox (Result: No action)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 1 edit by Widefox (talk): Reverts harassment tag. Disputes notability, disputes conflict of interest, disputes harassment. Let debate conclude. (TW)"
 * 2)  "Reverts tag bomb"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Disruptive editing on Jason Minter. (TW)"
 * 2)   "Warning: Edit warring on Jason Minter. (TW)"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "delete - non-notable" (AfD not talk since listed there by another editor)
 * 2)   "comment - massive undisclosed paid editor problem linked to Fiverr"
 * 3)   "claims not backed by sources (and disruption addressed at the talk page)"


 * Comments:


 * Also previous edit warring - 3RR limit reached (with different editors not me) at Electronic Recycling Association resulting in current lock
 * 1)  "Disputes no connection. Do not revert everything just discuss case by case and let me make corrections. Also disputes disruption of my attempt to fresh improve."
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by Nikthestunned: Disputes removing good faith revision. Discuss on talk and request what you disagree I will correct it. You have also revised my other improvements that you do not dispute. (TW)"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 632422746 by Nikthestunned (talk) Disputes Three revert rule. It is my third revert as my first edits were new work. I will not revert so just discuss revisions on talkpg!"
 * 4) Locked

Warned:
 * 1)  "Warning: Edit warring on Electronic Recycling Association. (TW)"

I'm reporting here to prevent this article being locked like Electronic Recycling Association. A massive sockfarm undisclosed paid editor issue at WP:COIN is linked (but denied), (there's more info at ANI and 2x SPIs linked there). Widefox ; talk 11:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * Comment I have done only 2 revert on this topic today. Widefox is harassing me by adding harassment tag everywhere. I even corrected my one edit on his request so I am not in editwar. This report is made as counter report because I have reported widefox for harassing me with evidence. I move that this user should be blocked. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note I was not involved in editing Electronic Recycling Association, and have not seen ANI yet. Widefox ; talk 11:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He is involved because he has added my name to tag in talkpage of ERA and he has added my name to his list on conflict of interest noticeboard without proof. I have replied everywhere to ask him for proof but he does not have proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you either provide a diff that I have edited Electronic Recycling Association or withdraw the claim that I was involved in edit warring that article until it was locked, thank you. Widefox ; talk 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your editwar was on talkpage of ERA  but I left you alone even then your intention was to harass and tag in this new topic. If I leave it alone this time you will do it on third topic as well. So I have reported you. ERA was locked but you have continued to stalk me. I move that admins look at ERA talk page and see my efforts that how much I am replying and building consensus. I am discussing every single source. Widefox is trying to block me so that I can not edit at all because he does not have proof. So now he is using this method. --TheSawTooth (talk) 12:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So we agree I have not edited Electronic Recycling Association and was not involved in the edit war there. Widefox ; talk 13:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You were at talkpage but I did compromise. Otherwise you were tagging it again. Now you are tagging at Jason Minter and I did compromise again. I have answered your concern on talkpage and made one correction as well. --TheSawTooth (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Widefox is on 3RR. I have revised to status quo but I shall not revise again because I have read 3RR. I have warned widefox for 3RR . I will not revise if he revises more but he is creating havoc. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . SawTooth has not come close to breaching 3RR on the Minter article. The dispute is over templates. SawTooth's edit warring at the ERA article was more troubling given the promotional, undue content they were adding to the article, but that battle is stale. At this point, it seems to me that the allegations are better raised at other boards rather than this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: For future reference this dispute was also discussed at at ANI (permanent link). It is also claimed that there has been socking at Electronic Recycling Association but that evidence is hard to summarize briefly. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:213.7.112.229 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Withdrawn)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 634397115 by Dawn Bard (talk) I'm trying to make the article less biased against Blanc. I also removed redundant descriptions of the material Blanc posted and instead added an img"
 * 2)  "/* Work with Real Social Dynamics */"
 * 3)  "/* Work with Real Social Dynamics */ uncited, unrelated and biased content"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 634372105 by Philip Cross (talk) Again, see WP:NOTNP. This is way too much detail."
 * 5)  "Undid revision 634372186 by Philip Cross (talk) well then find better sources, the tweet made by police does not claim his visa was revoked"
 * 6)  "Please stop undoing every single one of my edits. I am trying to make the article more neutral. The prices are redundant. Undid revision 634367806 by Philip Cross (talk)"
 * 1)  "Undid revision 634372186 by Philip Cross (talk) well then find better sources, the tweet made by police does not claim his visa was revoked"
 * 2)  "Please stop undoing every single one of my edits. I am trying to make the article more neutral. The prices are redundant. Undid revision 634367806 by Philip Cross (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Sorry for too many reverts, I wasn't aware of the 3-revert rule I have to admit. Another user kept reverting to a heavily biased page. There was also spam at some point by a real social dynamics "fan" stating his own experience with the company. I accept if this means I have to blocked however — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.112.229 (talk)


 * Thanks, this seems reasonable, and now that I look at the page history, you weren't the only one with more than 3 reverts. Given that Blanc is currently a highly visible, controversial, public figure it's best to hash out major edits on the talk page, but you weren't the only one at fault, and a lot of your edits weren't reverts at all.
 * Note to admins: I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination, the IP seems to get it, and did make some helpful, non-revert edits. I do think the page should be protected, and someone has already requested that at RPP. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skrippner reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked and semi-protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Fixing reference error raised by ReferenceBot"
 * 2)  "/* Biography */"
 * 3)  "/* Reception */"
 * 4)  "/* Biography */  The previous material was unauthorized and was done by someone with the alias "Goblin Fcae" also known as "Dan Skeptic". He is making false accusations about parapsychologists! Thanks you, Stanley Krippner"
 * 5)  "/* Reception */ This material was unauthorized and was placed on the page by a person with the alias "Goblin Face""
 * 6)  "/* Biography */ added pertinent material and deleted inaccurate material"
 * 7)  "/* Reception */ removed inaccurate material and added pertinent and correct info. SK"
 * 1)  "/* Reception */ removed inaccurate material and added pertinent and correct info. SK"

"(/* November 2014: Edit Warring)"
 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* Removal restored, content based only on primary sources removed */ new section"

Discussion on BLPN here, WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Discussion on talk page of article regarding similar behavior by a series of IPs here, Talk:Stanley Krippner. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * . I've blocked Skrippner for one week for violating 3RR and for making personal attacks. I've also semi-protected the article for two weeks because of similar edits by IPs.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Juno (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (warning was subsequently reverted)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

For reasons that I will not presume to know, NorthBySouthBaranof made 7 reverts on an article in 2 hours. This was after he or she was warned on his or her talk page, invited to discuss the matter on the article talk page, and after he of she nominated the article for deletion. I have every reason to believe that he or she will continue this pattern of behavior on this article, which is likely to attract continued editing. Juno (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all of those edits are reverts by any stretch of the imagination. The article is being brigaded by IPs and SPAs who wish to depict a fringe version of reality as fact, expressing a clearly-pejorative opinionated term in language that makes it a factual conclusion. I believe I hit four reverts accidentally, and was about to self-revert when I was reverted. I have not since reverted, but I have inserted reliably-sourced language which accurately describes the term as pejorative and applied by ideological opponents. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll check again but I am pretty sure that all 7 of those edits are full or partial reverts. You continued to revert after being warned on your talk page and after being warned on the article talk page. Juno (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And you and a brigade of IPs continued to insert unreliably sourced claims (based on Know Your Meme, a user-generated wiki which is categorically unusable as a Wikipedia source), totally-unsourced categories ("Cyberbullying") and the factual, in-Wikipedia's-voice claim that A Social Justice Warrior is an online activist, typified by a young liberal American woman who "uses social justice issues like sexism, homophobia, etc. to push a political agenda" rather than making it clear that the term is a pejorative opinion held by detractors of feminists and others. I assume you think it's OK to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance your agenda that "social justice warriors" are bad people and should feel bad, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Specifically, this edit is not a revert, it is a rewrite of the lede that removed unreliable sources and completely-unsourced claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the incident at all, but let me remind you of WP:3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Removing unreliable sources is usually a good thing, but it certainly "reverses the action" of the user who added them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't make accusations about me and what I believe, I've rendered you the same respect.
 * First, the edit that you cited above as not a revert was virtually the same as this revert, made by you 5 minutes earlier, which in turn bears the same effect at this revert made by you 10 minutes earlier, which in turn is literally the same edit as this revert made by you 59 minutes earlier, which is exactly the same as this one, 26 minutes earlier. That edit was a revert in a long-string of reverts and if you're accused of making 7 reverts in 2 hours and your only defense is that you think that you only actually made 6 reverts in 2 hours you might want to reassess.
 * Second, if you though that there was a problem with the text, you're supposed to discuss that on the talk page, not edit war, and you know that. Juno (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, given that that page likely falls under the general Gamergate sanctions, requesting temporary protection from IPs would have been an easy step. --M ASEM (t) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:The kyle 3 reported by User:Shrike (Result: )

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "edited the page regarding the use of "terrorists" as a term-- "perpetrators" or "attackers" works better if you're concerned about neutrality-- as well as the alleged PFLP connection"
 * 2)  "/* Attack */ removed the reference to what the perpetrators allegedly screamed as they carried out the attack. It's irrelevant unless they screamed out their specific reasons for carrying out the attack."
 * 3)  "/* Perpetrators */ replaced "terrorist" with militant because there are many forms of armed Palestinian actions as we all know"
 * 4)  "/* Attack */ removed the part about the perps shouting "Allahu Akbar" because it doesn't contribute to the article."
 * 1)  "/* Attack */ removed the part about the perps shouting "Allahu Akbar" because it doesn't contribute to the article."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:


 * The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and is under WP:1RR I have proposed to the user to self revert.
 * The user removed two times reference to screaming by the killers--Shrike (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I formally alerted the user of the arbitration decision. They did violate WP:1RR. Technically, they can be blocked for such a violation even without the alert as the alert is required only for imposing discretionary sanctions. However, I generally don't block without the alert. A quick glance at the user's contributions since creating the account this month demonstrates to me someone who is biased, sarcastic, and unduly aggressive - with a clear agenda. In my view, if not now, sooner or later if they continue in the same vein, they should be topic-banned at a minimum.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Not blocked)
Page:

'''User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  after block - same general changes
 * 2)  before block
 * 3)  before block
 * 4)   See last report here
 * 5)  change to talk page which recharacterized the block and separated the part about the block from the related discussion by removing = and =

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as shown in this report and here by another editor before the block

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: their detailed rational for changes already rejected. I reverted and then explained because we already discussed these changes and rejected them here

Comments:This is a 1RR article under active community sanctions. While there may not technically be a 1RR violation, the size and scope of the edit in the lead of a high traffic article against consensus appears to be edit warring, again.

Other editors involved in discussion and restoring the article 2 days ago:

(I was shocked the other day. I didn't think the original edit counted - I guess it does.) I don't see the harm in proposing an improvement to the lead. This editor seems to think that nothing should be changed in the article because it's been discussed. I regularly edit Featured Articles, occasionally quite drastically, and no one's objected yet. Yes, I corrected the title he'd added to the talk page saying "blocked for disruptive editing" - because the block notice on my talk page clearly states "1RR violation". zzz (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposing and discussing is fine - deleting information now for the 3rd tine after 4 other editors tell you not to and you were blocked for edit warring not ok. Perhaps editing in another part of the project would be more appropriate ? Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Heres the talk page discussion, where he makes spurious objections to every single thing I said (calling it all "ridiculous" etc). And then immediately waters down his disapproval when another editor points out that my edit is a net benefit. This article needs any help it can get - it's linked to from the Main Page. zzz (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think I'm done with the article. I 'm glad to have proposed an improvement to the lead (and glad someone noticed despite this editor's best efforts). Other than that, it's probably doing fine without me - several editors seem to concentrate all their efforts on it. zzz (talk) 09:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No I said right off the bat that there may be some value to some of the edits and have been engaging in productive discussion about the potentially useful stuff. Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha! You described every single point I made as lacking "basic understanding", "nonsense", "more nonsense", "ridiculous", etc. And then, finally, "There may be some merit to parts of these changes, but on balance they are not good". How kind. You left yourself a lifeline. You seriously need to think about your priorities. zzz (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI - User:Wifione. Back pushing for same changes. Legacypac (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC) and now Signedzzz has changed the article again in the same place substantially against consensus, so it appears he was not serious about standing by his statement here  Wifione  Message .Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * for now. Signedzzz, if you seriously stand by your statement "Honestly, I think I'm done with the article.", I shan't waste any further time on this report in good faith. But if you wish to edit the article further, do mention, and I'll consider investing more time in reviewing this report. Do tell me what you wish.  Wifione  Message 16:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Wifione This editor said he was no longer interested in editing this article. He has made this edit today ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye (Result: Warned Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (See first sentence of Lead)

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 18 nov 1.25 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)  → 1RR broken
 * 2) 17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)
 * 3) 14 nov 13.46 (sentence about Khawarij added to end of Lead, against consensus)  →  1RR broken
 * 4) 13 Nov 22.53 (whole para added to end of Lead, against consensus)
 * 5) 4 Nov 1.17 (last Lead para wording changed against consensus)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, , , additional indirect notification, pinged

Comments:

ISIL is 1RR and here goes:

I personally sympathise greatly with the editor's position as the actual content of the edits concerned are definitely those that I think would be beneficial to make. Never-the-less, their form constitutes vandalism and deception al-be-it to a typically limited extent and it violates a consensus which may have been achieved at a time when misrepresentations were present on the talk page but it was "consensus" none-the-less. It is also possible that to an extent, Mohammed, may have some difficulty with English. He (presumably he) does not tend to respond to questions on the article talk page and I am not aware that he has ever responded on to initiation on a User talk page. This all smacks of rudeness. It would be hoped that Mohammed can become more of a team player and he should be aware that his lack of response does not contribute to a collegiate atmosphere (which is otherwise notably lacking in many aspects the ISIL related discussion). I hope that some kind of action can be taken but in a way that if Mohammed chooses to remain/return that encouragement is given to be more of a team player and, ironically considering the topic, less of an outsider. I hope that the form of this report is acceptable. Gregkaye ✍ ♪  12:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Let's hope the user learns. Wifione  Message 16:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Apparently, he didn't.  Wifione  Message 01:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dalandau reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: Page protected)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Not exactly sure what this means, but baseline version of article before recent nonsense is 00:25, 21 July 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:29, 18 November 2014

01:57, 18 November 2014

02:09, 18 November 2014

03:09, 18 November 2014

(Plenty more where those came from)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:27, 17 November 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 03:51, 18 November 2014

Comments:

User does not meaningfully respond when serious problems are pointed out with his edits, but merely cuts-and-pastes in the same source material which many others have found irrelevant, and full steam ahead on the edit warring... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 02:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Aleksig6 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Already blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* External links */ Added external link."
 * 2)  "/* External links */ added a link to a stand-alone site instead of a blog."
 * 3)  "Undid revision 634624966 by NeilN (talk) THIS IS NOT A BLOG. STOP REMOVING MY LINKS !!!"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 634626075 by NeilN (talk)"
 * 5)  "Undid revision 634626373 by Discospinster (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

Note links are to same blog on different sites. Neil N  talk to me 01:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, already blocked by . --Neil N  talk to me 01:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Wifione  Message 02:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sageleaf reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Preferred Version

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) Revision as of 23:17, 17 November 2014
 * 2) Revision as of 22:22, 19 November 2014
 * 3) Revision as of 23:01, 19 November 2014
 * 4) Revision as of 23:50, 19 November 2014
 * 5) Latest revision as of 00:20, 20 November 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In my Edit Summary and on their Talk Page

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

Comments:

Despite being fully aware of how the term is used to describe ethnic Somalis even in his own source (acknowledges it here), he has still chosen to Edit War and violate 3RR. Shockingly, he is also aware of the consequence for doing so (informed here and here). He has also refused to go to the Talk Page to discuss the dispute. AcidSnow (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 *  Wifione  Message 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. AcidSnow (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow reported by User:Sageleaf (Result: Reporting editor blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murcanyo&diff=634610826&oldid=634293797]

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:

User AcidSnow has engaged in disruptive editing at the article on Murcanyo. The original post written, indeed the creation of the article by myself, was edited without any proper reasoning. Moreover, after having explained four times(!!!) why the change was wrong. The user has also edited another article, Bayla, without providing any reason. The user appears to show a blatant disdain for providing proper reasoning when editing.


 * There are five things wrong here. One, I have made three reverts (see the Revisoon History here) so I have yet to violate 3RR. Two, even then I was never informed of this report which is a violation. Four, even then I have yet to engage in "disruptive editing" on those articles or anywhere else on Wikipedia which you have accused me of doing. Even then, I did provided a valid reason which is clearly seen on the Talk Page (which you have opted not to go to) and in my Edit Summary (see here). Five. I also proved a reason to editing Bayla as well, once again see the edit summary here. If anyone is engaging in disruptive editing it's you with your baseless accusation. In fact, here are some other examples: Original Research (for Hobyo see here: and  for Alula see the whole Revision History here) and edit warring (see here for Alula:  and see here for Muycano: and ). Your report is a clear example of WP:BOOMERANG. AcidSnow (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * He just informed 11 miniutes after reporting me. He is also continued his edit war on Hobyo. AcidSnow (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Wifione  Message 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again Wifione. AcidSnow (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri reported by User:RoyalGurjar (Result: Malformed)
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: User continues edit war even after recent release of block. RoyalGurjar (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * : Malicious report - reporting editor is likely a sockpuppet of User:Gurjeshwar, currently under a block for edit warring.  kashmiri TALK  14:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: Malformed report. Anyway, see Sockpuppet investigations/Gurjeshwar which is a sock complaint about the submitter User:RoyalGurjar. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

 This is unfortunate that I as a individual user has been mentioned as sock puppet user of Mr. gurjeshwar or else. I strictly oppose it. Mr. Kashmiri is also may not be right every time. If he has adament with some user then he hs not any right to blame other innocent users only because to oppose his nature of work. I hope a honest effort be made to exclude me from this edit war. I shall write on wiki article with proper references and a healthy discussion be always welcomed if it is challenged. thanks RoyalGurjar (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * RoyalGurjar, please read up the following pages before you edit articles related to the Gurjar community. WP:COI, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and most importantly, why we can impose sanctions on you for the edits you might attempt to make on the said article. So please tread carefully.  Wifione  Message 02:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Padresfan94 (Result: Stale)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Abortion articles are under community sanctions and cannot be reverted more than 1 time in a day. Roscelese made 3 reverts on the Care Net page in 1 afternoon. Roscelese has been warned and blocked about this many times. Padresfan94 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm busy trying to improve the article by discussing the issue on the talk page with the user I was initially in disagreement with, and the second edit here is the result of our discussion and compromise. Padresfan is a SPA stalking me (check out that lack of participation in the discussion) and I expect this report to be the WP:BOOMERANG this user deserves. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So you don't deny that you made 3 reverts on an article under community sanctions? Padresfan94 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A couple of thoughts: first of all, while this article arguably falls under the abortion general sanctions, the article did not bear a talk-page notice nor an edit notice notifying editors of those restrictions (I've since added them). I'm loathe to block someone without warning on a page which displayed no visible indication that it was subject to 1RR, and would be inclined to instead warn Roscelese and insist she adhere to the 1RR on the article now that notice has been given. Separately, we generally make allowances for reverting sockpuppets of blocked or banned editors and other inappropriate alternate accounts. is an obvious sockpuppet, and a combative agenda-driven single-purpose account on top of that (e.g. ). As such, I'm inclined to block the account indefinitely, but first would like additional administrator input. MastCell Talk 22:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This does not seem appropriate. If Padersfan94 is a SPA or suspected sock puppet (and looking over his/her edits, I'm not actually convinced that's the case) but if that is actually the concern, then the issue should be brought to the appropriate board. It doesn't justify edit warring or violating community sanction.  Also, I recall Roscelese was very recently brought to this board by another user: Juno     regarding violation of the 1RR on abortion related articles, for an article I was editing, and I purposely did not comment because although there was a 1RR violation, the issue was resolved and I don't believe blocks should be punitive.  It was closed with reminders of the 1RR restriction on abortion related articles to all participants.  A violation of 1RR shortly after reminder seems to warrant some type of action--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the 3 reverts that Roscelese fired off that afternoon, only 1 on them was directed at material that I wrote. Even of you want to entertain that "I had to break 1RR because this guy who already passed a chekuser is totally a sockpuppet" nonsense, that still wouldn't explain the other 2 reverts. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You "already passed a checkuser", Padresfan94? What do you mean? Please name the checkuser who checked you. Bishonen &#124; talk 23:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Roscelese already filed a sockpuppet investigation against me when I was editing as an ip. Give me a moment to go find it. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This I can now see that it was actually Contaldo80 that filed the report. As he and Rosclese edit the same articles at the same time from the same POV you will understand if I occasionally get them confused. Padresfan94 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The comment that you linked to was a direct response to this, and no, I'm not a sock.
 * Per the idea the Roscelese didn't know because the talk page didn't bear a notice: the talk page has a header for Wikipeoject:Abortion, the word Abortion is mentioned twice in the 3 sentence lead and the contested material involved abortion. Do you honestly not think that she knew the article pertained to abortion? Padresfan94 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming you were one of the two IPs named in the report, there was no CU done, so your contention that you have been checked by a CU is not true. --Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry then, I though that that had happened. In any case, I'm still not a sockpuppet and Roscelese still violated 1RR twice in one afternoon after being warned repeatedly against doing so. Padresfan94 (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've dug some more and have struck my comment. I can't disclose the details, but, again, assuming you were one of the IPs in the report, it is highly unlikely there was a technical connection between the IPs and User:Esoglou. As a consequence, Esoglou, who had been blocked for a week, was unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't really buy the "wasn't notified about 1RR" argument. However, I am very much swayed by the "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument.  I don't know this subject area well, so I don't know the particulars of the various sock masters, and I don't have any time to do research to get some kind of indisputable proof, so I won't stick my neck out to far and block them now.  But I recommend that whatever admin decides to close this consider reminding/warning Roscelese about this, rather than blocking. Anyone mind if I issue Padresfan94 and the other editor (can't recall the name, they have all of like 5 edits) a warning, along the lines of "do not revert Roscelese again", under the General Sanctions? --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I object to this. If there is evidence to bring a sockpuppet investigation against anyone (and I've yet to see anything to convince me there is, but I haven't followed it closely enough to say for sure) then that investigation should be brought to the proper board. Absent that, giving anyone a warning to "not revert Roscelese again" seems inappropriate considering this user appears to have a history of edit warring on the topic area of abortion. I see no reason that Roscelese should be given free reign to revert (especially in violation of community sanctions) while others are warned they cannot revert her.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not a sockpuppet. But even if you didn't like that the " "God, dealing with socks who each revert you once with no consequences can get fucking old after a while" argument" would only explain 1 of the 2 differednt 1RR violations that Roscelese made on the same page in 4 hours. After being warned repeatedly and having had been previously blocked for the same issue. Padresfan94 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This is like the hundredth complaint about Roscelese related to edit wars on pages connected to women's rights. Many of those complaints involved retaliatory allegations by Roscelese or those who share her POV, that the other editor was "stalking" her, "harassing" her, "hounding" her, etc.  She's also had several warnings about abusive use of accusation templates.  I know because I'm currently a victim of related conduct -- I made a request for page protection and dispute resolution to stop an edit war, and the response was a torrent of personal attacks and then a ban request by people with whom she tag-team edits.  She has a remarkable ability to respond to complaints about her behavior by making distracting allegations against her accuser -- here, that s/he's a sockpuppet.  She's been involved in at least 4 different edit wars with multiple people over women's rights articles in just the last week.  As I understand it (I am not a master of the admin tools), there have been several blocks, and quite a few block violations in the past.  I respectfully request that a warning be given as to the entire subject matter of gender issues, and as to abusive use of personal allegations against other editors.  Since this has come up so often, I also respectfully request that it be the final warning before a subject-matter ban is contemplated. Djcheburashka (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone mentioned me here so I'll chime in: Roscelese is a valuable editor but this a problem area for her and she stepped over the line, again. There can be no claims of ignorance: if you look at her talk page 3 different editors (myself included) warned her for violating or nearly violating 1RR on 3 different abortion pages since mid-October alone. This is her second time here for violating abortion 1RR in a month, and her block log shows that this has been a long-running problem. She was left off with a stern warning earlier this month, it didn't do any good.
 * She clearly violated 1RR, twice on the same page in one day. (something she admits to) She clearly knew it was wrong. She is not sorry. This is far from the first time. Juno (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Since this has somehow not been closed yet, I'll point out, again, that the second "revert" here is an edit that the user I was in disagreement with asked me to make and endorsed on the talk page after I'd made it - is anyone really suggesting that it's a good idea to let 3RR be gamed in this way? "Ha ha, you made the edit I suggested you make, now you're an edit warrior!" - and that the third is an obvious sockpuppet and single-purpose account who exists to follow me around and edit war. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What about the other two RR's on a 1RR limit that she's violated on similar pages three times already in the past? What about the other simultaneous edit wars? And what about the groundless accusation that her accuser is a sockpuppet who's been "stalking" and "harassing" her?  If someone with a view opposed to hers had made this number of reversions, Roscelese would be shrieking for his head --- she's done so consistently on far, far weaker grounds.  With the number of violations here, over this long a period of time, not taking action would send the message that a different set of rules apply to her than to everyone else.  Djcheburashka (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So does this editor just get to break 1RR at will? Padresfan94 (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems we just need an admin to wield the mop. Perhaps poke admins who put the 1RR in place?  I don't know which side of the abortion debate which editors are (I've followed no links) but I think we should follow policy.  No one seems to be disputing that a bright line was crossed.  It's been reported in the proper place.  We shouldn't lie to our users.  If it's a bright line, it must be treated as such.  (I'm posting this even though I have the feeling I'm supporting action against someone I'd agree with.) Wait, We generally make allowances for reverting puppets... so it would be helpful if an admin indicated which of the edits they think were reverts of sockpuppets. --Elvey(t•c) 03:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate because sanctions are intended to be preventative, not punitive, and that Roscelese has taken advantage of her unblocked status to continue her months-long edit war on another article, Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism‎‎. While this article is not under the same Abortion-related sanctions, and WP:3RR is not broken, she has nonetheless exhibited extremely disruptive and tendentious behavior here and elsewhere, which would be handily remedied by making another notch in her ever-lengthening belt of edit-war-related blocks. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Stale. No-one is ever going to be blocked for something that happened a week ago, especially given the non-obvious violation that apparently occurred.  I have prevented anything further occurring on the second article by fully protecting it for 3 days.  Those involved - use the talkpage.  You know the drill. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Common sense should apply here. The edit warring policy that governs 1RR makes clear, not every revert or controversial edit is regarded as edit warring. If there is no edit war then 1RR doesn't apply. What I notice here is it seems very important here to bludgeon Roscelese with the policy, but KatieHepPal first violated 1RR. No one felt the need to inform them of the 1RR policy on carenet. The need here is to punish Roscelese. This is what is being asked. These rules were not made to punish. They were made to stop disruption.If we are to stop disruption shouldn't we instead block Padresfan94 for gaming the system? Padresfan94 has every opportunity to drop the stick yet they continue here. Since their revert  they haven't taken further part in carenet. They haven't went to the take page to take part in the discussion about this change. They haven't made any further edits to the article. Since Padresfan94 has this months long content dispute with Roscelese at Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism I wonder if that's the reason they are trying to manipulate the edit warring noticeboard.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding KatieHepPal, she's a new user who it could be argued was unaware of the sanctions before MastCell added the community sanctions warning to the article talk page. Anyway, the suggestion that Padersfan94 should be blocked for reporting a clear violation of 1RR is disturbing. To me, this seems to send the message that the rules don't apply to Roscelese, and if you attempt to get the rules to apply to Roscelese, you will be punished/blocked. I've edited with Padersfan94 on a few articles, and have so far seen no evidence she's a sock, but if someone has evidence, it should be taken to the appropriate board, not used as an excuse to violate 1RR community sanctions. Honestly, I'd probably feel differently about all this if it were an isolated incident with Roscelese, but as Juno and I have pointed out above, there's been a repeat occurrence of Roscelese violating 1RR on abortion related articles. . --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * An astounding assumption of bad faith on the part of . If Padresfan is acting in bad faith, if Padresfan is a sock, then prove it, instead of making unsubstantiated allegations against her good name. If Roscelese can be prevented from disruption by a block, then it should be considered on the merits of her pattern of behavior, and I see a lot of foot-dragging and excuse-making here over the week since this report was filed, not a good basis for declaring it "stale". It is OVERDUE because further disruption has already occurred. It is OVERDUE because we will be back here before too long in another report, because Roscelese has exhibited a remarkable lack of remorse for this disruptive behavior and it is becoming clear that the slaps-on-wrist, and even the lack thereof, are not getting through. Elizium23 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * AGF is not a suicide pact. It's not an astounding assumption of badfaith but a reasonable assumption of bad faith. A week ago Padresfan94 made this edit. This was the first and final edit by them. They didn't take the concern they had to the talk page. They didn't later revert the article to get rid of the change that had seemingly concerned them. There no suggestion that Padresfan 94 should be blocked for reporting a 1RR, they should be blocked for manufacturing a 1RR. And BoboMeowCat you are right KatieHepPal is a new user and was likely unaware of the sanctions. However that doesn't mean that she shouldn't receive a friendly and helpful notice about these sanctions so she is made aware. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Glancing at KatieHepPal's talk page shows she was made aware of the sanctions a few hours after her second revert on care net page, the same day this edit warring report against Roscelese was filed |diff. Regarding Padersfan, I wouldn't call it a "manufacturing of a 1RR" when a 1RR violation actually occurred (two of 'em actually)--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Guys, Black Kite has already taken an administrative action and closed this report as stale. If there is any further disruption, file a new report. Please discuss on relevant talk pages from hereon. I'm closing this report. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 02:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Proposed deletion of Free Donbass */ new section"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


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


 * Comments:

This is a violation of a topic ban that this editor received. He has already broken the terms of the topic ban once, and was explicitly warned not to engage on talk pages. Now he is asking an editor to proxy for him. Please take action, and allow the topic ban to be enforced. RGloucester — ☎ 00:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh so interesting, I'm from Setúbal, close to Lisbon in Portugal... do you need my phone number, so that I me abused the police fore being against?... who? I wonder! And also a fellow that I've met meanwhile, who may be supporter of Pablo Iglesias... So, imagine that supporting Pablo Iglesias, Alexis Tsipras, Beppe Grillo, Nigel Farage so on it's a crime in Wikipedia! OK, come on, of what are you accusing me and the editor from Spain? If it's a matter of concern today I updated all the maps of the ASEAN countries, in accordance with an Indonesian fellow I've... OK, ban me if you wish, then talk with, I don't care. He won't beat you! Hahaha! Mondolkiri1 — talk 00:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I may have exploded a bit here, but this was so funny!Mondolkiri1 — talk 00:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Mondolkiri1, I respect you as an editor, but it seems like you've recently fallen slightly into the absurd. To be honest, I have no idea what you are saying here. The fellow was topic banned under WP:ARBEE, and it was made explicitly clear that talk pages were included in that topic ban. Therefore, the topic ban must be enforced. I didn't do anything to him, other than note his bad behaviour. Even if he wasn't topic-banned, he engaged in a clear bit of canvasing and bad faith, which is frowned-upon anyway. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * RGloucester, why don't you directly contact for a faster resolution of this issue? I've pinged him. If he doesn't respond, write directly to me and I'll resolve this. Overall, this is not an edit warring issue. But like I said, directly contact me if Ed doesn't reply. Thanks.   Wifione  Message 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, HCPUNXKID has posted spurious, paranoid accusations on my talk page for deigning to PROD the article in question which I've nominated per WP:FAILN. It's bad enough that he's trying to enlist proxies, but using his account in order to attempt to bully anyone who doesn't see any merit in articles he's clearly marked as untouchable by merit of WP:OWN is unacceptable behaviour under any circumstances. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Iryna, I can block HCPUNXKID for disregarding the topic ban. Yet, I'll await EdJohnston's views on this. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 03:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I contacted EdJohnston before coming here, but he hasn't edited for a while. I posted this request in line with the principle of WP:NOTBURO. This is a clear violation of the topic ban, and there is no reason why it cannot be dealt with here and now. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston edited eight hours ago. So there is a high probability he would be around. The reason this cannot be dealt with here and now is because (a) EdJohnston placed the topic ban and there is good form in allowing him to first take action (b) there is no hurry and there is no fear of immediate disruption to the project. (c) A topic ban is given to avoid blocking an editor. Blocking an editor who is under a topic ban can be done, but only in case the editor repetitively refuses to realise the delimiters of his ban and poses a danger of disrupting the project as of right now. In effect, I am not going to take any action until Ed replies or is absent for a couple of days at least from the project. Do note that that does not stop any other administrator from taking any other action as they may deem fit in the meanwhile.  Wifione  Message 04:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor has been blocked, and all resolved. Thank you for your response. RGloucester  — ☎ 04:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * by EdJohnston.  Wifione  Message 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lagoonaville reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: No action, discussion in progress)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "tawassul is islamic term Undid revision 634704085 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
 * 2)  "Do not remove Undid revision 634703855 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
 * 3)  "Consnsus overrides Undid revision 634669645 by Lukeno94 (talk)"
 * 4)  "These are the terms associated with the practices. Undid revision 634664878 by MezzoMezzo (talk)"
 * 5)  "Its True. Undid revision 634664006 by MezzoMezzo (talk)"


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


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


 * Comments:

User also violating consensus on the page. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it to the talk page but nobody talking to me.Lagoonaville (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And another revert. Now 5 reverts in 24 hours. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * will you please stop reverting immediately? Luke, can you continue discussing on the talk page? Lagoonaville has surprisingly opened up a discussion on the talk page. So I am not blocking the editor unless they revert again.  Wifione  Message 16:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ok let us discuss.Lagoonaville (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Bicycle user reported by User:Atshal (Result: Warned, for now Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Three different editors have posted on the user's page regarding the editing: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

(There were also earlier discussions, but these are the latest additions to the talk. The user has never responded, despite a reminder on his talk page.)

Comments:

The only edits this user has ever made is about this cycling related Matthew Parris article. This leads me to believe that this account is probably a sock puppet dedicated solely to reinserting this material - two other account or IPs have made similar changes to the Matthew Parris page over this time.

User:213.104.77.141 

User:Velo venturer 

I would also like to add that this is not some kind of personal issue between me and this user. Four other editors have reverted these changes and two other have left messages on the users talk. Atshal (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . Because nobody seemed to have warned the user about edit warring. While I've warned the new user, I'm not closing this report. Please add below if the user reverts you or any other editor again without discussing on the talk page. If that happens, I'll block the user. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 16:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't want the user blocked at all, just for this material not to be repeatedly reinserted. Cheers. Atshal (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Atshal. Everyone out here is a volunteer, including you. We really don't have time to ignore repetitive edit warring after we've left clear warning notes on the user's page. If we don't block the user, it would only result in the disruption continuing and more time being wasted of other volunteers. That's purely my experience. I've given the editor a clear warning. Please write back if the disruption continues.  Wifione  Message 02:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi again Wifione. Unfortunately the editor has made exactly the same edit again today, even after the warning and also a polite note from me asking them to contribute to the talk discussion. S/he has also deleted some material about some books that Parris has published . Atshal (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . The user also has started some kind of BLP attack. Do please write back or start another report if the user continues this behaviour once the block expires. Thanks for keeping a watch on the article.  Wifione  Message 16:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:173.67.166.147 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: Page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "/* Legislative intent */ Added Content About Gruber Remarks...Restoring History...that is being censoredGaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* other gruber quotes */ mastcell"


 * Comments:

Slow Edit warring from IP repeatedly readding in info without consensus and without discussion. See Special:Contributions/173.67.163.239 for same edits with same edit summary, and User_talk:173.67.163.239 for warnings & attempts at drawing the IP in from both myself and Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, you should have warned the IP about edit warring. I've left a warning note now. If the IP again reverts, I'll block the IP. But not right now. Other than that, let's see how it goes. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP was warned by MastCell in the previous IP (239) the day before yesterday. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . You're right. I missed that. Thanks for the pointer.  Wifione  Message 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Gpcv77 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) 19:00, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC)
 * 3) 23:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) 17:21, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:50, 17 November 2014‎ (UTC) by George Ho / 19:06, 18 November 2014‎ (UTC) by Favonian

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

Comments:


 * ., you don't indicate that you attempted to discuss the problem with the user. You also didn't notify the user of this report as you are required to do. The user has not breached WP:3RR, although their behavior, in my view, constitutes edit warring and is blockable. As far as I can tell, even with the limited number of edits by the user, they never talk. I'm not taking any action at this point because of the procedural problems, but if the user persists, I may do so. In the meantime, another administrator may take whatever action they deem appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The user has done it again; I warned him/her about gaming the system by manipulating loopholes of 3RR. Must you take action? --George Ho (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would the edit summary here not constitute a 3RR warning? Chronologically, it comes between the edits numbered 2 and 3 above. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The simple answer to your question is no. Edit summaries are not proxies for discussions or for warnings. That said, I don't believe I complained about lack of a 3RR warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * .--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 reported by User:Meunger11 (Result: Declined)
Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees10&action=submit User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft. As of week 12 of the 2014 Season, he was the #2 overall running back (behind #1 DeMarco Murray) in the league[2] with an average 4.9 YPC, up significantly from his 2013 YPC of 3.5[3]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%27Veon_Bell

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.
 * 2) 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.
 * 3) 11/20/2014: Le'Veon Bell (pronounced lay-vee-on;[1] born February 18, 1992) is an American football running back for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Michigan State University. Bell was drafted by the Steelers in the second round of the 2013 NFL Draft.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees10&action=submit

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

Comments:

–Meunger11 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * User:Yankees10 reverted twice, still not a good idea especially as the picture was wrongly captioned, here and here. Their third edit was this which is reverting vandalism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MEOGLOBAL reported by User:Gezginrocker (Result: Full protection)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (User keeps on deleting the notice from his talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:MEOGLOBAL has removed a large and well referenced section from the Media of Turkey article. I have warned him about not to edit war, and to leave comments at the talk section. However, he removed that section again. When I warned him again, he wrote "I will write this article from bonnet to heels" and he put an "under construction" template to the article. He appears to have a problem with the added section because of his political views. I gave him a 3RR warning, but he deletes it from his talk page as you can see at diff history above. Because he insists on edit warring and attemp to "re-write" the article, I request a ban for the user. I also require protection for the article, because he is constantly making changes on the article, most of them without any references. For example, this section he just added has no references, there are format errors and is written in poor English. Gezginrocker (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will talk very clear. He added 3RR warning on my userpage which shows that what is his relationship with Wikipedia. I deleted to Pool Media section because of significant information, but he thinks because of my political view. If my political view would support goverment, I would remove all article here. I don't understand that how one guy can talk about someone's political view here. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * At his second edit, he gave the reason as "He wants to put this section because of his political view." Yet, he accuses me of "talking about someone's political view." That's really absurd. Gezginrocker (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * you will get nothing by bring some specific sentences to here. I don't know what makes you think that people will support you by you taking people's specific sentence for support yourself. This is Wikipedia, not a simple forum web site. MEOGLOBAL (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Gezginrocker (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You won't say anything about problem of trustworthy source? Is that it? MEOGLOBAL (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Felino123 (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 19 nov 17:30  → 1RR broken (He reverted the correction and disrupted the article again)
 * 2) 19 nov 17:21 (I reverted the disruption)
 * 3) 19 nov 17:17 (Disruption)
 * 4) 19 nov 16:53 (Correct version before the user's disruptions)

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

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

Comments:

ISIL's article is 1RR.

This user was reported yesterday for violating the one-revert rule. He was warned. Today, he violates the 1RR again disrupting the article against the consensus and pushing his personal POV aggressively. This is clear vandalism. I have also put links to talk pages, in which other editors warn him about reverting rules. Talking to him and warning him for violations of the rules doesn't work, so I think further action should be taken.

PS This is my first report so if I have committed any mistake filling this report, then I am sorry.
 *  Wifione  Message 01:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Wifione , As the person who raised the last report,  User:Mohammed al-Bukhari reported by User:Gregkaye..., Please let me comment:


 * To be fair the edits that have been marked above as "disruptions" are arguably relatively reasonable. In several incarnations of the ISIL article Islamic criticism of the group self designated as "Islamic State.." has understandably been placed first in the sequence of presented criticisms.  Furthermore a move similar to the moves made by Mohamed has since been made in the main article by P123ct1 in an, I think, sensible as shown here.   The edits can even be argued to have been desirable
 * Not that it matters now, but my edit was very different, even if it used similar words. The positioning of the words was crucial, and in that sense my edit was very different.  ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Notification issues: Please note that the 18:00, 19 November 2014 time, of the attempt to resolve dispute, was after the 19 nov 16:53 time of the last notified "disruption". As a side point it can also be noted that, the "attempt to resolve" was placed disruptively in a content related discussion but without full explanation as to the content of the aledged disruption.  A link would also have sufficed.  I think, like me, other editor may have assumed that this was a repeat of the "Khawarij" issue but on a greater scale.  In my view, a more straightforward way for Felino123 to have notified Mohammed al-Bukhari of an infringement would have been to place comment on the thread: #Can we add this important information to the Lead? this is arguably of more relevance as a home turf thread started by Mohammed and this context could have easily been used by the simple provision of recognition that the topic at issue had changed.  PBS has also since commented that such notification is better made on User talk pages.


 * In the report that I previously submitted on the "Khawarij" issue I declared this type of infringement "constitutes vandalism and deception". This infringement was not repeated.  While in no way condoning the unacceptable infringement of 1RR, all that occurred as mentioned immediately above was in the first case a movement of one content of article criticism in the lead to join another content of article criticism in the lead.  The second case there was also duplication as of content as has been mentioned in the notification but, in context, this can be viewed as either being a mistake or as an edit that the editor thought to be reasonable and which the editor suspected would be reverted.  I see this as a case of edit warring but in relation to moves that otherwise needed to be made.


 * I personally doubt that Mohammed is fully clued up on Wikipedia rulings or etiquettes. He has failed repeatedly to communicate despite repeated attempts to establish dialogue.  More recently I think that he (assuming male gender) has taken to use an alternate Wikipedia ID Swaywoof as per familiarly yet arguably sensibly themed but questionably worded edits here.  I have since placed messages on both User pages and, despite the so far characteristic lack of reply to my messages, the suspect login has not, to this point, been used again.


 * I am sorry for the length of the above text but I thought it important to present the reported edits in wide context. Thank-you.  Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  08:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:M00NLightNinja00 reported by User:136.181.195.25 (Result: 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

In regards to the third Killer Instinct title, various sources tied to the game's production, including directors Ken Lobb and Adam Isgreen, have stated that they disliked the previous boss characters Eyedol and Gargos and have no intention of bringing them back for this game, something that M00nLightNinja even acknowledges in his edits and in and. However, he also claims that these statements made no longer apply simply because they were made a year ago and "people want them", despite offering no evidence to suggest that Microsoft has reversed their position on the subject in the time since. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Favonian (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - Should this IP be blocked as well? It was responsible for at least 4 of the reverts, according to the page's history. I was going to let the IP off with a warning, since he hadn't received one, but if the IP knew the edit warring policy enough to issue a warning and file a report, it seem he was knowingly breaking policy... Sergecross73   msg me  15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Had I seen it when it happened, I would have sent the IP off to the sin bin as well. Question is: do we block people for 3RR a whole day (the length of the sanction) after the fact? Favonian (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we were days or weeks late, I wouldn't, but when its (minutes) less than 24 hours, I still would. Especially in this sort of situation, where the IP clearly knew of the policy, and was heavily involved in the same edit war they were reporting. It just doesn't sit well with me that he reported someone for doing the same thing he was doing, when he obviously knew he was in the wrong. Sergecross73   msg me  17:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So let it be written, so let it be done! Favonian (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DOwenWilliams reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * IP edit


 * 1)  DOwenWilliams
 * 2)
 * 3)

WP:ENGVAR reversions over replacing the original spelling of nett (in the sense of an overall difference) with net.

The justification for this was given that "nett" only applies to animal catching, "according to dictionaries". This is simply untrue - maybe the (uncited) dictionary used doesn't use "nett", but plenty do. I linked wiktionary, which does give "nett", but this too was reverted. Since this a "discussion" was started at talk: but it mostly seems to be about threats of banning anyone who disagrees.

Nett is perhaps archaic in the US, but it's still in widespread use in the UK, especially in the financial sense. It also (for something that could go "either way") gives a straightforward disambiguation from stringy things for catching fish.


 * Please check the talk page of the article in question, and also my own user talk page. I've written some explanations there, civilly. I haven't suggested banning anybody.


 * In the 30-odd years when I lived in the UK, I don't recall seeing "nett'. Maybe it's regional, within the country.


 * I get the impression that other people are doing edits, such as the reversion of your edit to Wiktionary, with which I may agree, but for which I am not in any way responsible. I have no idea who did that.


 * This is a storm in a teacup, and other people are stirring it up for their own amusement. I think we should just let it die away. I hope the administrators will reach the same conclusion.


 * Regards


 * DOwenWilliams (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Result: No action. There is a dispute but so far neither party has violated WP:3RR. Try to get agreement on the talk page. So far, more people are in favor of 'net' than 'nett'. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:DHeyward reported by User:Aprock (Result: Locked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 17:59, November 21, 2014‎: cite that she is who she says
 * 2) 15:53, November 21, 2014‎: referred multiple times in a scholarly journal on feminism. Same as the other feminist scholar
 * 3) 15:43, November 21, 2014: Undid revision 634886857 by 107.179.240.80 (talk)It's not duplicated. Sorry
 * 4) 03:56, November 21, 2014‎: stanford piece is reflecting camps as noted in the citation index. Mentions Sommers by name as well as others. No consensus to remove this.
 * 5) 19:55, November 20, 2014: Undid revision 634786155 by Aprock (talk) That's been there for a while. Pleas ediscuss before reverting. I found it well sourced and accurate.
 * 6) 18:28, November 20, 2014: no reason to delete this. Restoring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

DEHeyward does not appear to be using sources properly, and is serially reverting against consensus.
 * I've added sources and none of those are reverts as far as I can tell. I will disengage but for the most part I have been the one engaging in talk page discussion.  The removal of feminist is disruption as it's clear from numerous sources that it is the case both from third party sources and self-identification.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've been engaging on the talk pages, and simultaneously edit warring. aprock (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Eightball reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: Not blocked, page protected)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Undid revision 634842210 by Tvx1 (talk) RV vandalism"
 * 2)  "Undid revision 634839965 by Tvx1 (talk) Germany continues to be Germany"
 * 3) ± "Undid revision 634826490 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) RV vandalism, Germany is Germany"
 * 4)  "Undid revision 634825064 by Prisonermonkeys (talk) The flag of Germany is the flag of Germany"


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* German Flag for German GP */ reply"


 * Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * 1)   "/* German Flag for German GP */
 * 2)   "/* German Flag for German GP */ reply"


 * Comments:

Clear violation of WP:3RR within the space of just over five hours, despite multiple request to source the edit. Tvx1 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Tvx1 appears to not realize that Germany is Germany. I fail to see how I can provide a source proving that. Furthermore, I believe he should be blocked for vandalism, as his continued edits are quite literally lies. Eightball (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As stated on the talk page. The flag denotes the venue, not the country named in the race title. See 2012 European Grand Prix, 2006 San Marino Grand Prix, 1998 Luxembourg Grand Prix, 1982 Swiss Grand Prix,... Tvx1 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care where other races are hosted. The German Grand Prix is always in Germany, always has been in Germany, and will be in Germany in 2015. This is objective fact, and again, suggesting anything else is a rather malicious lie. Also, Hockenheim and Nurburgring are under contract until 2018 to alternate the race. That said, I'm rather gutted that I had to resort to finding a "source" for what is, again, absolutely a truth that cannot be disagreed with. Eightball (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How can you keep arguing that it will be 100% certainly in Germany when the venue is UNKNOWN. That is an indisputable contradiction. And a 5 year old source doesn't change that. It's clearly trumped by newer ones. Again, we are not suggesting that it will take place outside of Germany, we are correctly claiming that the venue and naturally its location as well are unknown. But none of this changes the fact that you indisputably violated WP:3RR Tvx1 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The venue is "unknown" in that it can be either Hockenheim or the Nurburgring, but we don't know specifically which. Both are in Germany. Eightball (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , do you understand that you cannot break 3RR because of a content dispute? Please confirm, else I would be constrained to block you.  Wifione  Message 16:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that and I comply with that. I do not believe this is a content dispute, no more than it would be if someone suggested that clouds do not exist. Eightball (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply . Please undo your final revert immediately. Take the content dispute to the talk page of the article. Perhaps dispute resolution might assist you. Do please note that what for you might seem a factuality may not be perceived similarly by other editors, including me. If a claim is challenged, then you do need to support the same with sources. And irrespective of which side is wrong or right, you simply cannot break 3RR. I'll take your statement above to mean that you've understood 3RR and have agreed to not break it ever again. Please do not revert even once again until discussions have reached a consensus on the talk page. Please do read up on edit warring for understanding why blocks can be placed to protect the article from disruption even if 3RR is not broken. I repeat, please undo your final revert immediately to provide evidence of your understanding the issue of 3RR. Take care and be careful. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum - Eightball, there's no need to revert the final edit as intermediate edits have already occurred. I'll keep a watch on the article from hereon. Thanks. Wifione  Message 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, does Eightball have to undo their last edit on this content, Yes or no? I know the user doesn't have to undo the last revision of the article because that was not regarding to this content. But does Eightball have to revert their last edit that the article or not?Tvx1 (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Eightball is not required to undo his last edit. Would only lead to further confusion. Continue discussions on the talk page of the article and consider the sources provided by other editors that provide the venue details of the German Grand Prix. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my concern, though: we haven't solved anything. I know this isn't the place for this discussion, but the question of whether or not the German Grand Prix will be held in Germany is not up for debate. It WILL be in Germany, and a source is not required to prove that. If there were a source suggesting that, I don't know, due to some conflict with the promoter they may move the race to Luxembourg, THEN a "TBA" flag would be appropriate. But Tvx1 et al have not proven that as a possibility so the German flag should remain by default. Eightball (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It has always being our practice that when a venue is unknown we do not put a flag. Just look at this, which is how we handled the exact same situation two years ago. You do not get to ignore consensus just because you want it the other way. You collaborate with other users, you don't call them liars just because you disagree with them. Tvx1 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . Editor has agreed to be mindful of 3RR.  Wifione  Message 17:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wifione, please re-open this or start a new investigation. Tvx1 and The359 continue to vandalize the article. As I said before, this is not a content debate. The change they are making is blatantly a lie and thus I will continue to revert it as 3RR does not apply to vandalism. Eightball (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Contrary to the promise, Eightball has again reverted, again labelling it as vandalism, on the article and have signaled their intention to keep doing so on the talk page as well as their intention not to accept the consensus . This is user is not up for reasoning and will accept no other version of the article than theirs. There are now as much as 4 disagreeing with them and still they keep objecting and keep edit-warring. Tvx1 (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , has continued with his edit-war despite the warning, continuing to insist that any edits which disagree with him are vandalism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * – I suspect a little more than meets the eye here. It takes more than one person to edit war, and I suggest page protection to avoid blocks. This kind of argument on F1 articles has history. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , it is now getting to the point where is sitting on the article and reverting any edits, as shown here where he reverts an edit on sight without bothering to check what he is reverting.


 * , there are three or four editors who have removed material they disagree with. Eightball has reverted all of them. He is the only one who is really edit-warring, since the rest of us have simply done it once and left it alone when it became obvious that he won't accept any community consensus. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, I apologized for reverting your edit. My dad alway told me what happens when you assume but I believe I've only made an ass out of myself. Secondly, if the community can form consensus to publish a lie, then frankly, I don't see the point of contributing to Wikipedia. The matter at hand, again, is not up for debate. Eightball (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , I know you have done it once, but Tvx1 has done it three times, and there's an hint of ganging up on Eightball here that I'm not keen on. I don't often agree with him, but I think he's right in this case. That said, I don't condone his edit warring. Sometimes, editors just have to leave an article at a version they don't agree with, while a consensus is thrashed out. Stand back and look big, and win the argument by discussion, not constant reverting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no ganging up on Eightball whatsoever. You might not have noticed, but there is another discussion on that article's talk page just above the one on this matter where Eightball and I agree. My position in discussions is solely based on the presented arguments and not on the contributors. FYI my last edit was NOT a revert. I just completed an edit by The359. Do your homework correctly before you throw out accusations. I have focused the vast majority of my efforts on the talk page, and not on the article, while Eightball has now declared their intention on solely concentrating on reverting and not on discussing by any means . I don't see how you can see such behavior as even remotely acceptable, let alone constructive. I will guarantee you I will not revert until a clear consensus has been formed (and I will not revert at all if such a consensus is in the opposite direction). I prefer to have a constructive discussion with my fellow editors instead of calling each other liars. Tvx1 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I said you made three reverts:, , . 1, 2, 3. There's my homework. I have not said anywhere that Eightball's reverting was acceptable or constructive, in fact I've said the opposite here and in that very discussion so you're wrong there as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, you were right. Weirdly enough, I had completely forgotten about that first revert. Sorry for that. Needless to say I will not revert any more. I have already reverted way to much as it is. Tvx1 (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Accepted. As you see, Eightball has laid off the article anyway so hopefully no more edit warring. Bretonbanquet (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , the problem is not that I don't agree. The problem is that disagreement is impossible. The version of the article they wish to maintain is objectively untrue, and I'm having a continually hard time wrapping my head around why editors want to make such malicious edits. Eightball (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I've provided sources, and I've provided facts, and they've continually ignored them for reasons I also don't understand. I've proven repeatedly that only two tracks, both in Germany, have contracts to host the race, and Prisonermonkeys acts like I have to fly to both tracks and establish photographic evidence that they're in Germany. I'm honestly falling apart as a person in real life. I can't understand them at all. Eightball (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help when you constantly accuse other editors of lying or pushing for malicious edits. That's not WP:AGF. Nor does it help when you announce your intentions to ignore the talk page discussion and sit on the article, reverting edits on sight. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What other conclusion do you expect me to reach? Honestly, of the two options - that you are a malicious editor, or that you genuinely believe the race may take place outside of Germany - I'd rather believe the former! I'd much rather believe you were intentionally trying to make the page worse. How can I ever work with the latter type of person? How can we work together to improve this article if I have to stop and write a thesis every time I want to state objective fact? How can I write these words without proving that you can read them? How can I write "write" without defining it? Where does it stop, honestly? And why would I want to waste my time participating in such a pointless discussion when I could devote all of my attention in efforts on maintain the article in its correct form? Eightball (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * This has been explained to you&mdash;flagicons correspond to the physical location of the circuit, not to the title of the race. The race may well be called the "German Grand Prix", but right now, there is no venue for it. Therefore, how can we say for certain the the race will be in Germany if we don't know where it us actually going to be held?


 * That policy was introduced with the European Grand Prix moving to Valencia as people were using the flag of Europe to represent it, when Europe is not recognised as a national body; since Valencia is no longer on the calendar, maybe that policy needs to be revisited. But that's a discussion for the WikiProject. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to say this one more time, and only one time, because you need to understand that participating this discussion is making me extremely angry. There are two possible race tracks that will host the German Grand Prix in 2015. The physical location of both circuits is in Germany. It is an undeniable fact, then, that the physical location of the race will be in Germany. The German flag will be used on the schedule. I will not explain this to you again. It is not up for debate. This is over and I hope, but I don't expect, that you are enough of a man to admit that you are wrong and help me to keep the article in its correct form. Eightball (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * And all we ask is that arguable assertions are supported by evidence. You claim that the race will be held at Hockenheim or the Nurburgring, and that there is no third option. Where is your evidence of this? The last source you offered said that the Nurburgring would host the race in 2015, which is immediately contradicted by the FIA listing it as "TBA". The FIA is the final authority on the subject since they are the sport's governing body, but they have not yet settled the venue ... so how do you know that it will be in Germany when they don't? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the FIA don't know it'll be in Germany? I strongly suspect they didn't imagine in their wildest dreams that anyone might think the German GP would be held outside Germany. For the first time in history. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . Continue the discussions on the talk page. I've protected the article for ten days. Alternatively, I could have blocked you Eightball, Tvx1, Prisonermonkeys for 3RR and edit warring. I'm not doing that to allow you Eightball a chance to provide better sources and discuss on the talk page. If, once the protection expires, there is continued edit warring and disregard for 3RR. I would block all the parties that are indulging in the edit warring, starting with you Eightball, without waiting for page protection. Please take heed of that and kindly discuss and reach consensus. As I've mentioned earlier, use the dispute resolution way as that can assist you all in case talk page discussions fail.  Wifione  Message 02:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would like to apologize for my actions. The worst part is that I hadn't even realized I had made three reverts in 24 hours. If I had I would not have posted this report myself. But I should not have got that point in the first place. Needless to say I will not do whatever I can to reach a constructive conclusion to this discussion. Tvx1 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And I, for one, will not apologise. At no point did I edit war. In fact, I actively attempted to resolve the situation in three different places - here, on the article talk page, and on my own talk page. I find it disappointing that someone can edit-war so aggressively, disregard a warning from an admin to stop, express a refusal to try and engage with discussion, express a desire to sit on the article and revert edits on sight, refuse to acknowledge any consensus that he disagrees with, repeatedly accuse editors of knowingly lying and making "malicious" edits, and escape with little more than a slap on the wrist. I have been blocked in the past, and I have been blocked for considerably less.
 * At no point did I edit-war. I made one change to the article that was consistent with an emerging consensus on the talk page; my subsequent edit to that article was to remove a reference that I had demonstrated to be outdated and unusable. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , nobody is asking you to apologise. I'm advising you to not edit war. Your 1st revert, 2nd revert, 3rd revert can be considered edit warring given the situation on the page. Your efforts to discuss are appreciated; to revert continuously, not. So do go ahead and discuss as you are discussing. And I've closed this report. If any further issue arises, kindly open a new report. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 12:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:190.182.116.98 reported by User:Light2Shadow (Result:Both users blocked for 24 hours )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

I've explained to the IP user according to COMMONNAME, we must use the most common and recognizable name. I gave him a few examples the page provides such as Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton) and Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione) but he has continued to revert. Light2Shadow (talk) 08:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I fully support the IP user for more than one reason: because the fictional universe is not yet officially titled, and we do not use fan-given nicknames here. Moreover, Light2Shadow has failed to realise that "DC Comics' shared film universe" is neither a nickname nor an official name, but a formal identity of something yet to be named; before Dawn of Justice was officially titled, it was formally referred to here as "Untitled Man of Steel sequel", not the fan-given "Batman vs. Superman". And the yet-to-be titled sequel to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes will not be called Planet of the Apes 3 here. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears you, reverted a number of times yourself. After the IPs first revert you should have began a discussion per WP:BRD, not re-reverted. Template:Uw-ew states, "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Mike V •  Talk  15:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Chunk5Darth reported by User:Skyerise (Result: Both blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1) 22:38, 21 November 2014‎
 * 2) 23:40, 21 November 2014‎
 * 3) 02:41, 22 November 2014‎
 * 4) 19:09, 22 November 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Chunk4Darth has a history of being warned and blocked for edit-warring.


 * I was the one who initiated the talk page discussion.
 * I was repeatedly attacked for "owning", replied with reasoning, and met with being attacked further.
 * Skyerise left me a message about self-reverting after reporting me here.
 * Skyerise engaged in repeated reverting against status quo while refusing to initiate a discussion on the take page, before I went ahead and initiated one myself.
 * Diffs for Skyerise's edit warring:
 * Diff of me initiating the discussion:
 * A post-report "friendly advice" that is directly coupled with the noticeboard notification: . A signature aimed to make those look like separate posts: . Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: My reasons were clearly given in the edit summary of my second edit, and I specifically asked Chunk4Darth to respond on the talk page if he disagreed with the reasons: "it can imply a child of American citizens who happened to be born in Austria - we should not ever use -born, it's ambiguous: take it to talk". . C4D is using a standard edit-warrior ploy of insisting that the other user take it to talk rather than himself, even after clearly being the first to be asked to do so in an edit comment.

As for edit warring, I made two attempts to improve the article in different ways, the second being a compromise edit, followed by one revert, posting a warning about edit-warring, then a second revert, before taking this action upon C4D's clear edit-warring approach (i.e. 4th revert in under 24 hours). Skyerise (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: this edit summary is a textbook admission to a WP:GAMING attempt, after having reverted the status quo three times in a row without discussion. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't count. That's two different forward-moving edit attempts, followed by only 2 reverts. Yours were all reverts and all your comments had "attitude". Who's gaming? And who actually exceeded 3RR after being warned he was about to? Sheeesh. Talk about self-justification after a clear violation of the bright line with not a single ounce of remorse or willingness to self-revert to avoid a block!!! Oh, and the only reason I signed my note twice was that I'd forgotten that the notification adds it own header, leaving my comment stranded without a signature. Assume good faith please! Skyerise (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Remember, you do not have to exceed 3 reverts to be blocked for disruptive reverting." -Skyerise's "advice" on my talk page. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do feel free to continue to dig yourself in deeper. I've got more productive things to do now. Ciao! Skyerise (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and speaking of kettles - "using a standard edit-warrior ploy of insisting that the other user take it to talk rather than himself, even after clearly being the first to be asked to do so" (Skyerise's earlier comment in this thread) - all three reverts by Skyerise were performed without discussion on the talk page. I had to initiate one as a sign of WP:AGF because I realized that the other editor was not going to. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This "discussion" was shortly followed by a poorly disguised personal attack on my talk page, as well as another on the article's talk page, while totally ignoring my previous replies. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * , Chunk5Darth for one week and Skyerise for 48 hours. The disparity in duration is based on their block logs.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:UxUmbrella reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: October 24, 2014.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * October 26. Re-added screen capture.
 * October 30. Re-added screen capture.
 * November 18. Re-added screen capture.
 * November 19. Re-added screen capture.
 * November 20. Re-added screen capture.
 * 1)  13:57 November 22. Re-added screen capture.
 * 2)  16:00 November 22. Re-added screen capture.
 * 3)  16:11 November 22. Re-added screen capture.
 * 4)  16:48 November 22. Re-added screen capture.
 * 5)  17:19 November 22. Re-added screen capture, using Moscow IP 95.73.220.128.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * November 18.
 * 16:22 November 22.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

UxUmbrella clearly has a youthful insistence that s/he is right and others are wrong, expressed in all-caps shouting and exclamation marks. S/he has been edit-warring at that song article since May 2011 when s/he added the video screen capture which is part of the disputed series of edits above. S/he has had a non-free screen captures deleted and then an attempt to write a video article (Umbrella (music video)) was merged back into the song article after a discussion. Thus s/he is very frustrated with not being able to shape the article to personal preference.

In past edit-warring instances, repeated reversions of UxUmbrella's work have sometimes resulted in the exact same edits being made by IP addresses from Moscow. See Special:Contributions/95.73.223.209, Special:Contributions/95.73.219.0, and this most recent example, Special:Contributions/95.73.220.128. It is clear to me that these IPs are UxUmbrella sockpuppeting to try and win the content dispute. Update. An earlier checkuser investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/UxUmbrella/Archive determined that UxUmbrella "has been editing logged out including editing logged out while blocked." So this behavior has been seen before. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:UxUmbrella has been blocked three times since September, always about this song. There is no indication they are listening to any advice or warnings. Since they won't stop, I propose an indefinite block. This should be combined with at least a month of semiprotection of the song article. As Binksternet states above, the IPs are presumably socks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * . Ed, I'm not inclined to indeff the editor. But I'm listening with respect to your suggestion of semi. Will do that in a bit., write back in case there is any further disruption after two weeks of the editor's block are over. In case disruption continues post the block, I will then indeff the editor.  Wifione  Message 18:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wifione. Will do. Binksternet (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would submit that given this user's response to the block that they still don't understand what the issues are here. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Discriminated treatment: My Page and My Talk Page has been heavily damaged! (Result: Filer indeffed)
Sorry, Wikipedia.org administrators, I don't want to report anyone, and it seems no-sense to me. But My Page and My Talk Page have been seriously damaged by some strange guys, and someone want to remove my page. I wish that would not imply that this is the "Discrimination" to me on Wikipedia.org. For all of those behaviors towards myself on Wikipedia.org, I just feel a bit pity of Wikipedia.org itself. Wish Wikipedia.org administrators could check the history of my page and my talk page, do something all of you think reasonably. I am sorry for all of that! Best wishes! Janagewen (talk) 04:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

'''People involved in this business: Jackmcbarn,  Davey 2010''', BullRangifer

'''Behaviors: '''

Empty my user and talk page, warning, threatening (see the history), and Miscellany for deletion...

My talk page has been emptied by BullRangifer

My words have been removed and modified by Davey 2010

For those things, I feel extreme shame about Wikipedia.org Janagewen (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Be very careful of the WP:BOOMERANG! - User's userpage was used as an enemy list whilst his TP seems to be a sandbox, This doesn't help his case neither. – Davey 2010  •  (talk)  05:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But you emptied the whole page before making any warning to me. And that is obviously one discriminated behavior, tends to be illegal seriously! Sorry!  Wikipedia.org should keep its own honor!  Janagewen (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Improper content on your user page and user talk page was deleted by several people, and you were advised to use a sandbox for your work which totally filled the page. Your work is not being deleted from Wikipedia. Just find a better place to work on it.
 * The talk page is primarily for communication with other editors, and any action by you which impedes that function is a violation of its purpose, and thus a violation of community norms. The talk page is owned by the community, and not just by you. You have limited rights on it, and they do not include being uncivil or refusing to communicate. It is an interface which must be kept open for comments from other editors, and you should reply civilly and collaboratively.
 * It won't hurt you at all to be nice. It will create good karma and you will have a much more enjoyable time here. We want to have a good relationship with you, so don't make it hard. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * indefinitely - WP:NOTHERE.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result:No violation)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  1st revert
 * 2)  I undid the revert
 * 3)  2nd revert - note nastiness
 * 4)  starts a thread naming me in the title and heaping abuse on me.
 * 5)  Calls my statements a lie on the page and uses the edit summery (reply to b.s.).

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I am not saying he is over 3RR (at 2RR as am I) but 2 quick reverts, personal attacks and failure to look at the sources - including misrepresenting the Toronto Star source as not including a birth name (when it is the first 4 words of the second paragraph) indicates a possible agenda other then getting the article in the best shape possible. I'd like to fix an accuracy issue with the article but that is not going to be allow by this editor. Legacypac (talk) 08:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply this is not 3RR and is just nuisance wiki-lawyering by Legacypac, whose "logic" in using sources has regularly conflated and distorted and mis-used what they say; in this case there is no reason at all to remove the cited birthname based on the cite he claims supports it; that cite does not mention the birthname, only says that his real father's name was withheld. If you read up the talkpage of the Ottawa shootings you'll find the other bogus claims and false edit statements made by Legacypac in the course of his involvement with that article; here once again he distorts what a cite says, deletes cited material with spurious "logic" and rather than accede to the inclusion of what he wants deleted, and the "indicates a possible agenda other than getting t he article in the best shape possible" is an AGF against me, when his ownagenda is much at question.Skookum1 (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note statement "that cite does not mention the birthname" and that I already point exactly to the birth name in my comments above and on the talk page - but he can't see it what does not support his attack. The Star says at the beginning of the second paragraph "Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau came into the world in October 1982..." I don't understand why this editor is so hostile but it is not helpful. I have no agenda other then to fix something I remembered was incorrect info in the article. Rather then continue an unproductive debate I just brought it here per guidance on the edt warring policy page. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claims/interpretation of the Star source is exactly that; you claim that his birthname i.e. what was on his birth certificate was not Michael Joseph Hall, you dismiss three RS as in "error" and even seem to think La Presse is among the "fog" of foreign newspaper coverage that you do disdain; the line from the Star article does not say that was his birthname, it says he came into the world in October 1982....it doesn't say with the name 'Joseph Paul Michael Bibeau'; your claim that "logic" means that that was his birthname is specious and bad logic and yet more conflation of sources; fact is you removed RS-cited material with false statements and a claim of "research" (apparently your own only) and then fielded a cite to back you up that doesn't even say what you claim/think it does. What's been unproductive on that page is how many times you've made POV deletions/changes to it and specious arguments and red herrings to defend your actions in talkpage discussions.  You didn't come here for guidance, you came here for hoping to get somebody to try and get official sanction against me...I've been holding off a POV board discussion about "terrorism pushing" at this and other articles by youself and various other with "that agenda" (including the SPA you chimed in support of on Talk:List of terrorist incidents 2014, claiming to a newbie but per their edits, clearly has a wiki-background despite claiming otherwise), but I dislike ANIs as they are often contrary by nature and time/energy consuming and unproductive.  This, like your edit war that you started then came here and complained about, is only so much more time waste and inherently unproductive.  Your sense of "logic" is clearly faulty, and your habit of interpreting a source to say what you want it to, rahter than what it does say, is getting to be a tiresome bore.Skookum1 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, that is messed up. I encourage the reviewing admin to look at the source and judge for yourself what it says VS what this editor claims, then act accordingly. I'll leave this alone now for due process. Legacypac (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GB - I thought this was dispute resolution as I see this behavior as edit warring - can you suggest where better to go? Legacypac (talk) 12:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Both editors have reverted twice. Keep discussing on the talk page and if you can not come to an agreement consider dispute resolution.  -- GB fan 11:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the two of you continue to go back and forth it will be edit warring on both sides. At this point, you made a bold edit, and Skookum1 reverted. That should have initiated a discussion from you.  Instead you reverted and Skookum1 reverted again.  You might want to read WP:BRD, it discusses the preferred course of action when you get reverted.  This is a content dispute, there are options at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE on ways to proceed if the discussions are not fruitful.  -- GB fan 12:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. The evidence supporting my edit is so clear - and his total misrepresentations of the cite so obvious - that his actions are vandalism. Plus the broad attacks on me are so ugly I have no faith in further attempts to get consensus involving him. I've requested a 3rd opinion and am prepared to do an RfC if that does not work. Had no idea I had him as an enemy. Legacypac (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:68.108.39.12 reported by User:AndreniW (Result: Semi-protected and warnings)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

User continues to cite a user-generated IMDb page (that is most likely being manipulated by same user) as a reason that a teen pop band is a "mormon death metal" band. (They aren't even close.)

may also be guilty of edit warring since they did not use the proper protocol; since their user account appears to have been created solely to stop this vandalism, I'll WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE, though.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of other vandalism they repeatedly reverted, on their talk page:

Comments:

Considering their entire contribution history is adding nonsense to 90s music articles, I feel a block is the appropriate course of action. Thank you. --AndreniW (talk) 06:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've semi-protected the article for one week. I've also the IP and Esearcher about continued warring at the article after the protection expires. This is a very slow burning dispute. Normally, it wouldn't even be enough to justify protection if it were taken to WP:RFPP, but no one else seems interested in the article except the two warriors. It may be that what the IP is doing is "worse" (I don't know enough about the subject), but even after a revert of the IP's edit, the article still sources to IMDb, an unreliable source in many contexts, including, I believe, this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User: Helpsome reported by User:Otaku00 (Result: Both warned; filer subsequently blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Criticism section was repeatedly deleted. The latest deletion - not mentioned above - also included real (civil) name of the monk this article is about.

Otaku00 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Otaku00 is adding personal interpretations to articles using their interpretation of primary sources. They are doing this to biographies of living persons which are held to a particularly strict standard. All of this has been explained on various talk pages but Otaku00 really seems to want to criticize these people so they have been forum shopping all over wikipedia trying desperately to find someone who will allow them to violate WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE. As WP:BLP states, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and that is exactly what I have done here. Helpsome (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ., it's clear that the two of you have been edit-warring on the reported article and to a lesser extent at Chân Không (similar issues). You have also been arguing back and forth on both article Talk pages. The only issue in my mind is whether you can justify your role in this war using the WP:BLP exemption. Some of the sources added by are offline, and I can't see them. One source, if I recall, is online and is a primary source, which is generally a no-no in articles and particularly BLP articles. Still, you've been reverting a lot of material, not just the material supported by that source. You state that the problems have been explained to Otaku on "various talk pages". Explained by whom? The only thing I see is that you have talked to him. I don't see other editors involved agreeing with you. Have you ever taken the issues in either article to WP:BLPN? Have you tried to expand the discussions to include other editors? Otaku took it to WP:DRN where it was rejected on procedural grounds because it hadn't been hashed out enough. He also tried to take it to formal mediation, but you refused. I'm not necessarily saying that your BLP reverts are wrong, but it's complicated enough, given the sourcing, that it's hard for me to evaluate.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If the material belongs here, I think that would come out in a talk page discussion. Since this is a WP:BLP issue, I think it should be discussed before re-adding it to the article after it was initially removed. I didn't personally think this required mediation because this should be about the content itself and not our personal interactions with each other. If anything, this should be a Reliable sources/Noticeboard issue, I think. I am open to a discussion especially one with other editors but I think with a BLP we should err on the side of caution and keep it out until fully discussed. I may be mistaken, but I think everything I reverted was WP:OR based on primary sources with the exception of a passing notice in a book (and one person's passing comment isn't "a controversy" and to pretend it is would be adding undue weight) and the most recent edit which used a foreign wikipedia as a reference. It was my understanding that we can't reference a wiki with another wiki. If I am mistaken, I apologize. Helpsome (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , you begin with the premise that you are correct. It's true that BLP-violating material should be removed. It is also true that we should err on the side of non-inclusion. However, everything depends on an editor's interpretation. It's one thing for you to remove the material and open a discussion at BLPN and another thing for you to keep removing the material and just continue arguing on the talk page. Material may be undue, but that doesn't mean that the violation of BLP is sufficiently egregious to justify edit warring. You are correct that another wiki is not a reliable source, but if I understand properly, the material being supported was not negative material, just another name for the same person. Thus, that wouldn't justify edit-warring. Taking it to WP:RSN is certainly an option for the individual sources, but they are inextricably intertwined with the BLP issues, which take precedence. I'm not going to block you because I think you acted in good faith. However, I don't think it's fair to block, either, if you "escape" a block. Therefore, you are both that if you revert again at either article, you risk being blocked without notice. In the interim, I suggest taking the BLP issues to BLPN as a starting place.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care". A CIA-factsheet can be considered reliable, it is considered as such by many people. A trade register excerpt even more. They may be used with care. I do this, contrary to what Helpsome said my phrasing of the words is NOT evaluating the facts from the sources, just quoting them. If there is any claim of the contrary, I would like to know exactly what words are understood like that. (We are talking only about TNH here, right?) This may be one problem of two, Helpsome not being a native speaker of English (which I am neither), and referring to old wording and older discussions. I was very careful in my choice of words with the TNH entries. It should not be mixed up with the Chan Khong entry which is more complex for me, too.
 * The CIA-document is speaking of TNHs anti-war efforts, as does his biography. This can be understood as a further detail, not a contradiction. It is still online: [] Thus we know where TNH has been in a year not very well documented in the biography section.
 * Also online is Prof. Charles Prebish's quote, which is by the way no primary source but an academic work: [] page 309 in the book, footnote 9. It is not the only academic work that can be cited here. Nguyen wrote "Zen in Medieval Vietnam" where he stated that the Zen (Thien) line died out hundreds of years ago. That is why no one can claim to hold an authentic "lineage" in Vientam anymore - from the academic standpoint. I may look the quotes up in the future.
 * The trade register excerpt can be asked for by any citizen at least in Germany for a fee, even online. Why is this "primary source" not only reliable and published but also "relevant"? Because the EIAB in which TNH has invested is a huge Buddhist centre established only a couple of years ago as kind of his legacy. It is indeed strange that it is not mentioned at all in the English Wiki. Please see here for its relevance: []
 * P.S.: The personal civil name of Thich Nhat Hanh is mentioned in the trade register because he cannot sign documents with a pseudonym like Thich Nhat Hanh here, and can be googled. It is strange to see that it was not already in there. --Otaku00 (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Otaku00 for 48 hours for reverting after my warning (which was also posted on his talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Bbb23 Sorry, didn't see your warning because I was concentrating on adding TNHs personal name at that time (blocking came about 20 min. after the warning). Plan to continue the discussion - as it was closed on the noticeboard due to unwillingness of Helpsome - in the way that was suggested here (next week). Thanks for your suggestions.Otaku00 (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:SummerFunMan reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "I wasn't breaking consensus. Apparently you guys can't read, comprehend, or pay attention well. I agree with your tense reversions. I was just asking you not to revert my unrelated edits too. But you're too lazy and don't give a crap to respect that.."
 * 2)  "You're just gonna ignore that I made some other edits along the way that I requested that you not revert along with the tense (you do it manually instead)? Why can't you respect that and do it manually instead so that you don't ruin my other edits?"
 * 3)  "Yes, it does, obviously. But old things that were written about in past-tense form still do exist too. However, as I told ViperSnake, he has a good point. But only revert only my tense-related edits; not all of them. [Oh & yes, it DID say "discontinued."]"
 * 4)  "WP:TENSE also has a mention for historical items, which this is; but you have a good point, I think. I was thinking that "succeeded by..." meant that the new model caused the old to be discont. But revert manually because of my non-tense-related edits."


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "/* Your edits */ new section"
 * 2)   "/* November 2014 */"


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


 * Comments:

He is showing aggression over the reversion of his incorrect tense changes because they undid an unrelated formatting change done alongside the tense edits. The MoS guideline on tense on these articles has been explained and addressed, but his aggression and multiple reverts are still cause for concern. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I wouldn't count the last edit as a revert, although the edit summary is clearly uncivil. The changes to the text in that edit were not substantive but syntactic (and for the better, in my view).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the 21:09 edit is reverting to, either. Small words for slow minds, please? &mdash;Cryptic 10:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, "Bed, Bath, & Beyond store #23" (and I'm serious; not sarcastic), for 2 of the 4 things you said in your response (that #1 doesn't count as a reversion against their tense reversions, just as I said; and that my edition there makes the article better [even though you think it's "not substantive"])! I appreciate that. But just stating an observation about someone's inability that causes them to do damage while trying to do good, in an effort to help them see where they need improvement in how they handle things here (or anywhere, for that matter), is actually not being "uncivil."

SummerFunMan (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a better thing for the administrators to pay attention to: this entire passage is yet another example of this editor's incivility. But still, WP:3RR says "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." As such, all of the edits marked as reversions above are recognized as such by Twinkle. Please, just drop the stick already, and comment on content, not the contributor. ViperSnake151   Talk  01:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * for sockpuppetry. m.o.p  17:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Dcbanners reported by User:Scalhotrod (Result: Voluntary restriction)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1), made the accusation of WP:OWNERSHIP on a Talk page  while this Notice was being posted.
 * 2), removed sources cited using the Template:Cite episode template and removed the field from the Project Episode list template specifically for a source
 * 3), same
 * 4), same
 * 5), same
 * 6), same
 * 7), 1st source removal after Full Protection
 * 8), removed all uses of the Template:Cite episode template and removed the field from the template specifically for a source
 * 9), same
 * 10), same

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: made by

Comments:

After a resolution to a source and content dispute was reached on the article Talk page, this (albeit new) User continues to remove sources that link living persons (i.e. Writers, Directors, etc.) to the content of the article.

Based on difs #7 - #9, resulted in full article protection by EdJohnston, now requesting that User be blocked

User continues to Edit War and vandalise the template for the Episode list. Keeps citing a Project guideline as policy to justify their edits, WikiProject_Television/FAQ, but the source they keep citing does not include information on the crew such as the Director or the Writers. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're the one adding unnecessary and redundant sources. We don't need sources for non-controversial information if you can just WATCH THE EPISODE. Dcbanners (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have tried to discuss with him, but he's not helping. Dcbanners (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What I would probably ask the involved users to agree to for this article, is:

1. We don't need sources for non-controversial information that can be gleaned by watching the episode. 2. Please don't remove sources without dropping a note on the talk page first to gauge response. 3. Everybody gets a fresh start and we work constructively and politely as if it never happened.. Dcbanners (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see five reverts by User:Dcbanners starting at 21:06 on 22 November. Without even checking on talk page participation, this is a plain violation of WP:3RR. Whichever admin closes this is probably tempted to block Dcbanners 48 hours for the violation, since he seems not to have benefited from the advice given when the article was protected due to the last 3RR report. To avoid a block, he might consider promising to stay away from the article or its talk page for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest keeping away too so we can discuss and reach a consensus. Dcbanners (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you aren't accepting my offer, then I'll proceed with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, i will accept it. But he needs to discuss as well. Dcbanners (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have been, on my Talk page (where it does not belong) and on the article Talk page. But it wasn't until you were reported that you chose to participate in the discussion. By the way, has also reverted your removal of sources and template fields. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dcbanners, you are the one who violated 3RR. You must accept my offer without any conditions or you will be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine, I will accept your offer. Dcbanners (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:Dcbanners has agreed not to edit the article or its talk page for one month, to avoid a 3RR block. This restriction expires at 18:35 on 23 December, 2014. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy reported by User:Rationalobserver (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * . Come back if the disruption and harassment continue after the block is lifted. I'll indeff the editor. Thanks.  Wifione  Message 18:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: The editor has been indeffed after their repetitive personal attacks.  Wifione  Message 18:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: Both editors blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=635115885

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User Paolowalter has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him the edit and the source i used,which is the Telegraph,but he insisted on reverting me using an unreliable source and and is launching personal attacks on me, also the User has been warned several times that he have broken the 1RR edit by the editors of the page,this is the second time he edit wars.Alhanuty (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 *  Wifione  Message 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

User:86.145.110.113 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: Blocked)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:


 * Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * 1)   "Warning: Edit warring on Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. (TW)"


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


 * Comments:

IP pushing inclusion of "Palestine" in sentence and will not discuss. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 01:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * for edit warring at many articles, not just this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Davey2010 reported by User:EoRdE6 (Result: Blocked filer)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:

]]. (TW)"
 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "IMDB and Wikia can't be used simple as that, Feel free to provide actual sources to the article, Also again the image is a copyright violation,"
 * 2)  "Reverted 1 edit by EoRdE6 (talk): Erm yes it does? .... Also [[Wikipedia:Citing IMDb
 * 1)  "Reverted good faith edits by EoRdE6 (talk): IMDB and wikia aren't reliable sources.... If they were I would've left them! (TW)"
 * 2)  "/* Filmography */ RM IMDb as not a WP:RS]"
 * 3)  "RM imdb"
 * 1)  "RM imdb"


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


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

User has removed both my warning and notice of this discussion from his talk page EoRdE6 (talk) 05:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:


 * User seems to think IMDb and Wikia's a reliable source, .... Despite repeated attempts at telling him it's not he seems more interested in edit warring, I also even left a message explaining it again and that he should take a step back but instead he chose here, Anyway I have just this minute self reverted as I had smacked 3rr without realizing, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:TPO I'm entitled to remove any notice I like from my talkpage (within reason). – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * User:EoRdE6 for 31 hours. Edit warring is just one of the problems with the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Brilliant thanks Bbb23 - Much appreciated. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Simon Wtekni reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Indeffed)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to: ; diff of edit that the first edit below (22 Nov.) was reverting:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Not undue, we must show all points of view per npov"
 * 2)  "It's still a controversy and a complex issue, some sources support this theory and we should not exclude it. See Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus"


 * Comments:

Violation of 1RR. Note also an additional revert subsequently; it falls outside a 24-hour period, but it goes to the need to impress on the editor the seriousness with which 1RR in this area will be taken. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, I didn't break 1RR, because I didn't make more than one revert in 24 hours. It's the other user who should have discussed this on the talk page before reverting a long-standing version.--Simon Wtekni (talk) 09:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There was no violation of 3RR. For 1RR you should use WP:AE, and the DS alert was placed on Simon Wtekni's page only after these reverts, so it's unsanctionable there. I recommend Simon to read up on the subject to avoid violating 1RR in the future. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 12:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect -- as per the ARBPIA template (see e.g. at the talk page for the article where the 1RR violation happened: ), "Violations of 1RR should be [reported] to the edit warring noticeboards." I'm not asking for imposition of discretionary sanctions, hence the fact that the DS warning came afterwards is irrelevant.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Sockpuppet investigations/Wlglunight93.TMCk (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * . I've indeffed the user based on the report at SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lopoponsnko reported by User:NebY (Result: 60hrs)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:


 * Previous version reverted to:


 * Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  "Reverted 2 edits by Carlos Rojas77 (talk): Capital letters, removing of non notable colleges, changing few images. (TW)"
 * 2)  "see talk page"
 * 3)  "Undid revision 635297526 by RyanTQuinn (talk)"
 * 4)  "see talk page"


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


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


 * Comments:
 * Blocked for 60 hours. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN reported by User:Westcott001 (Result: Westcott blocked for 60 hours)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Wiki Discrimination

This is to request an impartial opinion of editors in Wikipedia on the Wiki article [2] The article is about a Bangladeshi politician, a candidate for the Mayor of a country with a royal lineage. The lineage is obtained from a genealogy printed in a Persian book that was translated into Bengali and used as a source in a Cambridge Encyclopedia that was used as a reference. The original Persian script documenting this lineage is also available and it was uploaded as a picture in Wiki-image. Unfortunately, Editor Neil-N has consistently held the view that he will not allow the genealogy information to be documented as he does not consider it relevant information for the political background of the politician. As a political historian of the country where the subject is a politician and a former Mayor candidate, I feel pedigree information and lineage information are very important and they have been used in other Wikipedia articles on politicians worldwide. Editor Neil-N had the following to say. "Wikipedia doesn't care what politicians think is important to buff their image. If all you have is a genealogical tree then I will oppose adding this trivia, scans or no. --NeilN " He is trying to discriminate lineage information on this topic, based on what he writes above, since lineage information has been used in other Wikipedia articles as well. Therefore he is trying to get in an unwarranted edit war and bully other editors. Please comment whether this is fair or not? Why lineage information cannot be relevant when other wiki-pages have used them as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcott001 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 24 November 2014‎


 * If you want to "request an impartial opinion of editors", this isn't the place to do it. See instead Requests for comment. Firstly though, I suggest that you actually take note of what you have been repeatedly told at Talk:Chowdhury Irad Ahmed Siddiky - you need to provide a source that directly asserts that the information you wish to add to the article is significant. You may consider it significant, but that isn't sufficient - you need to directly demonstrate that other people do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My first revert was for poorly sourced material in a BLP as noted by Barek. My second revert, done more than 24 hours after, has been discussed on the talk page. Westcott001, has reverted three times during this period and has been advised by two other editors besides myself why the material is lacking. --Neil N  talk to me 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted only once and have been warned only once. Please check this in the log. Thanks.

It is becoming extremely difficult to convince editors and  on three independent sources on the Mughal History of Bangladesh that convincingly establishes the relevance of the lineage of the politician on whom the article is written. Neither nor  are experts on the field but they have a common motive and a personal political agenda to revert all references to lineage. It is also racist and unacceptable because on other politician pages this has been allowed. I have demonstrated by three separate academic sources on the relevance and validity of this information. and must be stopped from further editing this page and I would like semi-protection of this article due to their unjustified edit wars. Please invite Bangladeshi Wikipedia editors or other independent local sources who are able to scrutinize this issue and settle this matter permanently. Many Thanks and Best Regards.Westcott001 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, enough - any more accusations of 'racism' and the like and I will report the matter. Your failure to understand what is being requested regarding sourcing (which is still evident, given your latest edit to the article in question ) does not in any way justify such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Westcott blocked for 60 hours. Someone please clean up the candidate mayor's article, starting with the picture of him and someone's nephew. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sandyunderhere reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here and here (two different editors making two different warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion began here but has since migrated here

Comments: Please note that this appears to be one editor using multiple accounts to edit war not only on this article but also at State University of New York‎; relevant SPI report here. Warnings and discussions in Talk with multiple editors has achieved no discernible progress but continued edit warring and obvious sock/meat puppetry. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What ElKevbo says. If I hadn't reverted on the content edit I would have blocked all of them already. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours. Unless others disagree, I'm planning to indef all the other accounts listed in Sockpuppet investigations/Sandyunderhere. EdJohnston (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Carpo- Rusyn‎ reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 14:01, 23 November 2014 diff (note this was a global revert that included the text in question)
 * 14:55, 24 November 2014 diff
 * 20:19, 24 November 2014 diff
 * 20:57, 24 November 2014 diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: dif given at 20:28, 24 November 2014 and Removed by Carpo in this dif with edit note: "remove insulting comment"


 * was discussed in this section of Talk - Carpo did not participate.
 * I asked to discuss on talk in this edit dif when I reverted
 * I warned against edit warring in this dif when i reverted
 * added a bullet to the section linked above addressed to Carpo here - he edit warred right past it.

Comments:

I got involved with this article after seeing a posting on COIN about a bizarre edit war/COI conflagration that had nothing to do with Gary Hart, the subject of the article. Carpo was part of that and re-emerged only after I went through the edit-warred section sentence by sentence and rendered it NPOV and well-sourced as well as I could. Please provide Carpo with a good long block to cool his jets and make him realize he needs to engage in real dialog and not edit war. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, after making the last edit-warring edit linked above (where the article still stands, as I am not pursing an edit war), Carpo finally responded on the talk page, with an (unfortunately typical) vague and unsourced claim, in this dif Jytdog (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and has not responded to my reply to him here, where I explained what the cited sources say, and asked for sources and detail for his position. Carpo is an edit warrior, not a talker. Jytdog (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The purported source for Jytdog's edit is from Dana Weems, who was interviewed by Matt Bai for his recent book, All Of The Truth Is Out. Weems clearly did not concur with the 1987 account of the reason for her calling the Miami Herald, and she in fact stated she had called based on something else.  This is a Biography of a living person, and this kind of misrepresentation of her comments must be removed promptly.  Jytdog has somehow decided that his subjective interpretation of Weems account is something other than what she clearly stated.  He may very well believe this, but it is counter-factual.  He has also been quite hyperactive in the number and scope of his edits to the page.  He made no attempt to gain a consensus or work collaboratively with other editors. The pot is calling the kettle black here.Edit to note the exact quote from Bai is here, "When I spoke to Dana Weems, she repeatedly insisted to me that she had only called The Herald after reading Hart’s “follow me around” quote". http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/21/magazine/how-gary-harts-downfall-forever-changed-american-politics.html?_r=0 Weems therefore did not confirm that she had called the Herald in response to its editorial as they claimed,and which Jytdog insists on falsely reverting, contrary to WP BLP policy. Jytdog simply appears to assume that because she contacted the Herald after its editorial that she called because of it, which she denies. I have acted in good faith. If it is found to the contrary, remember that it takes two to tango. Whatever.Carpo- Rusyn (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * carpo, this posting on this board is about your edit warring behavior, not the content dispute. your response shows that you don't get it. you didn't participate in the original Talk discussion about this content that led to me changing the content, and you still have not responded with anything concrete on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – 48 hours for edit warring. This may be the same editor as 80.50.149.116, 83.16.13.64 and 80.55.8.138. These three IPs from Szczecin, Poland have all now been blocked by User:Kevin Gorman. Carpo-Rusyn as well as the three IPs all try to add information about Ronald Reagan's private life to the Gary Hart article.  EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:PleaseConsider reported by User:Lithistman (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have been working on pruning this overlong list of cruft throughout the day. At various points, PC has simply reverted, en masse, changes I'd made over several edits, making the entire process more drawn-out than it needed to be, as I attempted to figure out what his issues were with a given series of edits. At least once, he simply reverted without edit summary, which is reserved for vandalism. At other points, he accuses me of lying in his edit summaries. At no point (as of the filing of this report) has he replied to the thread I opened on the talkpage, explaining his mass reversions. LHMask me a question 20:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No comment on the edit warring, but such edit summaries are deceptive, and I've blocked PleaseConsider for 12 hours for it. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If either User:PleaseConsider or User:Lithistman continues to revert, they may be blocked for edit warring without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at my edits. They're not reverts. I was working on pruning the article, and PC came in just blind reverting everything. LHMask me a question 14:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Markbassett reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 15:59, November 24, 2014. Introduction of new paragraph, not a reversion.
 * 1)  16:28, November 24, 2014. Re-added paragraph.
 * 2)  16:38, November 24, 2014. Re-added paragraph.
 * 3)  17:32, November 24, 2014. Re-added paragraph.
 * 4)  16:14, November 25, 2014. Re-added paragraph.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:40, November 24, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Clear case of four reverts in a 24-hour period, the fourth following a warning against edit warring. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Director reported by User:Aleksa Lukic (Result: Locked; warned)
Page:

User being reported:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split,_Croatia&action=history

 Alex discussion ★ 21:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Rollback biased, badly-sourced nonsense, and changes that fly in the face of cited sources. Per WP:BRD. Discuss on talk. Will rollback non-consensus changes", yet he reverted two users constantly throughout out the weekend and today. It appears that user has already violated 3RR a few days ago by reverting just passed the 24 hour threshold form the original revert (by fifty miniutes). Shockingly, they did the same today with their final revert (just by a minute). AcidSnow (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Nothing shocking about this at all, I'm afraid: standard-issue Balkans nationalist POV-pushing. I requested that the user bring his changes to the talkpage, explaining in the summary that said changes go against cited sources, and generally require discussion. The user Tzowu simply edit-warred, no doubt hoping something exactly like this will happen and I alone will be sanctioned, allowing for him and his friends to altogether ignore sources and user opposition, avoid DR - even avoiding the bother of talkpage discussion and of having to at least try to justify the nonsense they are pushing. Users Tzowu and IvanOS both join us from Croatia (as I do myself), are often found pushing the same views, and I personally suspect they were working together with the aforementioned goal in mind. The problems with the edit are many, and this is not the place to discuss them, but are pretty typical of this sort of slanted "intervention" into a Balkans article. What little sources are presented seem to be either liberally interpreted (OR), or are at least contradicted by others already cited in the article, and upon which the article is based. The rest is arbitrary nonsense.

I would have reported the behavior, but frankly from experience I did not judge that to be a useful move. If sanctions are to be dealt out for this creeping edit war, I hope they are dealt out fairly. Personally I think all that's necessary is to protect the article at the status quo ante, and to point Tzowu to WP:BRD, i.e. the talkpage. -- Director  ( talk )  22:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is, two wrongs don't make a right. Even then you all should have been at the Talk Page instead of edit warring; which none of you bothered to do. So it won't be surprising if you guys are all blocked. AcidSnow (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, two wrongs don't make a right, and I should have posted something on the talkpage, but: #1 I've been around a long time on Wiki and, without this edit-war, I doubt the whole incident would have garnered any response at all from the community - I don't think there's anything I could have done that would have been much use; and #2 I didn't think it necessary to post anything on the talkpage since I already explained the basic problem in the edit summary: unsourced data, sources conflict. And, not being the one proposing new changes to the article, I thought the ball was firmly in Tzowu's court to post a thread explaining the sourcing (if any) behind the unsourced bits, and elaborating more clearly on what his sources state... I don't think he feels like it, frankly. -- Director  ( talk )  22:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why we have Noticeboards so we can bring an issue to the community. Going to the talk-page greatly helps explain your reasons since you limited when using an edit summary. Anyways, I have reviewed some of the things that you claimed that were unsourced or were not supported by the sources that were cited. I could be wrong but you seem to be wrong about that. You also removed when they were needed. Others were in Croatian so I did not bother to check. Are these what you were referring to in your edit summarizes? AcidSnow (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The basic problem is Tzowu introducing the idea that the city of Split was under the rule of Croatian king Peter Kresimir IV - which is a claim I explicitly tried to confirm when writing the history section, and could not (as I said in the relevant edit summary). The sources which the history section uses make no mention of that alleged rule, and I suspect that Tzowu may be mistaking a sort of "caretakership", sanctioned by the Byzantine emperor, for sovereign rule. Further, Tzowu is attempting to introduce the notion that the city was ruled as part of the Croatian crown in the Hungarian-Croatian personal union... even the very existence of a personal union is uncertain and disputed by some historians, and I can not imagine what respectable source could possibly claim which part of the realm was ruled under which crown. The city was under a royal charter, submitting to and capitulating directly to the person of the king, whereas even if they were part of a title, they could only be claimed by the Hungarian kings as part of their title of "King of Dalmatia", not "Croatia", etc...


 * D'you see why I didn't think this issue would interest a lot of people, short of when it escalates like this? The only people who could get into this are a) users like myself honestly interested in the (extremely complicated and obscure) history of the city, and b) users like Tzowu who are shocked when they find some place where Wikipedia does not follow the POV line from Croatian primary school curricula (wherein Croatia veritably ruled half of Europe at one time or another). I'm sorry to say I've had dealings with the fellow on previous occasions... -- Director  ( talk )  23:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah, if what you're saying is true then none of its true. Seeing how the city was under "nominal suzerainty of Hungary-Croatia" it's impossible for any forgein ruler to poses any real control. " Croatian primary school curricula (wherein Croatia veritably ruled half of Europe at one time or another)", your killing me lol. Anyways, none of this changes anything since no one should be doing such things. I believe a strong warning to both sides and a page protection tell the matter is resolved is the bet conclusion. AcidSnow (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (full) for one week., next time you file a report here, follow the instructions. If this continues after the lock expires, any editor edit warring risks being blocked without notice, in particular and .--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:XavierGreen reported by User:Nick-D (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Consensus version is

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)  (23 Nov)
 * 2)  (24 Nov)
 * 3)  (25 Nov)
 * 4)  (26 Nov - reinstating a disruptive POV tag which had been removed in the previous edit)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion at Talk:World War II

Comments:

A lengthy RfC on which countries, if any, to include in the World War II article's infobox (which exists as a separate template) was recently concluded at Talk:World War II, with the consensus being to list only 'Allies' and 'Axis', and not identify any specific countries in the inbox. I implemented this consensus after the discussion was closed by admin. XavierGreen did not agree with this position during the RfC, and shortly after I implemented the consensus started adding separate listings for Finland, Iraq and Thailand, claiming that the omission of Finland specifically represents "anti-Finnish bias". This position has attracted no support in the discussion in the discussion at Talk:World War II, and Xavier has been asked there to not slap a POV tag on the template as it adds this to the World War II article (one of the most-viewed Wikipedia articles) and is over the top given that the RfC recently reached a consensus on this issue. Despite this, he's continuing to edit war. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In the "incident" reported above I acted in good faith and i am quite surprised to see my name listed here. The position i took was NOT MENTIONED in the RFC, i asked Nick-D to show me where it was you failed to do so. I have exposed a legitimate problem regarding neutrality, i have not edit warred and after my second edit was reverted i placed a comment about my concerns on the appropriate talk page and a POV hat on the page to notify readers that there was a dispute regarding neutrality, which as i understand it is the correct procedure for such issues. I feel that user:Nick-D has acted in bad faith in placing me here in an attempt to quash any potential neutrality issues regarding the implementation of the RFC result which he supported actively.XavierGreen (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its a bit concering that you reverted again (for the 6th time) and this time with no effort to join the ongoing conversation that your aware of. -- Moxy (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How have i not joined the ongoing conversation? I participated in the RFC and i started the relevant thread on the talk page. Those 6 edits you show were not all reversions, and as i stated above after i was reverted in placing finland as a co-belligerent, i tried to place a pov-hatnote on the page which you yourself reverted in bad faith!XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would also note that i will be going away for the next few days for the thanksgiving holiday, so i may not be able to respond to any further comments for the next couple of days.XavierGreen (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks to me that User:XavierGreen is refusing to accept the result of a valid RfC. There may still be time for him to respond here and agree to accept consensus. If not, it appears that a block may be necessary to stop the edit war. Adding a POV hatnote is just another way to continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read the RFC discussion and my comments on the relevant talk page? I am not disputing the result of the RFC, from what i read the scope of the RFC was to merge all the members of the Allies and Axis into those respective monikers on the page's infobox. There was no mention in the RFC as to the status of co-belligerents which were not members of the Axis and Allies. Finland was not a member of the Axis Alliance as it did not sign the Tripartite Pact which was the legal document establishing the alliance. Finland specifically did not sign the pact so as to avoid being considered an Axis power during the conflict. It is both un-historical and non-neutral to list Finland as a member of the Axis which is why in the previous version of the infobox it was listed as a co-belligerent (along with Thailand and Iraq) apart from the Axis powers. I have asked both on the WWII talk page and here for editors opposing me to show me where exactly in the RFC co-belligerent powers are discussed and where it is stated that such states should be lumped together with the Axis states. As of yet no one has shown me.XavierGreen (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, it is up to you to find explicit talk page support for the change you want to make. Please link to where you received support. If you do not fully understand what the RfC decided, why not ask User:Number 57 for clarification, since he was the closer. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a red herring: the opening questions in the RfC made it very clear that it covered all possible countries to be included in the infobox or not (with option 1, which ended up being the consensus, being "Should World War II's infobox only have links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers?"). It's concerning that you're trying to Wikilawyer what was a pretty clear cut RfC. Nick-D (talk)
 * Now Xavier is trying to re-open the RfC by appealing for input from Wikiproject Finland and Wikiproject Military History, with neither post noting that there's recently been a RfC on this topic. This is clear-cut WP:POINT behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As i already indicated above, I am not trying to reopen the RFC! I am trying to get input on the neutrality issue i raised at the talk page! The discussion on the issue has not even run 12 hours. You criticize me for edit-warring, yet when i bring up a legitimate concern and try to follow the rules you attack me for following them. I don't know why you seem to have it out for me, and i'm rather taken aback by your remarks. Is being objective and trying to implement neutrality not one of the most important principals to follow when editing wikipeida Neutral point of view? XavierGreen (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Result: User:XavierGreen is warned he may be blocked the next time he reverts at Template:WW2InfoBox or adds a POV tag. If you believe Finland deserves special mention in the template you must get a talk page consensus for the change before you make the edit. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: Blocked)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:
 * 1)   07:37, 25 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635337996 by Aoidh (talk))
 * 2)   08:40, 25 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635354365 by Bladesmulti (talk)|||Removal of cited source)
 * 3)  08:36, 26 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635482334 by Aoidh (talk)||||Reach to a concensus before removing cited information.)
 * 4)  14:49, 26 November 2014‎ Amrit Ghimire Ranjit (talk | contribs)‎ . . (114,196 bytes) (+1,236)‎ . . (Undid revision 635493662 by Bladesmulti (talk)|Why are you removing cited source without agreement or concensus? It existed first and was removed without concensus.Note it.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

He was recently blocked for edit warring and he never participated on talk(page), always reverting. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * See User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit/diffs

He is reverting all ny edits regularly Tasks done By Bladesmulti - AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 15:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Undid for (nonsensical and too against the rest of historicity) when I had provided the source and Gautam Buddha has lived more than 29 yrs in Nepal. I had written the same.
 * Undid revision without reason Inclusion of History of India in name of History of Indian subcontinent in History of South Asia South Asia as if whole south asia is contained within India.
 * Undid revision (irrevalent category) But the category for english is relavent.
 * Undid revision (nonsensial)
 * How would you define the relevance of above nonsense that you have brought here? You want me to describe that 29 years of life doesn't means "most of the life" when the person lived for 80 years.
 * It must be very hard for you to rephrase what I had originally written, no wonder you have made errors in spelling the words(e.g. nonsensical, relevant). You maybe thinking that copying my actual words would violate Copyrights but you are wrong about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I went to add a 3RR warning on User:Amrit Ghimire Ranjit's page and saw a pointer to this. He's still reverting.  --Neil N  <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am copying the text to include your activity How can it be copyright voilation? AmRit GhiMire "Ranjit" 04:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * – 1 week. User has barely returned from a previous 3RR block on 23 November. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)