Page: Amir-Abbas Fakhravar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Siavash777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [4]
• 5th revert: [5]

Comments: The account has been used to break 1RR, and was blocked for the offenses, twice already on this very article. This is the third time.
Kabirat (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Both editors blocked - 72 hours, by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 and I have been in edit-wars in the past and I have requested an IBAN three times from this user for hounding, battlegrounding, etc. unsuccessfully.[6] We have both been edit-warring on and off for a few days over this edit which places the Controversy section near the top and I believe introduces a substantial UNDUE and NPOV problem.

It introduces a substantial amount of content regarding O'Dwyer's defense against eavesdropping accusations by the PRSA, but without including counterpoints such as phone records suggesting otherwise. I also believe it ignores prior discussions regarding UNDUE, which led to the Controversy section being shrunk and summarized, instead of including 40 years of back and forth between the two. It also disrupts the equal platform given to each side of the dispute. Cantaloupe continues to say I have not provided rationale, which is provided on the Talk page.

Based on my past experiences with this user, I believe these are bad-faith edits and so my behavior is not exemplary either, because I respond like most human beings would to someone who is stalking them. My bad-faith rationale is discussed in our prior edit-warring dispute, where he added negative content from a personal blog.[7]

I do not mean to "report" him per se, but ask how we resolve an edit-warring dispute of this nature before we both get blocked at 3RR. Not sure if this is the right place?

Page: Public Relations Society of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Reporting both Cantaloupe2 and myself

Cantaloupe2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk page here. An RFC and NPOV noticeboard strings were also started, but have no responses. Perhaps we just need some immediate intervention while the RfC runs its course.

CorporateM (Talk) 13:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
Seeing that we were not agreeing on this, I started a NPOV noticeboard discussion. CorporateM had been actively editing, but did not contribute to NPOV, so it appears that he is declining to participate. The user had expressed intentions to continually edit war on edits he disagree and made an ad hominem attack against me that my intentions are bad and I am defacing the article in violation of WP:AGF

To quote the CorporateM's talk page comment: " Yes, and now I've explained why. If you continue to make edits that are not representative of the discussion, I will continue to revert them. Your misplaced accusations of COI and excessive tagging to de-face articles is disruptive and I do not believe they represent a good-faith effort to improve the 'pedia. CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)"

The matter has since been sent for third party opinion, which happened prior to CorporateM's creation of this dispute. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, I defend my ABF. We do not continue to AGF in the face of overwhelming and obvious evidence to the contrary. From our last edit-warring dispute: "I think this bad faith is enough to justfy an iban from any uninvolved admin" -User:DGG CorporateM (Talk) 14:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, you can explain what's happening here. WP:CANVAS? Rather than let uninvolved party come here, you chose to solicit input from four users of your choice, all messaged in a short time frame.

EdJohnston

Nouniquenames

DGG

Gigs

I understands that you frequently chit chat with users including and not limited to some named above. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I invited CorporateM to participate in this dispute. User was given a notice on their talk page as required per WP policy. User responded by removing it from their talk page in acknowledgement of notification. It is my interpretation that user is unwilling to cooperate by refusing to not participate in addressing the issue before the NPOV board.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Not yet to 3rr, but definitely devolving into an edit war. Issue seems to be covered in talk at Controversy section, Jack O'Dwyer, and O'Dwyer and PRSA "consensus" (edited only by these two editors). Also of interest is the RfC by Cantaloupe2 (quickly closed for obvious reasons). --Nouniquenames 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• My comment about bad faith was made in connection with use of a particular source in another article, not related to the present question, and should not be used more generally as a comment on the general editing of anybody here. I really wish CM had not used the quote here.

As for the issue, I made my comment on the article talk p. I suggest the discussion continue there. As I know some of the parties involved, I'm not going to actually edit the PRSA article myself. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I think that his allegation was a meritless ad hominem attack. It isn't about contents, but it is about me which I think falls under WP:NPA

Non, which is why I sent it off to 3rd opinion. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: First Bulgarian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Second Bulgarian Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Edit warring and illegal page moves without consensus

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Comments:

You are both edit warring and neither one of you are discussing the changes on the talk page. GB fan 04:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors are warned and the two articles have been move protected. If the revert war continues, both sides may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: CartoonDiablo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13] (done before fourth revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Single-payer_health_care#Fixing_the_issues_still_in_play

Comments:

A long-term edit war in play. See also three reverts hereThargor Orlando (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's currently a parallel discussion happening in ANI CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Shannon T. Boodram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeterWesco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_T._Boodram&oldid=530965523 Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_T._Boodram&diff=531023087&oldid=530965523
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_T._Boodram&diff=531023087&oldid=530965523
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon_T._Boodram&diff=531025648&oldid=531025531
• 4th revert: [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shannon_T._Boodram - Provided quality Canadian Media Sources.

Comments:
PeterWesco Admits to a biased motif, not driven by the facts. The articles on the subject, who is a current TV personality in Canada, are not only notable they are; MacLeans, Toronto Star, Metro, and TVO to name a few. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shannon_T._Boodram - The User's (admitted) bias, and failure to take into account the quality of the media references constitutes abuse. If this user were following procedure they would have requested a review and consideration by administrators for AFD. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Canadaindiefilms (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no edit warring by User:PeterWesco. He has edited the article two times. The first time he Prod'd yhe article and the second time he nominated at AFD. GB fan 03:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

1. This is a disgruntled sockpuppet. See the SPI investigation: here

2. I have no idea what the editor is talking about with 3RR. I did not revert anything.

3. Please review the complete dissection of the references in the AfD: here

I, and other editors, have been dealing with this users WP:VANITY articles, WP:PAID articles, WP:SOCK, etc. for the past few weeks. Now the sock is accusing me of 3RR instead of admitting that I might just be AfDing her livelihood. I added the WP:BIAS to let other people know that this sock, the sockmaster, et al have caused a lot of battles lately. If this 3RR accusation and continued used of sock accounts is not justification for further banning then I am not sure what it is going to take to get all the accounts shutdown PeterWesco (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know what you are talking about with regard to WP:Paid, and WP:Sock I dont even know what all of that is. I had to spend an hour to figure out how to file a complaint for abuse. Because this was clearly abuse. As you admit you nominated the article because you have an idea that I am someone I ain't. I may not know all of the fancy acroynms and nice things like that but I do know the subject is notable - and has been on every network in the damn country at one time or another - the appearances are actually on youtube posted by a variety (and in the case of TVO by their official account). Not to mention google is chalk full of everything from bloggers to media sources(great ones), to youtube videos which come up when googled.

Anyway enough aside there must be a conflict of interest policy around here - and your perceived notion blinded your judgement and disqualified you from acting impartially on the AFD. That is the point, and the bottom line. It was in appropriate behavior. Canadaindiefilms (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• No violation - not a 3RR violation, user has only edited twice - once to add a prod, once to add an AfD when the prod was removed. SPI confirmed the sock, that and any other claimed issues may require WP:ANI, but this isn't the place for them. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Single-payer health care (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: United States National Health Care Act (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert (update): diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert (update): diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

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

Comments:
This is an issue that was solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring against that consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty hard to say something is resolved when numerous attempts to discuss were outright ignored, but such is the way of these things. There's no issue here if CartoonDiablo actually decides to engage on the talk page or discussions, which he has chosen not to do for nearly two months. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You're the only editor engaged precisely because you're the only one that finds fault with it. The issue isn't a dispute, it's you editing warring against the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And that consensus is where? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion for single-payer between me, you and Scjessey. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What consensus is that? Do I get to include North8000 in my camp? Does the inaccurate viewpoint of one of the polls being a "push poll" assist either side in our viewpoints? Why didn't you bother making this argument at any point in time between the NPOV noticeboard and the talk pages in the last two months? Who's doing the "edit warring" without discussion, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

North8000 was not in the single-payer discussion and virtually no one participated in the NPOV noticeboard because it seemed self-evident the only person that had a problem with it was you. The point is, this board is about user behavior not content disputes (of which we went through ad nausem). You've had your say and now we're discussing your edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since this discussion is across multiple articles, I'd argue he is. That you chose - willingly - not to involve yourself in the discussions should tell us something. Do we want to talk about conduct? How about your blanket reverts without discussion? The entire issue is the content dispute that you refuse to resolve, so... Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Except that I was (marginally) involved and about as involved as everyone else? Are we then to assume everyone was in a conspiracy to "willingly" sabotage the discussion? --CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. @CartoonDiablo, you mentioned in your edit summary a discussion at ANI; can you please provide a link?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Woops my bad I meant AN3 which is the discussion here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thargor and CartoonDiablo have also appeared on opposite sides of discussions at DRN and NPOVN recently:

• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 51#Single-payer/healthcare polls (ended October 18)
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 36#Health care articles (ended December 1)

Perhaps CartoonDiablo can explain his comment above: "solved by me and user Scjessey in October but recently Thargor Orlando has begun edit warring.." The most obvious interpretation is that both the DRN and the NPOVN were inconclusive. The second discussion certainly indicates that consensus was not reached in the first one. Where is the venue where consensus with Scjessey was said to have been reached? Is it too much to expect an actual WP:Request for comment on the article talk page? -EdJohnston (talk) 21:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an issue with typical dispute resolution processes w/CD because he seems to fundamentally misunderstand how they work. There was a separate dispute with him (also still unresolved, but I had to detach for a time and I haven't had an opportunity to revisit with this new, more important issue) where he assumed that a DRN suggestion was binding.[14] Disputes for CD appear to be a means to an end - a war of attrition rushed to dispute resolution in an attempt to get sanctions on those who disagree with him, making consensus building incredibly difficult. This should have been resolved six months ago. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute was over whether the polls are measuring for single-payer. Me and Scjessey came to the consensus that it did and Thargor tried to take it to NPOV noticeboard where almost no one participated because it was obvious he was the only person that had a problem with it. Earlier in the discussion he accused me of "willingly" not participating which I suppose applies to everyone else as well (except for Thargor)?

At this point we have:

• Reverting consensus
• Accusing everyone else of "willingly" trying to sabotage attempts at resolution. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Ed. I see no consensus. I also see no breach of 3RR, and to the extent there is edit-warring, it is equally distributed.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Both in the page discussion and the NPOV dispute Scjessey said that the polls were measuring single-payer, that was the consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And both myself, North8000, and now two people here say there clearly is not. Does this mean you'll cease trying to force your edits? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No, North was not in the single-payer discussion he was in the failed NPOV discussion and the two people here are talking about whether or not the consensus exists, not the content of what it's about.

The fact of the matter is Thargor's explicit reason for reverting it was no one responded and no one responded because the consensus for it was solved. We've gone through this before and if nothing is done Thargor will keep reverting it and we will keep coming back to this noticeboard over and over again. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Or you can continue/finish the discussion at the talk page as opposed to explicitly avoiding it. Since there's no consensus, maybe that's your best move. Otherwise, the assumption will be that there are no further protests to changing it back. As the NPOV discussion was about these articles, North is absolutely "part" of any discussion about consensus, which at least four people now note doesn't exist as opposed to your novel claim that it does. So I suggest coming back to the talk page and supporting your claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I chose to withdraw from activity on articles frequented by Thargor because of the editor's behavior. Several attempts at dispute resolution have been made (it was my attempt to mediate one of these that drew me into editing at the article in question), but Thargor has ignored them, waited for interest to wane and then returned to revert any edits that were made under whatever consensus had been reached. CartoonDiablo should be commended for "defending Wikipedia's honor in the face of ideological editing" or something, but I'm afraid I can no longer work with Thargor constructively. A block for 3RR will serve no useful purpose because Thargor is used to waiting patiently. Only a topic ban will work. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I haven't ignored them at all. In fact, I seem to be the only person interested in fixing the problems in this case. We've reached no consensus - this is why we have this problem. Meanwhile, since your contributions have been to malign good sources[15] and engage in unfounded attacks[16], maybe it should be up to others to decide who the problem players are here, hm? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Look I can bring up diffs and Scjessey can affirmatively answer it here but we did reach a consensus, and that was the polls measured single-payer (and this is with Scjessey acting as a mediator). So unless edit waring against consensus isn't a problem I don't see why we shouldn't have a 3RR (not even considering the other suggestion for a topic ban). CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd love to see the diffs that show an actual consensus. No one else but you seems to be seeing it. I see you ignoring discussion and avoiding questions plenty, but no consensus. And seeing as I didn't revert anywhere more than twice, it just goes to show you don't understand how this works, either. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Right here:

• "The polls in that link all talk about full health coverage paid for by the government in one form or another. That is single-payer." - diff of Scjessey.
• "This POV pushing must stop. Thargor is trying to create a false equivalence by suggesting that one poll (conducted by the right-leaning Rasmussen pollster with dubious wording) somehow balances the fistful of polls indicating that Americans overwhelmingly support the adoption of some form of single-payer system" - diff of Scjessey

As you can see, me and Scjessey established a consensus that these are single-payer polls and Thargor is reverting against it. Whether or not it's 3RR it's still edit warring. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Neither of these actually demonstrate consensus, simply the opinions of one editor. Two people cannot say "we have consensus" against two other editors, sorry - especially when we're talking about factually inaccurate descriptions. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Update: Thargor is now inserting content dispute tags even though there is no content dispute but a dispute about edit-warring and consensus diff, diff.

• Yes, I did. And they've been reverted without discussion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - the bot moved this to the archive, but it has not been resolved. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• At the NPOV noticeboard input was received from two uninvolved folks. Two uninvolved folks (Blueboar and myself) said that the use of polls was problematic. I had some more detailed comments on that as well as the wp:or added via table headings etc.. Looks like none of the opinions/advice was used/heeded.
• IMO the reason you didn't get more participation is because that it's a large complex issue (a lot of problematic stuff bundled into the vague question of table vs. text. You might try that distillation to get a few more eyes on the article.
• The argument above seems to be that there are just 3 heavily involved people and the two that want it one way are saying that the one person not doing what the two people want is editing against a "consensus" determined by two people. This is not right on several levels. Not only is this not a "consensus", but 2 folks can't just say that because there are two of them that can override policy in the problematic areas noted. At first glance, the biggest one is that they way it is now it is contruction-by-editors from primary sources, including drawing conclusions from primary sources which is certainly a policy issue.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at the list....there's not even any 3RR there. At each article the addition of a tag was listed as being a "revert"North8000 (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It's slo-mo edit warring to further an ideological point of view, at the very least. When someone uses edit warring as a tactic in a content dispute, it demonstrates a need for some sort of topic ban. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Except I'm not pushing to further an ideological point of view, but a factual one. If I wanted an ideological point of view, I'd push to remove any instance of single payer whatsoever. That wouldn't be appropriate. Meanwhile, you think using MMfA in articles is okay, but the Heritage Foundation is not - who's approaching this ideologically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

False equivalence. Media Matters for America reports on what right-wing media is saying, whereas Heritage just makes shit up to support their ideological point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You've kind of made my point here. Meanwhile, a discussion is ongoing at the single payer article if you'd like to join us. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So, when Thargor does it is slow motion edit warring and when Scjessey & CartoonDiablo do it it is righteous persistence. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes. We all know you are part of the same ideological group as Thargor and incapable of offering impartial advice on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black. Well, not quite the same, because the Kettle (North) is not an advocate of using hyper-partisan sources like MMfA Arzel (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You see that's your problem right there. All MMfA does is report on the ridiculous crap on right-wing media. It does almost nothing else but function as a watchdog. On the rare occasions that their straight reporting is "colored" with commentary, those sources are not used. In contrast, the Heritage Foundation exists solely to push a conservative point of view. It even has its own action group for that purpose. There's simply no way you could compare the two. If you get all your news from the right-wing media echo chamber, however, you wouldn't know this. Open your eyes, Arzel. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I recommend this be marked as stale and consigned to the 3RR dustbin. The matter is now being discussed at DRN and ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I concur, with the added note that the actual violation below was ignored and has been taken as an endorsement of the actions taken. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • There's no doubt you have been edit warring, Thargor. My previous comment is simply noting that any action based on this report would be unnecessary, and perhaps even harm attempts at resolution of the content dispute from which your actions arose. The problem is not that you edit warred, but rather why you edit warred. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • "At best, it was equally distributed." I'd challenge that different edits after trying to get people to discuss on the talk page isn't edit warring, but YMMV. The problem player hasn't been me in any regard, so it's a rather moot point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Göktürk-2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 158.39.0.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [08:43, January 2, 2013‎] [08:45, January 2, 2013‎] [08:47, January 2, 2013‎]
• 2nd revert: [11:51, January 2, 2013‎]
• 3rd revert: [16:00, January 2, 2013‎]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] User is anon.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Explained on the article's talk page not to remove sourced text and refs and not to add unsourced text.

Comments:

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Duchy of Cornwall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

• Latest revert: [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

This page and dispute was the subject of a 3RR report here by the user now being reported, who had filed over my repeated removal of an inappropriate infobox that they added first on 26 December and then repeatedly re-added. As a result, although 3RR had not been breached, the page was protected (in a version without their addition) as both they and I were edit-warring. The user in question has now proceeded to reinsert their additions. Obviously in this cycle, we are only at 1RR, but surely a user can't come back in and start edit-warring again like this? N-HH talk/edits 21:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he claim that adding additional material must be justified. An infobox does add any addition information, just is a summary tool. Even so I place before him a number of source which he dismissed as he didn't like them. He sat there like he was the judge of the matter claim some sort of expertise. He ignored basic definitions.Spshu (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"And no, consensus does not mean that I have to convince you or that your additions get to stay until anyone does." Well, so the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" is patently false, as you state you did not attempt to resolve the dispute, have you, N-HH? Spshu (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm hopeful that this can still be resolved amicably on the article talk page, and have commented there.  —SMALLJIM  23:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On the talk page, there seem to be three editors (N-HH, Ghmyrtle and Smalljim) opposing the infobox and only one in favor (Spshu). Even if the discussion isn't over, this is clearly not a consensus *in favor* of the infobox. The last protecting admin said "Please do not perform further reverts until the discussion comes to a consensus." In spite of this, Spshu went ahead and restored his infobox on 3 January. I suggest that Spshu explain why he should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As you've seen on the talk page, I've given Spshu the opportunity to self-revert which I think would show sufficient goodwill to avoid a block.  —SMALLJIM  23:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Spshu is warned not to revert again unless they have found a talk page consensus for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: List of common misconceptions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mr swordfish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:

This user is repeatedly reverting material that uses direct quotes for highly reputable sources. The sole discussion he is prepared to enage in is that he believes they are unreliable, without producing any evidence to that effect. Mark Marathon (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the main disagreement is that the edits are mis-characterizing the material in the cited sources. I am not the only editor who has reverted these mis-characterized edits. I do welcome a third opinion in this dispute and look forward to a resolution. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Both sides in this edit war seem to be hung on the fact that the list keeps getting left in the wrong version. siafu (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Page protected – Two days. Please use this time to find consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Flashback Media Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 46.195.55.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]
• 5th revert: [33]
• 6th revert: [34] (reverting Cluebot, which reverted the above)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36]

Comments:
SPA with a political agenda, adding what constitutes WP:OR to the article. The additions were removed because of violation of WP:OR and this fact was put to this user on their talk page several times, but they have only responded once, and that was only to make spurious comments about the political agenda of another editor, and since then they have solely relied on edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I will also try to explain more clearly to the user what the problems are. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [37]

• 1st revert: [38]
• 2nd revert: [39]
• 3rd revert: [40]
• 4th revert: [41]

Page protected. Before seeing this report, I did some major copy editing to the article, as well as removing some significant copyright violations. The IP editing in the article appears to be very suspicious. The article has been semi-protected before by me recently. Spacevezon was never notified of this discussion by the IP. I will let them know I've closed the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Theodor Anton Ippen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• [42]

• 1st revert: [[43] 15:41, 4 January 2013‎]
• 2nd revert: [44] 18:03, 4 January 2013‎
• 3rd revert: [45] 18:16, 4 January 2013‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:

• Antidiskriminator started Theodor Anton Ippen and essentially he has misrepresented many sources, chosen to use cropped parts of quotes, used some verbatim, used false citation data and used full template parametres that are unnecessary. The general state of the prose was also very poor with frequent grammatical and structural mistakes (batized Jews, Theodor Anton Ippen of Theodor Anton Max Ippen , After the London treaty has been signed the ambassadors of six Great Powers decided in July 1913 to constitute a new state etc.).
• Firstly I placed a copyvio tag, which was removed and then I tried to remove many of unused parametres (making my edits look as if they involved content removal) and correct the source issues. I've explained on the talkpage some of the more obvious[47][48] misinterpretations of the sources.
• An obvious instance of cropping parts from quotes is the use of: the Powers signed a protocol establishing Albania as an 'autonomous, sovereign, hereditary principality' as constitute a new state, Albania, as hereditary principality )deliberately not mentioning the actual wording of the treaty). You will notice that he reverted even plain citation corrections like Ethnologia Balkanica. Prof. M. Drinov Academic Publishing House. 1998., which I corrected and used the article's title, attributed it to the author and corrected his misconception that Ethnologia Balkanica is a book (it's a journal) and finally readded it as Gruber, Siegfried (1998). "Austrian Contributions to the Ethnological Knowlegde of the Balkans Since 1850". Ethnologia Balcanica (Prof. M. Drinov Academic Publishing House) 2: 209–24.
• I've made one revert, for which I take full responsibility, while afterwards I used only the talkpage.
• As a background detail I should mention that Antidiskriminator for much the same reasons was topic banned under ARBMAC a couple of months ago (reported by User:Peacemaker67).
• Recent disputes and/or edit-wars usually involve original research and source misinterpretation on Kosovo topics (also under ARBMAC) with User:bobrayner ([49][50]
• Antidiskriminator is not a new user (both of us joined wiki around the same time and if I can stick to arguments and 1 revert, so should he) and his talkpage behavior and reverts show that he neither evaluated my arguments nor realized his very basic mistakes. In fact, he reverted before acknowledging a simple source misrepresentation and partially correct it[51] while still insisting on the talkpage that he didn't misinterpret[52] even after his edit.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 19:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The first diff presented here is removal of unjustified close paraphrasing tag (which remained unexplained although I politely asked ZjarriRrethues to present proof for his claim (diff). Two other diffs are restoration of the text of the article after ZjarriRrethues two times performed major changes. My actions were based on Wikipedia:Editing policy, as I explained on the article's talkpage. I sincerely apologize if my actions are not an obvious 3RR exemptions, like I believe they were. I promise not to revert more than three times. I am glad that there is a discussion on the talkpage which started to deal with some of concerns of ZjarriRrethues.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

They were edits that dealt with your partially accidental and partially deliberate misinterpretation of the sources, which you still insist not to have misinterpreted (as for copyvio among others you've used copied the phrasing "baptized Jews" from Elsie's page). As you know since you've frequently been told what reverts are in other disputes and you're already sitebanned on sr.wiki and topic banned on en.wiki, there's no "3RR exemption" in content disputes and especially ones, in which full quotes of the sources you've misinterpreted have been provided to you. You knew that your edits were disruptive as regards source use, prose, grammar and structure and still you made them, so please do not claim that you didn't know what your edits were. The essence of edit-warring isn't the 3RR limit, but the nature of the edits themselves.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Elsie allowed all material on his website to be freely used for non-profit purposes so its not copyvio (link). Any other concerns you might have about the content should be dealt with at article's talkpage. Please AGF especially because it was me who provided full quotes for every single assertion in the article. I am glad that you started to discuss details of your concerns on the talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not without proper attribution, not to mention that as an act itself it is unencyclopedic. I've been mentioning the disruptive misinterpretation since the first edit and you still insist that you haven't misinterpreted them, not to mention the substandard prose that you have reintroduced. Admin intervention for your revert-warring and disruption is more than necessary given your WP:IDHT and disregard of sourcing policies.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You accused me for copyvio based on two words "baptized Jews" and you yourself used "Austrian scholar and diplomat" (diff) which is precisely an expression used by Elsie (link). As you can see on the article's talkpage, your position is not always grounded in arguments so it would be better to discuss before filing complaint. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Copying an easily replacable phrase and using a very common one are two different things. --— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've fully protected the article for 3 days as both of you are edit-warring and no one else is involved. Just a couple of comments about copyright. Using a phrase like "baptized Jews" is hardly copyright infringement - it's too short. The "license" on the Robert Elsie page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for proper licensing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Template:World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking the 3RR. User has reverted the page in question seven times in less than 24 hours. User seems to make reverts to ensure they have the last edits on articles.

Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rothbardanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

• 1st revert: [54] (in response to an earlier adding a see also to an article on these books being reverted, he or she re-added them as an external link in this edit, effectively making it a reversion)
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56] (note rude edit summary)
• 4th revert: [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58] - note that Rothbardanswer had earlier been warned for spamming similar links [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion at Talk:World War II#Addition of new external links - Rothbardanswer has been edit warring during this discussion, despite no-one supporting his or her position. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Ok, I don't know if you're interpreting my edits as malicious? It was just an error of where to put the external links. I wasn't actually under the impression you were trying to censor or that we were even arguing! :) Also you didn't warn me, you just accused me of edit warring! haha. When you said that I had already started a talk section :) I hope whoever reviews this just looks at the talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talk • contribs) 09:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the user is scrubbing his/her talk page of prior warning and objections for edit warring, vandalism and inserting unsupported claims. I don't know if this is consistent with wikipedia policy, but you can see the edits in the the talk page history, and here was the page before the deletions. Finx (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

pls take the time to read over WP:REMOVED and WP:OWNTALK.Moxy (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for following up on this Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Pages: Saenuri Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Democratic Party of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Saenuri Party

Previous version reverted to: [60]

• 1st revert: [61] by 190.22.167.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TelefÓnica Chile IP, Danrolo identifies as being based in Chile on his user page; exactly the same editing pattern as Danrolo's
• 2nd revert: [62] by 186.79.54.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Telefónica Chile IP, exactly the same editting pattern as Danrolo's, shared interest in Middle East Baath Parties as well
• 3rd revert: [63]
• 4th revert: [64]

Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]

Democratic Party of Japan

Previous version reverted to: [69]

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]

Danrolo has not breached the 3RR in 24 hours, but engages in long-term edit wars over several articles, sometimes without logging in. He has constantly shown disruptive editing since at least November 2011, namely inserting unsourced information, refusal to back it up with references and edit warring. He has also inserted factual errors (deliberately or out of ignorance), repeatedly moved articles without consensus, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly created biographies on living persons without citing sources, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly removed PRODs from them, despite being warned against doing so. His talk page is plastered with good advice and escalating warnings against disruptive editing, unsourced content and edit warring. My repeated attempts to communicate with Danrolo have failed a long time ago. --RJFF (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Yes, I did them, and i don't want to block me, I just only wanted to edit the articles. --Danrolo 15:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, this is becoming worse. Without logging in (probably to protect himself), Danrolo continues his uncooperative and disruptive behaviour at more articles:

People's Alliance (Spain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

removal of sourced content, previous version reverted to: [72]

• 1st revert: [73] by 190.22.231.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Telefónica Chile IP, easily identifiable as Danrolo, edits exactly the same editing pattern, even the same articles, interest in political parties, Middle East politics, South American showgirls - Danrolo's favorite topics)
• 2nd revert: [74] by 190.22.145.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Telefónica Chile IP, same range, same editing pattern, same articles as edited by Danrolo)
• 3rd revert: [75] by 190.22.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Telefónica Chile IP, same range, same articles as edited by Danrolo)

Democratic Justice Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77] by 186.79.54.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: [78] by 186.79.8.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: [79] by 190.22.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• 4th revert: [84]
• 5th revert: [85]
• 6th revert: [86]
• 7th revert [87]
• 8th revert [88]
• 9th revert: [89]
• 10th revert: [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91][92] In addition, editor was blocked previously for edit-warring on this article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Moshe Friedman#Dialogue on Changes

Comments:
Please note: editor has not broken 3RR but is engaging in a long-term pattern of edit-warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• With these latest edits the editor now has violated 3RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• User has subsequently made a straight revert.[93] Clear-cut violation of 3RR, and I've said as much on his user talk page.[94] I can see why the user is frustrated, but edit warring is not the way to move forward. —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• This user is now on 8 reverts, most of which are BLP vios, his last revert is a BLP vio in that the source does not remotely support the edit. Will someone block this guy already. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• I'm having real doubts about the advisability of allowing Tellyuer1 to continue editing Wikipedia at all, in light of this post. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

On top of his socking this should lead to an indef. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Post to the collaboration page could be a violation of WP:CANVASS, but neither that nor socking are the issue here. I've been talking to him on his user talk, and he's indicated that he'll take a couple hours away from the computer to settle down. Hopefully things improve when he gets back; otherwise, if he were to make one more revert to a Friedman-related article, I would endorse a block for 3RR violation/disruption. —C.Fred (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not about canvassing -- it's about his view that Wikipedia must expose the evil Moshe Friedman, and the effort to recruit "good Jews" to the cause. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please note that canvassing now is an issue, with Tellyuer1 making the same post to many user-talk pages in hopes of getting support at Moshe Friedman -- and on his own talk page the editor intimates that he will continue in this mode. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Because of the other problems identified, a report against the user has been filed at WP:AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is insane, he has 5 reverts on Neturei Karta today, will somebody block this guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: History of the metric system (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96]
• 2nd revert: [97]
• 3rd revert: [98]
• 4th revert: [99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:History of the metric system/Archive 1#The number of "modern writers" who support Naughtin's theory about Wilkins and Talk:History of the metric system/Archive 1#What weasel word, and why all the rest too?

Comments:

The period of that sequence is slightly over 24 hours, but by design I think, as this user has been reverting back to his favored version over several days, and using less than clear, perhaps deliberately misleading, edit summaries too and failing to fully and good-faithedly engage in a discussion on the talkpage. The claims are also the subject of threads on the fringe and OR noticeboards with at least one of the sources being of doubtful integrity. MeasureIT (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note – the OP is the subject of an SPI case. The editor being reported here has made comments in the SPI. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note too that the SPI was opened 2 days after I started questioning the accuracy of the portrayal of the role of Watkins in the history of the present day metric system - quickly supported by Martinvl whilst he was failing to engage in constructive discussion with me over these issues. MeasureIT (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I request that this be dismissed on the technicality that more than 24 hours passed.

The originator (who is under an SPI) has been doing his best to needle me. Amongst other things, he is persisting in adding a "Weasal word" flag after the word "Many" in the following sentence:

Many twentieth century writers regarded the French cleric Gabriel Mouton as the originator of the metric system,^[4].

It should be noted that the statement is followed by a citation, the contents of which justified that at least one writer has this opinion. It is also obvious to anybody who has read WP:WEASEL that this sentence does not in any way

"appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis".

I request that my last version be allowed to stand.

Martinvl (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and do not characterise my recent attempts (started on 30 December), across several articles, to reconcile the claimed role of Wilkins in the history of the present day metric system (a claim which, since I raised it as suspect, you seem to have been spending night and day trawling Google to support) with the reliably sourced mainstream view of his role. MeasureIT (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note that Martinvl also attempted to change WP:WEASEL to support the reverts he keeps making yet fails to engage in discusson on, see this diff: [101]. This change has since been reverted by another editor. MeasureIT (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

User has been site-spamming mises.org absolutely everywhere. Some examples are:

• The Holocaust (diff)

• Great Depression (diff)

• Fascism (diff)

• Christianity (diff)

• History of economic thought (diff)

• Euro (diff)

• World War II (diff)

• Apartheid in popular culture (diff)

• Apartheid in South Africa (diff)

User has been previously blocked due to edit warring on the WWII article on account of this site spam.

While I understand this does not violate wikipedia policy, user has repeatedly scrubbed talk page of warnings and complaints. Here is an older version of the user's talk page and another older one covered in yet more warnings, complains objections.

User is presently engaged in yet more edit wars on several articles, like:

Capitalism (diff1, diff2, diff3), Christianity (diff1, diff2), Free Market (history)

Finx (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You didn't warn me about this Finx :) Anyway I don't know why you reported this as this exact issue has already been reported: here

I think I may have been "edit warring" but I was unaware of policy. I was the only user using the talk page while all other reverts seem to bad faith, article ownership, political POV pushing, editorialising and vandalism. I also didn't understand the policy on edit warring because in my mind I was correcting what ended up being malicious edits. I used the talk page and no one would respond.

also I'm demonstrably not edit warring on Christianity or capitalism (but you are trying to engage me in a personal edit war 'censoring' relevant links that don't violate policy) and I'm practically the only contributor using the talk pages on free market where people are deleting sourced material and replacing it with errors. The people I've been drawn into an edit war with on "free market" are users Battlecry (an openly socialist editor), Spylab (an editor who seems to monitor and censor) and Bobrayner. Not a single one has used the talk page or given reason for deleting well written corrections with multiple sources. How am I supposed to stop people vandalising without reverting their edits? I assumed good faith but if you look in the edit history their reasons are all political. Rothbardanswer (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

While I am sure these users (and many others whom you've been battling on every one of your contributions) would love to discuss this alleged political conspiracy against you, you are immediately deleting all critical warnings, notices and objections from your talk page, which is typically the place to investigate such a socialist plot. Finx (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• What would be nice is if editors took the time to explain things/problems to new editors - Coping and pasting warnings over and over does not help. The editor above has in good faith tried to bring things up on the talk page to no avail at the beginning. Will have to say if I were Rothbardanswer I would be convinced not to editing here at all. New editors need time to familiarizes themselves with our 100s of policies and guides. If the editors is editing in a POV fashion explain what the problem is - waring after waring does not explain the heart of the problem .Moxy (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My personal experience with this editor on the article I was trying to contribute to is that I repeatedly pleaded she/he see the talk page for discussion. These requests were repeatedly ignored, along with my posts on that talk page, as I tried to point out errors and historic misrepresentations of the topic. Later, I would be accused repeatedly of "arguing politics" and (paraphrased) 'spilling my political opinions' in other places (like rude edit summaries, or noticeboard reports, and anywhere else that's not the article's talk page -- on what basis, I still have no idea). Any attempt to discuss this on the user's talk page would be immediately purged. I don't have the diffs, but editors on 'liberalism', 'free market', 'libertarianism' and several other topics expressed the same experience. The user ignores the discussion on the talk page, hammers in 'the undisputed truth' with repeated reverts if the changes don't stick, and then when someone points out this was already discussed and settled in the talk section, a bizarre tantrum follows where everyone is accused of socialist conspiracy or vandalism. Finx (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As you can see by his talk page - he is more then willing to engage in a conversation when things are explained in a proper manner. Your edit here (that was removed) was already being discussed above. This poor editors is being overwhelmed by notices that explain nothing (Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers).Moxy (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This poor editor was being reached out to as early as June 2012 to educate him or herself on Wikipedia policies. Most of the objections, of which there are dozens, were scrubbed without response or any indication of wanting to discuss or understand the reasons. I understand that this is okay by Wikipedia policy (thank you for the link in the previous edit war report on this editor from a few days ago), but I would imagine removal indicates some sort of understanding or acknowledgement. If there had been an issue or something was unclear, I would expect to see some discussion before there were outstanding noticeboard reports, as there had been plenty of opportunities, instead of indignation after the fact. Finx (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Clear reverts at 17:12, 17:25, 17:38, 17:53. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "I wasn't aware of policy" and "please don't bite the newcomer" arguments. There are many warnings and discussions related to disruptive patterns of editing, and you've been editing here for six months with a very recent prior block for the same issue. Resolve your disputes on the talk page, not by simply reverting every single person that disagrees with your edits. Kuru (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Stargate (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
99.192.59.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
99.192.51.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

• 1st revert: [102]
• 2nd revert: [103]
• 3rd revert: [104]
• 4th revert: [105]

Diff of warring [106]

Comments:

Typically the edit war and the lack of substantive discussion. And also: strong suspicion - using sock puppets in the edit war... and also edit war in the user discuss [107]. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Note. I agree that the two IPs are probably the same person, but you still should have notified both of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the count of reverts is incorrect. The one listed as a first "revert" was actually an original edit. It is not a "revert" to remove content from a page unless it was just added. So I have only "reverted" three times, as is permitted.

Secondly, if you read the talk page discussions and the edit summaries, you will see that my edit is fully supported by MOS:FILM. Several other editors have since intervened to point out that my edit was entirely correct.

Thirdly, even when I noted that my edit was based on MOS:FILM, the editor who has made this complaint first reverted without making any comment in the edit summaries, and then reverted (incorrectly) again without consulting MOS:FILM. If anyone has edited inappropriately, it is Subtropical-man for not using edit summaries, not checking the MOS even when it was pointed out to him.

Fourthly, and finally, the accusation that I am a sock puppet is baseless. The editor seems to not understand what a dynamic ISP is. I have made no attempt to represent myself as more than one person and have, in fact, made a point of connecting the addresses, as I did in the comments on Talk:Stargate (film). The accusation is entirely without merit. 99.192.90.239 (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.59.98 & 99.192.51.30)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The first edit listed above is indeed a revert, and a continuation of an edit war you were involved in on December 17th. I've placed the block on the current IP address; please note that this block is on you, the editor, and any attempt to edit during the next 24 hours, other than on the talk page of your IP address, will be handled as block evasion. I don't care about MOS:FILM; you can constructively debate the guidelines on the article's talk page, or engage in dispute resolution when your block expires. Kuru (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Orlando Figes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.183.128.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [108]
• 2nd revert: [109]
• 3rd revert: [110]
• 4th revert: [111]
• And more!: [112],[113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:
212.XXX reverting both Benea and I, attempting to remove a sentence that states that Figes' wife was blamed by her husband for various negative reviews that appeared on Amazon. 5 total reverts by the IP. Buggie111 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Eleutherococcus senticosus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.209.163.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]

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

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

Comments: IP will likely try to focus on my claim that cannabis does not cause a withdrawal syndrome. For the purposes of this discussion, I retract that claim. My reasons for reverting his/her edits is because they were original research. The withdrawal claim occurred a week ago, before I reverted any of the IP's edits.Charles35 (talk) 06:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The only reason I'm not immediately blocking the IP for edit-warring is because the warning of edit-warring was left on the article talk page, not on the IP's talk page, so it's not clear to me they saw it before their last revert. However, I have left a comment on the IP's talk page explaining to them that to avoid a block, they need to comply with certain conditions. I will wait for their response.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP did not revert and has not responded to your comment on his or her talk page. Charles35 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Helllloooo??? Deli nk reverted the original research, and the IP came along and reverted it right back. Is anyone going to do something about this? He didn't agree to bbb23's terms... Can someone at least semi-protect the page? Charles35 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. No point in blocking the original IP at this point. I semi-protected the article for a week to prevent further disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 20:29, 6 January 2013 UTC

• 1st revert: 21:51, 6 January 2013 UTC
• 2nd revert: 23:16, 6 January 2013 UTC
• 3rd revert: 23:23, 6 January 2013 UTC
• 4th revert: 00:53, 7 January 2013 UTC
• 5th revert: 12:24, 7 January 2013 UTC

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [124]

Comments:

• User edit warring against multiple editors on a WP:BLP in order to force disputed material and sources into the article. Dreadstar ☥ 02:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• This user continues to edit war in the same disputed material against yet another editor. Dreadstar ☥ 15:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Note this is an edit-warring report, not a 3RR.

Page: Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Timeline of Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Boljom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [125]

Please just see the user's contribs, Special:Contributions/Boljom

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article Talk page, Talk:Sun_Myung_Moon and RSN discussion Wikipedia:RSN#Obituaries_and_Sun_Myung_Moon.

Comments:

This recently-created SPA exists only to whitewash the Moon bio and related pages. No real engagement on the WP:RS points raised on article Talk page. Slow edit-warring to remove well-sourced information against consensus of at least five other editors. To be effective, this will require a multi-day block--review the spacing of the reverts in the editor's history. Zad68 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of Indefinite. Dreadstar ☥ 17:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: December 10, 2012

• 18:49, 3 January 2013
• 12:25, 4 January 2013
• 12:38, 4 January 2013
• 21:22, 6 January 2013
• 22:01, 6 January 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 21:37, 6 January 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [127]

Comments:

• [128][129]. Viriditas (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, User:Allthestrongbowintheworld is also on five reverts, why have you not report him also? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Alohamesamis has been trolling In Bruges (and other articles) for several months now, and has received multiple blocks for his nonsense. The problems with his edits have been explained to him again and again on his user and talk page. Each time her comes off his block he returns to edit war again, each time trying to claim In Bruges is an Irish film against consensus. Allthestrongbowintheworld is not on five reverts. Please look at the diffs again. Alohamesamis is being reported for edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a troll. Calling me a troll is a personal attack. Please refrain from personal attacks. The fact that Allthestrongbowintheworld disagrees with me does not make his version the consensus version.14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Going from your date of January3rd [130][131][132][133][134] So he is also editwarring. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

When warned about edit warring at 21:37, 6 January by User:Theroadislong, the response by Alohamesamis was to revert again at 22:01, 6 January 2013. He did not even use the talk page first. That behavior is called edit warring. Allthestrongbowintheworld is not edit warring. Alohamesamis is repeatedly restoring a version not supported by the sources and Allthestrongbowintheworld is removing this unsourced material with an explanation on the talk page. That's entirely appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I added sourced material, not unsourced. Allthestrongbowintheworld was repeatedly removing sourced material. Alohamesamis (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

But he did comment on the talk page, he started a section at 21:28, 6 January[135] which is before the revert you cite above. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Please try to pay closer attention to what is being said. Perhaps numbers will help you: 1) Alohamesamis was warned by Theroadislong at 21:37, 6 January about edit warring.[136] 2) The very next subsequent edit by Alohamesamis made after the warning he received is to revert again at 22:01.[137] He did not go straight back to the talk page where a discussion was already underway as you observed. His action after the warning was to revert. So he ignored the warning. Viriditas (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

He has used the talk page, and was first to do so. He has not violated 3RR. This report is a waste of time. Both editors have the same number of reverts in the same timespan. So either both are editwarring or neither are. I have posted on the article talk page and will try to mediate the dispute. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Generally, a "mediator" should be considered to be neutral in the dispute in question. That doesn't seem to be the case here, you seem to be be bending over backwards to excuse the behavior of Alohamesamis. I rather think you should butt out and let an uninvolved admin deal with this. Alohamesamis was already blocked for edit warring on this very article, and came off the 2 week block to continue the same behavior. The fault here is clear, despite Darkness Shines' attempt to cloud the issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, he was warned and ignored the warning by going straight back to reverting, not to the talk page. If you look at his user page history you'll discover that this is a game for him. It's basically a revert-only account used for edit warring. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not "a game" for me, nor is my account a "revert-only" account. Alohamesamis (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You've made 138 edits since Oct 25, 2012, the majority of which consist of reversions. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Memon people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 157.21.125.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 70.160.29.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 184.242.60.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 152.133.7.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memon_people&diff=531739785&oldid=531699630
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memon_people&diff=531778156&oldid=531759693
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memon_people&diff=531806451&oldid=531781286
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Memon_people&diff=531812630&oldid=531811508

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [138]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On my Talk Page: [139]

Comments:
The Memon people article lists Memons who have achieved notability for good things like business as well as bad like terrorism. Tiger Memon and Yakub Memon are terrorists, Saud Memon was a financier of terrorism. The anonymous IP user seems to take it personally "Please stop editing the Memon people page. It is my family name and my race. I don't think you would like it if someone labeled something antisemetic under your family name and I don't like to my family name to be labeled with terrorist." [140] Note how he seems to think that the Memon people article belongs to the Memons. He boasts, and admits, having different IPs "I work proudly for the US government serving veterans, am an educator at a institute of higher learning and have a personal computer. That is why I have different IPs. Going to ban them all?" [141]

• No action. Yes, the IP is edit-warring, but so are you, and you are also breaking WP:UNDUE with the edit suggesting that "terrorism" is a major issue with these people. Please don't re-insert that. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: unclear, different reverts each time....

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]
• 5th revert:[146]
• 6th revert: [147]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148] [149]

Comments:

Two users edit warring over tags and content, etc. Page protection may be the best solution, as both users are about to breach 3rr and may do so by the time I finish this report. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not edit warring, not close to violating the three revert rule. I have made two reverts today (ever) on the article. The first one to remove a section that was added into the article with numerous unresolved tags. The second to add tags that I had added back into the article. Coin Operation (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The fourth revert listed above is not a revert, it is so I would not edit war by removing the content again. I added tags to show what my concerns were. Coin Operation (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, Dogmaticelectric restored to the article a section which has been unsourced since 2009. I wonder if he has any intention of providing sources. Surely enough time has passed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The section already has a source, and in fact a link to this source was included in the article before I first restored the section (but under External links instead of References - I fixed this already, however). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dogmaticeclectic, one of the items you restored was "It can enforce software license agreement restrictions that may be legally invalid. For example, a company may refuse to reactivate software on an upgraded or new PC, even if the user may have a legal right to use the product under such circumstances." This item was tagged as 'citation needed.' Have you added a source for this? EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source I mentioned discusses this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is unclear what source you may be referring to. There are currently two external links, [150] and [151]. Which of those two sources speaks about 'enforcing software license agreement restrictions that may be legally invalid.' Please quote the passage which addresses this. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

As I clearly stated, I am not referring to any external links, but to the one reference included in the section (specifically, the section header). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: The Royal British Legion Riders Branch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of motorcycle clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Motorcycle club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.159.107.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 85.189.246.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 90.210.191.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 217.33.26.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 213.48.63.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Sjgarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 86.163.156.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: The Royal British Legion Riders Branch + List of motorcycle clubs + Motorcycle club

The Royal British Legion Riders Branch:

1. revert: [152]
2. revert: [153]
3. revert: [154]
4. revert: [155]
5. revert: [156]
6. revert: [157]
7. revert: [158]
8. revert: [159]
9. revert: [160]
10. revert: [161]

List of motorcycle clubs:

1. revert: [162]
2. revert: [163]
3. revert: [164]
4. revert: [165]
5. revert: [166]

Motorcycle club:

1. revert: [167]
2. revert: [168]
3. revert: [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:85.189.246.67 + User talk:81.159.107.161 + User talk:90.210.191.103 + User talk:217.33.26.100 + User talk:213.48.63.1

Update: I did now notify all of the above mentioned via {{subst:an3-notice}} (sry, forgot that first) --Trofobi (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Comments:
The person uses multiple IPs to try forcing his opinion on The Royal British Legion Riders Branch not being a motorcycle club into the articles. --Trofobi (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The protection of the article has already been requested twice Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection by me and Dennis Bratland. --Trofobi (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This new comment by Sjgarth sounds like a reasonable explanation to me, so perhaps this can be closed here? --Trofobi (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [172]
• 2nd revert: [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

Comments:

Article is under a 1RR restriction per WP:ARBPIA. Mor2 has refused to self revert and has called the edits vandalism in violation of WP:NPA Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• AnkhMorpork already tried to change this section [176], his edit was reverted[177] and discussion was open at talk page Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Background. AnkhMorpork subsequent decision to blank the whole section without discussion or achieving consensus for his edit and mostly unexplained removal of multiple sourced material(which are connected with OPOD) constitute edit warring and vandalism, which I was preventing. --Mor2 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

furthermore the linked dif at "resolve dispute on article talk page" has nothing todo with the caese. It is relevant to a discussion of one statement/sentence in different section. The relevant discussion that was opened following AnkhMorpork edit was at [178], which he ignored and continued with blanking the section. None of which was previously discussed in the talk page.--Mor2 (talk) 07:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of forty-eight hours. This is a fairly obvious 1RR violation. -- tariqabjotu 07:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181]

Comments:
AnkhMorpork, has a long history on this article of section wide unexplained changes. Which are always getting reverted and going to discussion(or backed up by Darkness Shines and leading here on technicalities) see history page (or I cna fish out the details)

This time AnkhMorpork tried to change this section [182], his edit was reverted[183] and discussion was open at talk page Talk:Operation_Pillar_of_Defense#Background. Which AnkhMorpork ignored and blanked the whole section, which on top of his previous claim removed multiple long standing sourced martial connected with OPOD.--Mor2 (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to decline this as no violation, especially since the edit history is angling for protection anyway. Unless you have some more information, the first edit above appears to be a removal, not a revert. In other words, it doesn't look like there was any attempt to revert a specific edit; it's just making a change to the article. If every content removal were counted as a revert, it'd be impossible not to violate the 1RR. -- tariqabjotu 07:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am tempted to go trout him for his blatant accusation of tagteaming. I had discussed removal of that section as shown in the report above.Darkness Shines (talk) 08:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention this seems like the exact reason he appealed his last 1RR block... but I digress. -- tariqabjotu 08:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• No violation, as noted above. Mor2 provided further information via e-mail (as he is now blocked), but it didn't substantiate the assertion that AnkhMorpork violated the 1RR. -- tariqabjotu 15:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  Amending: I also completely failed to notice originally that that second edit isn't even by AnkhMorpork (that explains the confusion from looking at the article history). I thought the second revert was in reference to this edit (21:37, January 7), which is more than twenty-four hours after the first edit reported here. Even if the second edit here were by AnkhMorpork (and it's not), this would not be a violation, for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the second revert reported by Mor2 was actually a revert of the first, so I don't understand how this would have constituted a violation (perhaps Mor2 really meant to use the 21:37, January 7, edit?). Anyway, as it stands, with that edit not even being by AnkhMorpork, this was a frivolous report. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC) [Further amended 16:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)]

Page: Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [184]

• 1st revert: [185]
• 2nd revert: [186]
• 3rd revert: [187]
• 4th revert: [188]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [190]

Comments:
Uncooperative user who has tried to bypass WP:3RR by reverting after a 24-hour delay. Contributed statement that the source directly denies and article covers in the same section. He might have reasons but instead of supplying them, he has resorted to attack another user's talk page and user page, again to the point of 3RR, before he is warned by two other admins. In his last edit, he has tried to supply a fake source that fails verification, but I highly doubt he would listen if I told him. Judging by his past record (see his talk page and two other cases filed in WP:AN3) he will probably prefer to revert.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted well after the 24-hour delay (it was closer to 48 hours). The source in question directly supports the statement, and you are trying to leave a false statement in the article. Also, where is the third WP:AN3 case?

By the way, your own edit history isn't exactly free of policy violations, including edit warring - especially in regards to my edits, which may quite possibly indicate bias against me on your part. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Did you read WP:3RR? "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation." In the meantime, I posted two messages in your talk page to which you did not respond; and this not your first, second, third or fourth dispute in which you have exhibited a love for revert button and a hatred for discussion.

Nevertheless, I am offering you another chance to discuss the contribution while there is still time.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My responses to you were included in my edit summaries. In such cases, I do not think it is necessary to duplicate discussion.

As for WP:3RR, notice the wording: "just outside" - that doesn't exactly sound like about double the 24-hour period.

You also (conveniently) ignored my question regarding WP:AN3. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

First yes, I deliberately ignore points that potentially divert a discussion from its goal. I do not comment on a contributor to just belittle him and admins have enough means of verification. Our discussion is: You are not a team worker.

Second, your edit summaries basically say "my way or highway". What gave you the impression that you are (or anybody, for what matters) allowed to hit revert button even once? Wikipedia is a product of teamwork and any attempt to disrupt the teamwork is unfavorable. WP:Consensus, WP:DR, WP:BRD and WP:CIVIL all make it clear that any edit or revert that one makes in a dispute resolution is not a right, but a privilege, given to the person only by spirit of teamwork. Wikipedians are expected to be such team workers that are not only ready to stop editing for the sake of each other, but cede their position if there is no consensus in its favor. If you wish to do it properly, discuss in a manner that parties that do not agree can call in an RfC and then a DRN.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have an argument stronger than "because it is in the WP:RS in question, it is what the article should state". Since you choose to ignore a core Wikipedia policy, further discussion with you on this issue seems pointless.

Regarding once again ignoring a question I posed directly to you: calling me "uncooperative" is a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... A case of "I just don't get the point, I repeat the old bullshit that I myself know is not true". Fleet Command (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• I find other aspects of Dogmaticeclectic's behavior troubling regarding edit warring. He has also edit warred on FleetCommand's user and user talk pages, edit warred on the Product activation article (sample diff), and in a similar manner to this report, on Windows XP (sample diff). The Windows 8 edit war, plus this, this, and this edit summary, do not bode well for him. The good news is that he appears to have stopped after being warned by two admins. Thus I believe he is close to a block but not deserving one quite yet - unless of course he continues this behavior.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In all cases, I have both provided strong justification for my reverts and not breached WP:3RR. Also, the latter three edits you mentioned do not qualify as edit wars, as I only reverted a single time at each page. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You must not edit war even if you believe you are right - what's strong justification in your view is not necessarily what others think. WP:3RR is only a general guideline, and that your behavior constitutes edit warring is what matters here, not the timing of the reverts. I brought up those last three diffs because in those cases I do not think you get that "his reasoning looks invalid to me and me alone, so I revert" isn't the ideal way to proceed. In all cases, the WP:BRD cycle should be invoked - you discuss before making any additional reverts or additions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In those particular cases, the reasoning didn't just seem invalid to me - it was actually based on a complete misunderstanding of what I was trying to do. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you explain yourself. You don't do another revert because the other editor still does not understand what you are doing according to yourself, because the other editor believes to the contrary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Looks like he has made a fifth revert too and is still unwilling to address the concerns that I posted in his talk page. So, it seems the "good news" portion is debatable. One of his behaviors that is most concerning is this in Windows XP. He reverted me without realizing that I actually read his answer in his talk page and acquiesced to his request. I have never before encountered person who reverts so carelessly and with such hostility.

And Jasper, are you on friendly terms with FleetCommand? I think someone need to tell him to stop, if we are to see a peaceful end to this. He seems the type of guy that thinks "if you think you can revert, then check this out: I can too." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We have had brush-ups in the past, and they weren't good. We have tried by basically not interacting with each other, although when we agree on disputes it tends to work out well, such as the Windows Blue AfD. It now dawns on me that him and Dogmaticeclectic might do themselves a favor by doing the same.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that!

But did FleetCommand have any friends you know of? I know he might be reading this but you will be surprised how effective this approach can be. Love has great powers. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That Windows XP edit did not properly address the issues at the time until I fixed the article with this edit. That was why I initially reverted it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever thought that the other editor also thinks that your edit doesn't address all issues, and so edits it? The number one rule you need to follow is that you must not revert so many times when someone else disputes your edit. Even one revert is not necessarily the best way to go about it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it might be wise to hook in here. I would point out here is that the three revert rule is simply a hard limit to the amount of reverts that can be done to a page in a specific timeframe. However, edit warring itself is more broad then simply reverting three within a specific time-frame - If one consistently reverts the same change over and over there is an edit war, irregardless of the timeframe in which the reverts were made. Quite simply put: If you are reverting back-and-forth, you discuss it on a talk page or ask some other user(s) input. Regardless of who is right it is senseless to turn it in a "Who can keep this up the longest" match.

Having said all that - May i suggest continueing this discussion on the article's talk page and change the subject to "What should be in that article" while everyone ignores the revert button for now? Keeping the "What is in the rules for reverting" discussion up won't solve the initial problem and will only result in useless drama and blocks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [191]

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 3rd revert: [194]
• 4th revert: [195]
• 5th revert: [196]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

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

Comments:
Long term POV SPA editor on this one issue, with a variety of IPs and this account. Heiro 16:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

His only talk page response has been to tell an editor to " ohe, putain. va te faire foutre" - just swearing at them. Clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia and if I weren't involved I would have indefinitely blocked by now. A short term block won't help as he'll just be back. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's at it again...

• 6th revert: [[198]]

Another warning issued Revmqo (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked three days for long-term edit warring on the name of the Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. He continued to revert while this report was open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [199] and [200]

• Continued edit warring immediately after this block expired: [201]
• 6th revert: [202]
• 7th revert: [203] (different revert to, from [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [205]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206] (see [207]

Comments:

• User was recently blocked for 3RR violations, report is still on this page, when their block was up, they immediately restarted the same edit war and expanded it, [208][209]. User refuses to admit to the edit warring [210] and is again at the threshold of violating 3RR. User is belligerent, combative and pushy, [211], and is now canvassing for support [212] and [213]. Dreadstar ☥ 21:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note Only because Huysmanii has not reverted in 24 hours, I'm giving them a chance to avoid a block. I've left a note on their talk page. If they agree not to edit the article at all for 7 days, they can avoid a block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fully agree, good call. Dreadstar ☥ 21:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Huysmanii not only didn't fully accept the terms but their edit to the article talk page, which I reverted, was extraordinarily disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Rape during the partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]
• 4th revert: [217]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [218]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [219]

Comments:

I have asked the user to self revert and he has refused, he is removing a well sourced satement for no reason other than he does not like it.

I will not try to justify what I did. I will not say this report is invalid, just consider this that it was not my intention to edit war. but with DS there can be no other way. He has reverted my edits multiple times. See talk. I asked him quote the passage from the book he was referring to, he ignored it and reverted me. Now, if I am guilty then he is too. I will like to notify that I am not going to war over that again so no need to "BLOCK ME". I simply wanted to take it to ANI, but DS did it first. Sorry for the inconvenience. Mr T^(Talk?) 13:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I wanted to resolve the issue calmly in the talk first but all in vain. He didn't even try to prove his point, he just kept on reverting me. I like him and I know he can be a little brusque sometimes. But I know him and value his judgements often. This time it's unfortunate to see that he is being so - what should I say - unreasonable/amateurish. I can only hope that whatever the judgement on me, somebody takes a look into the article. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you are not going to war over it again, I cannot revert you can I? You need to self revert and discuss your continual removal of a well sourced statement from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you suggested to me, If you want the article to speak of rapes of Hindus by Muslims then add it to the article. I simply followed your advice and balanced the article. What is wrong in that, DS? You are the one who said only Rape of Muslim women by Hindu Male were "well-documented" but basing on what, DS? Also, that's a highly biased and communal claim. The irony is that the very sources used there do speak of the atrocities and retaliation from both the communities. Therefore, I asked you to balance it. What did you do in return? You chose to revert me. You can do much better as an editor. There is no animosity between you and me, bro.

Besides, its weaselly well-documentedness is your subjective synthesis. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you removed it. That is not balancing. Just self revert and justify your removal on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the point, now that I am reported? BTW, I think you need to start justifying yourself first. Mr T^(Talk?) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Clarification: 1st revert was not a "revert". I did that as a response to {{Disputed}} tag on the article. Darkness Shines has reverted me 3 times today too ([220], [221], [222]). Mr T^(Talk?) 14:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is a revert. You are being given a lot of chances to self revert, yet will not. Why? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? The source was correct the content was not. The claim was not a fair representation of the source; it is not a revert. Mr T^(Talk?) 15:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. KTC (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Cleo Rocos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [223]
• 2nd revert: [224]
• 3rd revert: [225]

This is a continuation of a previous edit war, where the editor was subsequently blocked for their actions. From the editors actions and edit summaries it seems apparent that they will not deviate from their behaviour or intepretation of BLP. 3RR has not been reached this time around, however should I, or anybody else, revert him again there's no reason to suspect that it wouldn't be reverted again.

The user also shows little civility in dealings with other editors.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Original issue

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [227] - no response from user
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228] - no response from user
• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229] - original attempt, 4th December, and response

Latest issue

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230] - latest attempt at discourse
• Personal attack response: [231]

Comments:

It takes two to edit war, and there's been a lot of back-and-forth on the phrase "best known for" between various people. I have put in a reliable source from the Daily Telegraph and three other sources on the talk page, which should hopefully quell this dispute before it goes any further. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen on wikipedia. The phrase "best known for" is clearly and obviously POV, regardless of whatever reliable sources it might appear in. The attempts to force this completely unnecessary phrase into articles are tantamount to vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You can quote just about any Wikipedia policy under the sun, and use it to advance your position, so let me do likewise. If you look at Wikipedia's pillar of neutrality, you will see the following : "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person." That means you should not be in any position to argue for or against the state of an article without providing sources that advance your case. I have provided four sources, you have provided none. Furthermore, if you look a little more closely at one of the other pillars, you'll notice it says "Find consensus, avoid edit wars". Calling other editors "retards" is probably not a good way to get consensus on an issue.

All of the above put to one side, here's the situation. You've reverted the article three times today here, here and here, so a further revert today will mean you run the risk of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. You should take that at face value. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You're asking me to provide sources for what exactly? I'm changing the opinion "is best known for appearing" to the fact "appeared". What exactly needs sourcing? Fact is, there's an absolute prohibition on including POV material in the encyclopaedia. End of story. Putting it in repeatedly is vandalism. I'm reverting simple vandalism. 190.46.98.195 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What you are describing is not vandalism at all. Anyway, you have reverted here for a fourth time in 24 hours, which means you may now be blocked per WP:3RR. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Blocked – for a period of 1 week.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Deir Yassin massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 177.43.87.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 18:40, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "The footnoted reference is quoted in full, word for word. NPOV in a WP article requires a fair and neutral summary. If one part of the reference is cited, all the reference must be cited.")
2. 19:02, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "Reworded the fourth sentence from the cited footnote to remove any copyright violation.")
3. 19:23, 9 January 2013 (edit summary: "The cited reference must be cited correctly. The fourth sentence of the citation clearly states that the event remains disputed. If you have other references you wish to add, you are welcome to do so. But do not misstate the actual reference cited.")
4. 19:40, 9 January 2013 (edit summary:"As I state on the talk page, if you wish to cite other portions of the Gelber citation, please feel free to do so. But the citation clearly says that the event is disputed (sentence 4). The cite must be summarized in full to be fair and balanced")

• Diff of warning: here

Article under 1RR, has made 3 reverts of 2 editors' edits. nableezy - 19:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Now 4 reverts of 4 other editors. RolandR (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Kaitlyn (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.176.5.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [232]

• 1st revert: [233]
• 2nd revert: [234]
• 3rd revert: [235]
• 4th revert: [236]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [238] [239]

Comments:

After explaining in edit summary what policies were being broken and why (primarily WP:NOT, MOS & NOTE), and went to editor's talk page to try and give lengthier explanation. Editor started with some good faith discussions but it quickly broke down into "such-and-such page has errors too" and "you're being a dictator". Then editor went and undid whole thing even after agreeing some of their edits were mistakes because they didn't like a dozen or so words. --66.203.207.68 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week as both IPs are edit-warring. No comment on the content dispute or who is more "at fault".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: List of leading shopping streets and districts by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 193.92.131.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

• 1st revert: [241]
• 2nd revert: [242]
• 3rd revert: [243]
• 4th revert: [244]
• 5th revert: [245]

• 6th revert: [246]

• 7th revert: [247]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [248]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [249]

Comments:

On the List of leading shopping streets and districts by city article, this IP address is changing Macedonia to "FYROM" despite being undone by multiple users, including myself. The IP address has been warned multiple times, yet has continued to do so and has broken the three-revert rule. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I also just noticed this user removing the Macedonia content from this article without explanation. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

User has been blocked for edit warring in the past. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Sexuality in Star Trek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Belchfire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: version 1, version 2

• 22:05, 7 January
• 14:01, 8 January
• 16:34, 9 January
• 00:57, 10 January

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:11, 9 January

Thread showing attempt by three editors to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sexuality_in_Star_Trek#Cast_and_crew_perspectives_-_undue_weight

Comments:

• As a member of WikiProject Conservatism, Belchfire has targeted Sexuality in Star Trek because it is tagged under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies due to its discussion of LGBT content. Previously, Lionelt (talk · contribs) began this disruption in 2010, which lasted two years.[250] As the diffs show above, Belchfire has continued where Lionelt left off, now maintenance tag warring on Sexuality in Star Trek, where he edit warred against the consensus of multiple editors (Nightscream, Insomesia, Pass a Method) and now he is continuing to edit war over LGBT content. This disruption of LGBT content has been previously brought up in multiple forums, including his own talk page, ANI, and the project talk page. I am asking for a lengthy block for Belchfire. Please note that the warning was given at 02:11, 9 January, after which he reverted twice. Viriditas (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Has BF been a constructive force on any LGBT related article? If not then perhaps it's time to start discussing a topic ban. Sædon^talk 02:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that Belchfire has been blocked for edit warring on Boy Scouts of America, as mentioned above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

This is a case of long therm edit-warring by Maurice07 on this article and multiple similar articles. He insists on adding Turkey to the european section of multiple embassy-related articles without consensus. This is an example of a revert from September which also shows his massive edit-warring back then and for which he got blocked. Please see also relevant report at ANI back then: Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07.

More recently we have the following: On 3 January he resumes the September edit-warring: Revision as of 18:37, 3 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) and then:

• 1st revert: Revision as of 16:10, 4 January 2013 Maurice07 (Undid revision 531173255 by Aquintero82 (talk) What is the reason to revert ? I have a official source in this regard.What about yours reference?)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 20:52, 4 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 531309271 by Aquintero82 (talk) Unacceptable.Don't have any explanation or source!)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 24:29, 6 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 531343209 by Sir Tanx (talk) Where is the that you have mentioned consensus? There are multiple evidence of Turkey is in continental Europe!!)
• 4th revert: Revision as of 23:44, 6 January 2013 (edit) (undo) Maurice07 (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 531531627 by Sir Tanx (talk)

No warning necessary. This editor is a veteran edit-warrior. This particular edit-warring is a continuation of a massive edit-warring campaign he started in September with the purpose of adding Turkey geographically to Europe. He is acting against consensus.

Comments:
This user has been engaged in widespread and long-term edit-warring across many articles and for many reasons. This is just another bout of such behaviour. He also got a warning of tendentious editing under ARBMAC by FPaS recently: [258] which he later erased along with a multitude of other 3RR warnings. Here is another ARBMAC warning from FPaS back in April 2012 which he also erased. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I endorse this report, and suggest that in addition to a block, discretionary sanctions be imposed. In addition to a history of edit-warring, this is user is a textbook example of an aggressive, tendentious nationalist editor with minimal positive contributions to the project. Examples of tendentious edits [259] (tag-teaming and edit-warring over a name already mentioned a few lines below) [260] (self-explanatory) [261] (unexplained changes to the figures, all designed to make Greece "smaller" or "poorer") [262] (WP:IDONTLIKEIT removal of relevant See also) [263] [264] [265] (Edit-warring even though the article name is "Tenedos"), [266] (the mere fact that he considers this "irredentist" speaks volumes about mentality) and on it goes. Examples of incivil, aggressive behavior: [267] [268] [269]. Talkpage engagement and content building are next to zero. Activity consists mostly of pushing a narrow nationalist agenda at every opportunity. This is precisely the kind of user these topics do not need. Athenean (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your special attention,Dr.K.. Hopefully, you should have reported desire to edit war or 3RR warning for Aquintero82 [270] and Sir Tanx[271] To put it plainly, I do not find an objective and impartial your notifications. Your and Greek user Athenean′ contribs on wiki articles,the best proof of it. Also,Far as I know,if three-revert rule 3RR is repeated within 24 hours ,is a violation.Thank you.--Maurice (talk) 01:49, 07 January 2013 (UTC)

So let me see: You get blocked for 48 hours in September after a report at ANI about your Runaway edit-warring and now you come three months later to restart it without consensus and against two other users who are trying to uphold long-held consensus. And no, you don't have to break 3RR in 24 hours to be reported here. If you noticed this noticeboard is about edit-warring not only the 3RR rule. Given your history of tendentious and longterm edit-warring today's report is fully justified. By trying to shift the blame on other editors I think you are making the best case for your own blocking. As far as your evaluation of my contributions to articles here I honestly think you have no clue what you are talking about but I won't hold that against you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also worth noting if you are reinserting the same material over a spread out time in order to game the processes in place for edit warring it is still a violation. From what it appears this has been a long term pattern of inserting the same type of material against the consensus. that's what it looks like from the outside anyways Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I restored this report from the archive since it concerns long-term warring at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom, and it was not closed by an admin. I left a note asking Maurice07 to agree to wait for consensus on whether Turkey is in Europe before making any further edits on that question. That could be a way of closing the report with no sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Ed for the action. But as we are about to close this report the same user is involved in two more edit wars at Xanthi and List of languages in Europe where he is cn-tagging Greek as a minority language in Turkey, although it is crystal-clear that there is a Greek-speaking minority in Turkey. It doesn't get any more tendentious than that. Clearly we need an AE action at some point under ARBMAC. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Ed, but for me, I'd prefer to see an AE report for ArbMac sanctions. I'm not trying to be process wonky; I just find I'm a little more comfortable imposing AE sanctions when the other AE admins are also having a look at what we're doing. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all. Thank you very much Heimstern for the explanation but I never intended to imply that I was asking for AE enforcement from this board; this is the reason I mentioned above "at some point", meaning not now. I realise that AE sanctions are handled differently and the admins there have different standards. So no pressure on you or Ed. :) But thank you again for your advice. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Please refile this at WP:Arbitration enforcement for consideration of ARBMAC sanctions. Whoever submits the report there can link to the 3RR discussion if you want. EdJohnston (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Ed for your advice and for your notice on my talk. I am afraid I do not have any experience filing AE reports so I will try to gather some stronger evidence before I file. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any edit war to may be contrary to Wikipedia:policies and guidelines. First,I do not understand latest changes List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom.Despite of including a source to an official in this regard, rejected.It is called consensus! Simply,WP: I just don't like it. Emotions cannot prevent logic of Wikipedia. I see that; Almost, Ever since I attended Wikipedia,my works and contributions submitted as evidence. These claims are far from the truth and biased,unfortunately.Also,they contain many contradictions.Issue of Xanthi and List of languages in Europe.Add "Citation needed" template,constitute a crime? User:Dr.K. acknowledged it as propaganda. It's so interesting! No:Source and reference.. 150,000 Turkish citizens lives Western Thrace and 25.000 Turks in Xanthi/İskeçe.See: Büyükada and Izmir. Greek language is used both articles and more. Historical bonds are not a good factor. Yes,it is also a fact that, 2.500-3.000 Greek citizen lives in Turkey. There is only explanation: WP:OWN. To edit All articles about Greece and the Greek based on self-interest.Have a good night.Maurice (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [272]

• 1st revert: [273] 19:15 9 January 2013
• 2nd revert: [274] 18:12 10 January 2013
• 3rd revert: [275] 18:14 10 January 2013
• 4th revert: [276] 22:40 10 January 2013 (Just outside the 24-hour window.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [277] The message was removed from his Talk Page by Rhode Island Red; to see it, you have to scroll down on this page to a header marked "The happiness of this season to you". The diff showing this removal is here

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

Comments:

(1) I didn't bring this particular incident up on the Talk Page this time because (1) Rhode Island Red has been warned previously about 3RR violations and he has also brought charges against others, and he is well aware of the WP policy, and (2) there are already several disputes on the page, and I did not feel justified in adding still another. If RIR were so minded, he could have self-reverted after I sent him the warning noted above. Instead, he simply removed the warning as well as a holiday message I had sent him previously.

(2) There are some edit disputes on this page, but for the most part the editors are attempting to work things out, not always satisfactorily. The other disputants have been holding off on the knee-jerk reversions recently.

GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that RIR has been the suject now of two RfC/Us dealing with tendentiousness and edit warring. And several reports at AN/EW as well. The reverts here are, in fact, sufficiently clear, and not easily excused. RIR, of course, is welcome to remove all notices on his talk page. He can not however aver he was not warned each time. Collect (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

George and Collect -- this chronic harassment must stop immediately. I did not violate 3RR. The warnings I have received in the past for edit warring have all been from you two, arising from your own tendentious behavior and POV pushing on Frank Vandersloot. Not one of your 3RR complaints was deemed valid -- it constitutes a recurring pattern of harassment. The RfC referred to was launched by George and the basis for it was, according to his allegation, incivility, not edit warring, and it led to nothing. Furthermore, there was nothing to self-revert in this case, since the other editor involved already self-reverted back to a stable version, and I made no further edits after George posted the superfluous warning on my page this morning (which I am fully entitled to delete at my discretion); in other words, this complaint was completely unnecessary, counterproductive, and punitive. The edits George was pushing in this case violated a previously established consensus, but regardless, the issue is being discussed on the Talk page. I have warned you that I intend to pursue this chronic harassment with WP admins as it appears it would be the only way to get you stop this unacceptable behavior. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What harassment from me? Please note that I scrupulously avoid you -- and yet you wail about "harassment" at every turn. Really READ WP:AGF for gosh sakes! And when you cry "harassment" or "witch hunt" - be prepared to provide diffs for your claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Chuck Hagel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (This is a 1RR article.)
User being reported: S2grand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [278]

• 1st revert: [279]
• 2nd revert: [280]
• 3rd revert: [281]
• 4th revert: [282]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [283]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [284]

Comments:

This is a 1RR page due to the Arab-Israeli arbitration. S2grand has never engaged in the discussion despite repeated requests by Carolmooredc and me. His comments here are as uncivil as anything I've seen. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC) By the way, I don't know if this diff is at all relevant, but it is suspicious. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto above, despite multiple requests he discuss the edits. Also note that Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis‎ has been stalking me, vandalising the Hagel article and other articles/talk pages and User talk pages. I don't think S2grand is him, unless he has had this as a long term account or hacked into this User:S2grand. (PS: Maybe someone could delete the edit summary at 00:47, January 12, on that talk page history which is yet another account JarlaxleArtemis's created in yet another nasty variation on my name.) CarolMooreDC 06:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Pages: Saenuri Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
People's Alliance (Spain) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Democratic Justice Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Communist Party of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After the last report of Danrolo's edit warring across five articles was archived without administrative reaction four days ago, Danrolo continues edit warring in even more articles.

Saenuri Party

Previous version reverted to: [285]

• 1st revert: [286] by 190.22.167.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TelefÓnica Chile IP, Danrolo identifies as being based in Chile on his user page; exactly the same editing pattern as Danrolo's
• 2nd revert: [287] by 186.79.54.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Telefónica Chile IP, exactly the same editting pattern as Danrolo's, shared interest in Middle East Baath Parties as well
• 3rd revert: [288]
• 4th revert: [289]
• 5th revert: [290] by 190.22.205.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Telefónica Chile IP, clearly identifiable as Danrolo

People's Alliance (Spain)

removal of sourced content, previous version reverted to: [291]

• 1st revert: [292] by 190.22.231.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Telefónica Chile IP, easily identifiable as Danrolo, edits exactly the same editing pattern, even the same articles, interest in political parties, Middle East politics, South American showgirls - Danrolo's favorite topics)
• 2nd revert: [293] by 190.22.145.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Telefónica Chile IP, same range, same editing pattern, same articles as edited by Danrolo)
• 3rd revert: [294] by 190.22.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Telefónica Chile IP, same range, same articles as edited by Danrolo)
• 4th revert: [295]
• 5th revert: [296] by 190.22.205.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (=Danrolo)
• 6th revert: [297] by IP 190.22.205.47 as well
• 7th revert: [298], same IP

Democratic Justice Party

previous version reverted to: [299]

• 1st revert: [300] by 186.79.54.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2nd revert: [301] by 186.79.8.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3rd revert: [302] by 190.22.150.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4th revert: [303]
• 5th revert: [304] by IP 190.22.205.47 (=Danrolo)
• 6th revert: [305] by IP 190.22.205.47 as well
• 7th revert: [306] same IP

Communist Party of Greece

previous version reverted to: [307]

• 1st revert: [308]
• 2nd revert: [309] by IP 190.22.205.47 (=Danrolo)
• 3rd revert: [310], same IP

Danrolo engages in long-term edit wars over several articles, sometimes without logging in. He has constantly shown disruptive editing since at least November 2011, namely inserting unsourced information, refusal to back it up with references and edit warring. He has also inserted factual errors (deliberately or out of ignorance), repeatedly moved articles without consensus, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly created biographies on living persons without citing sources, despite being warned against doing so, repeatedly removed PRODs from them, despite being warned against doing so. His talk page is plastered with good advice and escalating warnings against disruptive editing, unsourced content and edit warring. My repeated attempts to communicate with Danrolo have failed a long time ago. --RJFF (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've blocked Danrolo for 72 hours. However, there are a lot of articles and a lot of IPs involved. It looks like User:190.22.205.47 is the most active recently (I haven't looked at every one), although they haven't edited in about 4 hours. I'm willing to block them if they become more active. However, semi-protection may be a better alternative depending on the pattern of misbehavior. Please let me know, either here or on my talk page, if there's something more you wish done to protect the articles. I have not put them on my watchlist at this point, so I'd need a heads up.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: 2013 in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.231.15.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [311]

• 1st revert: [312]
• 2nd revert: [313]
• 3rd revert: [314]
• 4th revert: [315]
• 5th revert: [316]
• 6th revert: [317]
• 7th revert: [318]
• There are many more reverts in the article's history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [319]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There has been some previous attempts, but the IP insists. It reverts every other user's additions without talking. I warned him but he violated the rule very well before that. The IP has been showcasing this behaviour since the creation of the page, and it extends to all XXXX in the United States articles. I left a 3RR warning on its talk and it accused me of being edit warring, which I wasn't. Oh, and the IP left me this on my talk, which indicates ownership. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 08:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

and now you have escalated it to an all out threat

i will repeat what i have said at your talk page

dude DDDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEE, you have engaged in an edit war - i am "THE" editor for the year in United States article - as for you i have never heard of you before seeeing as how i have never seen you make one single good edit previously to any article there - you come there and start a war over format that has been there for years and suddenly call be a warrior when you are the sudden vandal - then you make threats that i will get blocked because i bother to stop your vandalism -I HAVE JUST ONE SIMPLE QUESTION TO ASK YOU - ARE YOU SUDDENLY PLANNING TO TAKE OVER THE GOOD SHEPARDING OF THE "YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES" ARTICLES (I AM GUESSING YOU WILL HAVE TO PUT IN 10 HOURS A WEEK OF YOUR TIME TO DO THE ARTICLE JUSTICE)? - if not you need to stop warring me there--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

quoting you "The IP has been showcasing this behaviour since the creation of the page, and it extends to all XXXX in the United States articles." since the creation of the page -DDDDDDDDUUUUUUUUUUDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEE i creeated the page - again i ask if you are suddenly going to good shepard the page from now on ? you will spend hour upon hour of your time - it will make my life immensey easier - somehow i am betting that in just a few days i will never see you again there = YOU ARE THE WARRIOR--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

per each item and you are massively wasting my good time to do so:

• 1st revert: [320] ---> have you heard of japanese baseball - have you heard of european basketball - in everywhere but the US football means soceer
• 2nd revert: [321] --->
• 3rd revert: [322] --->
• 4th revert: [323] --->
• 5th revert: [324] --->
• 6th revert: [325] --->
• 7th revert: [326] --->

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 08:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Mohammed Nizamul Huq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Freemesm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [327]

Time reported: 09:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest

• 1st revert: [328]
• 2nd revert: [329]
• 3rd revert: [330]
• 4th revert: [331]
• 5th revert: [332]
• 6th revert: [333]

• Diff of warning: [334]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [335]

Comments:
The discussion about this edit war took place, unusually, on the BLPN noticeboard. Before coming here, I'd requested arbitration/comment there initially. I've also more recently asked User talk:Auric and User talk:Bbb23. I'd RfC'd User:Dreambeaver earlier about similar behavior from Freemesm on Ali Ahsan Mujahid's BLP here [336]. Freemesm has also been discussing related issues with me here [337]. I would appreciate if you could point out how I should have acted in these disputes, and especially where I've misstepped. Many thanks. Aminul802 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

In the article Mohammed Nizamul Huq Mr. Aminul802 put some information, which violates WP:NPOV, which I reverted here [338] with compleat explanation. I also discuss this issue on talk page [339]. Another wikipedian User:Darkness Shines‎ bring this issue to WP:BLPN, please see the discussion here[340]. But Mr. aminul took the path of warring rather than discussion. He also personally attacked me. I bring it to another wikipidia modaretor here [341]. I don't do anything wrong, which will violate wiki rules. Again I've removed [342] the link of Economist's blog, as nothing was mentioned on the article that it is cited from a news blog. I explain it as WP:NEWSBLOG vio on editing summary. I'm just trying to make Mr. Aminul802's edits according to wiki rule. If you view the edit history you will see how does he trying to put the youtube link of Hacked conversation to this article[343]. Not only that, Mr. Aminul802's contribution list is enough to state that how he is trying to bias some article related to International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). As example check these articles' hisoty page Ali Ahsan Mujahid, Abdur Razzaq (barrister), Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury, in every pages Mr. aminul tried to insert these sentences--

The tribunal has been criticized for not adhering to international norms, and a number of seasoned international lawyers and human rights organisations have expressed their concern over fairness of the trial procedures.[3][4][5] In December 2012, The Economist was accused by the ICT of hacking the tribunal chairman and presiding judge, Nizamul Huq's computer and obtaining copies of recorded conversations and email communication with Ahmed Ziauddin, a Bangladeshi lawyer in Brussels.[6][7] Many of the recordings have since appeared on Youtube.[8] The ensuing scandal has resulted in calls for the Nizamul Huq's recusal by the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Bangladesh Bar Council.

You may understand that what is he trying to do. He is trying to focus on ICTB's criticism. I thing it is not a good practice to make any article biased by putting only negative words. I explain all the points from my view. If I did anything wrong, please notice me. Thanks.--Freemesm (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I think Aminul802 needs to learn what a revert is, there are only three reverts there that I can see. Consecutive edits counts as one. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, Freemesm has correctly claimed a BLP exemption when reverted. Aminul802 has been warned repeatedly over edit warring BLP violations into articles, yet he continues to do so. I am also of the opinion that the "new user" is an obvious meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. There are only three reverts that I can discern, but the BLP claim of poor sourcing is of more importance. As there are new and evolving discussions, it would be best to resolve those before adding the contested material. I've protected the page for a short period of time to allow a consensus to form. Kuru (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Page: Linux Mint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.91.172.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [344] (this is the revision immediately before the user started adding the disuputed content)

• 1st revert: [345]
• 2nd revert: [346]
• 3rd revert: [347]
• 4th revert: [348]
• 5th revert: [349]
• 6th revert: [350]
• 7th revert: [351]
• 8th revert: [352]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:198.91.172.4

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Linux Mint#Political Controversy is Back and Should Be Removed

Comments:

CodeCat (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clearly edit warring over several days and skirting the 3RR. Kuru (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [359]

• 1st revert: [360]
• 2nd revert: [361]

This article is under 1RR restrictions[362] per WP:ARBAA2.

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [363]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. This is a basic terminological conflict, where Ankarakediler does not like to use the word "denial" to describe Armenian Genocide denial.

Comments:

Isn't there generally supposed to be at least 3 reverts before they can be blocked? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This article, Armenian Genocide, was placed under one-revert restriction under the discretionary sanctions from an arbitration case. (1RR is enforced at the same noticeboard as 3RR.) This fact of 1RR restriction was prominently displayed on the talk page here[364], and on an editnotice here[365], and in my 1rr warning on the violator's talkpage here[366], which was deleted[367] and so acknowledged. Shrigley (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note. You neglected to notify the editor of this report as required; I've done so for you. Given that they were formally warned after the second revert and haven't reverted since your revert, I'd like to hear if they have anything to say. I realize that the talk page and edit notice both warn them, but ...--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that other than the formal warning, user Shrigley had to inform this user (who is new here) about those restrictions, before. I was bitten several times when I was a new user and know it really hurts. BTW... --E4024 (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• It sounds like a terrible thing, "biting the newbies". Conjures up an image of a new user who tries the help, maybe formatting some text incorrectly while contributing his knowledge about marine botany. But wait a minute, this is a user who displayed sufficient knowledge of wiki-workings to engage in a rapid-pace edit war to deny the Armenian Genocide. There's plenty of precedent for the indefinite blocking of new users who have no avocations other than nationalist gang-reverting on topic areas where the arbitrators have already put their foot down on this nonsense.

  Since all of our cards are on the table, what with "my revert", it should be fair to also point out that E4024 has done his fair share of softening wikipedia's coverage of this holocaust in the past week or two.[368][369] The ideal type of "new user" to which ANEW admins might grant pardon would be expected to show remorse or engage in discussion, rather than remove my warnings and hide out for a few days (until, presumably, this report is closed with an inconclusive "no action" or slap on the wrist).

  Regardless of our positions on the Armenian Genocide (and I really shouldn't have to say this, since the scholarly consensus on the topic is exceeded only by that of the Jewish Holocaust), all users should be able to agree on a code of conduct in this area that precludes edit-warring. Instead of acknowledging Wikipedia's rules about this type of conflict, however, after I informed him of them, Ankarakediler went on my talk page to rant about the "Armenian lobby" and Wikipedian "propaganda".[370] If he's not blocked now, we'll be back here in a week. Shrigley (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that it said that it was under 1RR when I first looked at the report ^^' As for what E4024 said about WP: Don't bite the newbies yeah I got one of those when I was starting out with a username, another story for another place though. but here's my two cents, does this user rummage as a WP:DUCK to anyone? MIVP - Allow us to be of assistance to you. (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 10:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Ankarakediler is warned under WP:ARBAA2. If the editor shows that he cannot edit neutrally on the topic of the Armenian Genocide, a topic ban is possible. If you want to argue on Wikipedia that the Armenian Genocide did not occur, you should expect to encounter a lot of resistance from other editors and you will probably be treated as the holder of WP:FRINGE views. This is based on the consensus that has been built up over the years and the real-world scholarly opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)