Page

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

User being reported

Hmlewis 728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added content to provide more information on what antifeminists believe."
2. 02:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Gave more information on what antifeminists believe. Someone just erased my last one"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) to 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 03:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Actually showed what antifeminism is about people keep deleting it!"
   2. 03:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added a link"
4. 03:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Added links"
5. 03:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Antifeminist stances */Fixed typo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Antifeminism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Also note the use of misleading edit summaries. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Eyes of Dawn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wednesday demonstration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bridal Mask (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 211.61.23.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Rose_of_Sharon_Blooms_Again&oldid=606446226 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eyes_of_Dawn&oldid=654999542 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wednesday_demonstration&oldid=658415636 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridal_Mask&oldid=653701880 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2005_anti-Japanese_demonstrations&oldid=639416815

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The Rose of Sharon Blooms Again:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810997
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807608
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802994

Eyes of Dawn:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810920
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807745
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802982

Wednesday demonstration:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810980
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807633
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802926

Bridal Mask:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810962
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807695
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658802959

2005 anti-Japanese demonstrations:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658810941
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658807663
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658803016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658812698

Comments:
IP user is persistently reverting his edits relating to the categories of the above pages (a mix of South Korean TV shows and political demonstrations) without comment (they involve generally either the addition of unusual categories which do not make sense, or deleting categories which do). The user may also be actively switching IP addresses, since two other IPs, User:121.140.206.191 and User:58.123.52.247 have made the exact same reverts.

Zmflavius (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Creationist edit warring/being disruptive on the talk page. (sorry, i didn't include the diffs and stuff, this is the first time I reported someone for edit warring!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarr Cat (talk • contribs)

Note: Epetre has stopped edit warring over this issue, but still may not fully understand our policies. A block is unlikely to help, but a message on his talk page may help guide him in the right direction. I made an effort, but he may see me as involved.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Epetre is warned to observe Wikipedia standards for behavior on article talk pages. The discussion that you opened at Talk:Abiogenesis#False definition of abiogenesis has been now been properly closed. Wikipedia is not a forum. EdJohnston (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Yemeni Civil War (2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rastegarfar.mo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Comments: Looks like an SPA with a limited grasp of English. The editor's only edits to date have been related to Ali Khamenei, lengthy quotes from which he is trying to introduce on Yemeni Civil War (2015), despite me challenging them on WP:UNDUE grounds and asking him to review some basic Wikipedia policies that would keep him from getting into trouble. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

comments: I also want to complain against User:Kudzu1 . He just want to insist that he knows that what is correct and what is not correct. So I want the manager to block User:Kudzu1 . Rastegarfar.mo (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regards

• Result: Rastegarfar.mo is warned for edit warring at Yemeni Civil War (2015). He didn't actually break WP:3RR but he seems to be making no effort to find consensus for his changes. Requesting that admins block your opponent (as above) isn't a good-faith effort to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: 14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Springing Up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
Seems intent on eliminating the word lesbians and replacing it with "gay women". Advocacy, anti-advocacy? Whatever, it's objectionable. Skyerise (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice that skyerise has not avoided being uncivil during talk page discussion or even on my talk page. She has called me "gay boy" on my talk page and "dick" and then "jerk" on the article's talk page.

My edit is neither advocacy or anti-advocacy, nor objectionable. You can't pay enough attention to the explanation I already gave? "Gays and lesbians" is like saying "lesbians aren't gay" or "lesbians aren't homosexual" or "gay people and gay women" (since it's like you want "gay" only to apply to men, but it really applies to both sexes the same way as the word "homosexual" does). So it's just illogical like "videos and DVDs" or "colors and red." What's wrong with just saying "homosexual people" or "gay people"? Why should lesbians feel ignored or eliminated if "homosexual people" is used?

Springing Up (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

(Aside to admin) Is this archetypal lesbian-baiting or what? Most lesbians identify as lesbian, not as "gay woman", regardless of the alleged sameness. Gay ≠ queer ≠ homo. Also, when changed to "lesbians and gay men", which is logically disjunct, the troll reverted anyway, even though their "logical objection" was fulfilled. Skyerise (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The troll here is actually Skyerise for having to have a big tantrum over the fact that a logical person simply wanted to include men and women together in the same terminology as "gay people" to make more sense than "gays and [gay women]" is, which is not baiting. Where she gets the idea that there's something "wrong" for including lesbians as part of gay people in general, or that "'gay' does not equal 'homosexual generally'" (not sex-specific like "lesbianic" is) even though it does, I don't know. And even if "lesbians and gay men" makes a little more sense, why should the article not be even more concise than that with an encompassing term like "homosexual people"? Springing Up (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Uh, people identify as they wish to identify. "Gay women" (mostly) identify using the word "lesbian". That's why the L is in LGBT. Everyone understands perfectly what the phrase "gays and lesbians" means. And it's what the majority of sources use. We go with our sources and common usage. Not with your intended-only-to-bait "logic". Do you realize how you sound? Testosterone keep you up arguing over the Internet much? Oh, but that would only bother you if you weren't a troll! Skyerise (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I had no intent to bait you or anyone else. Why do you guys like the implication of that terminology meaning "gay people, and gay people who are women" or "there are homosexual people, and then there are something that's different from homosexual people: the lesbians" (whatever that supposed "difference" is) that you feel like it's so important to identify separately that way, from gay population in general, as if being called one of just homosexual people in general (both sexes together) is so "degrading" or whatever you're complaining about? Springing Up (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Springing Up is unquestionably acting like a troll at the Dalai Lama talk page. While his/her initial edits could have been simple misunderstanding of terminology, the reverting and edit-warring belies any simple misunderstanding and now appear to be trolling. While Skyerise got a little sharp, the tone of Springing Up definitely qualifies as homophobic WP:BAITing. I do think a firm warning and a 1RR/one talk comment restriction on Springing Up is appropriate, with escalating sanctions if the behavior continues. Montanabw^(talk) 18:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:)

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

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

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

Comments:

User has declined to participate in discussion on talk page, at RfD, or otherwise. Instead this user relies heavily on personal attacks while reverting without explanation, and has now broken the 3-revert rule. Because I redirected the page Acid Rap back to its owner Esham, this user seems upset about it and keeps trying to tag the new redirect for deletion, which raises possible WP:NPOV concerns.

ITfan1990 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you were trying to get the article deleted and i had no choice but to revert you. Why don't you explain why you were trying to delete it? And now your blocked so i was clearly in the right. Koala15 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 31 hrs. Disruptive editing Mlpearc (open channel) 19:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Submitter was blocked by User:MusikAnimal. There has been a dispute over the title of this article. For example, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 23#Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album). Anyone who has an opinion about the title should pursue consensus in the usual way. It appears that WP:RM would be a more normal way to contest the title than RfD, but that's where it is now. EdJohnston (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Some rationale for the confusing situation can be seen at a thread on Tfan1990's talk which he has now blanked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I believe I finally understand their intention. I will continue to work with them on how to resolve the issue. Whatever the case, as far as I'm concerned it is safe to consider this ANEW report closed. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: 14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Skyerise: Skyerise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

not only for edit-warring but being uncivil

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

What's "wrong" with just using a term like "homosexual people" to cover both sexes instead of being specific and saying "gays and lesbians" as if "lesbians aren't gay (homosexual)"?

Comments:

skyerise Likes being uncivil rather than actually discussing the edits like an adult, and uses insults like "gay boy" and on my talk page and "dick" and "jerk" and "newbie" in the article's talk page.

Springing Up (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Here she is, being uncivil again, using the f-bomb and "asshole," etc. (See hidden comments in edit history.) Springing Up (talk) 05:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh so sorry for feeding the trolls, but how else to expose their true colors? Skyerise (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Correcting an article's logic so that it doesn't incorrectly imply "gay people, and gay people who are women" does not make me a troll. But falsely calling me one for that reason is what makes you one. Springing Up (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have commented on this issue in the thread above, the same comment applies here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:Springing Up is blocked per an earlier report. I don't see any of these insults in the current version of the talk page. If they occurred, I hope they won't happen again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Template:Mvar/doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TakuyaMurata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Old revision of Template:Mvar/doc

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]

TakuyaMurata keeps insisting use of the template is "controversial", or is regarded as such. See also discussion on Template talk:Mvar#Disclaimer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Comments:

• One is an editor for thirteen years and the other an admin for eight. Perhaps a trouting is in order. Alakzi (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Indian subcontinent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [33]
2. [34]
3. [35]
4. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37] [38]

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

Comments: Human3015 is engaged in an edit war at the article where he's reverted two users 4 times, within the space of a day. Within the space of two days, he's made a total of 5 reverts against 3 editors, and all very recently. He has not used the talk page, instead choosing to make blanket reverts, when the onus lies on him to use the talk page since he is the one reverting other edits. This is disruptive editing and not helpful. Mar4d (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I accept my mistake but it is not good to report it when matter was resolved on TopGun's Talk page. . And same applies for Mar4d when he deleted map of Indian subcontinent without discussing it in talk and that map was part of article since many years.

But to be sincere with myself, I want to get blocked because I'm addicted to Wikipedia. But don't block me for very long period, block me for less than 1 week. I'm not studying, my many personal work is pending, all this is because of Wikipedia. --Human3015 05:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That map was not there for years, as this diff and all previous versions would show. It was inserted later. And the reasons for the removal of the map have been stated. Mar4d (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have cleared my stand already, I have done mistake but others are also equally responsible. Even I can claim that if Mar4d and TopGun are not sock puppets then they are surely related accounts and they are friends in real life. User page of both says that they are from Pakistan, one can see that they are editing same pages most of the times. I'm certainly not saying that they are sock puppets but surely they have made their duo group on wikipedia and they make other people in trouble.

I can show you old edits of Mar4d when he wrote in a template "Kashmiri militants" as "freedom fighters". see here This shows purpose of Mar4d that why he is on wikipedia. This link is not related here, but this is just for example, he has more than 50,000 edits and I can show you many such kind on vandalism edits by him.

But as I said earlier, I'm ready to get blocked. I'm very much addicted to Wikipedia. I know routine block can be of 24 hours for 3 RR but I have no problem if Mr.Admin blocks me for more period, but don't block for more than 1 week please. --Human3015 07:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ACCUSE, WP:AGF, WP:NPA & WP:SPI. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

In a recent development, I reverted another edit by Mar4d on same page. This time he/she(from now "he" means Mar4d) added new map See here which I reverted See here. My point is right, he is so Kashmir oriented that he don't even see rest of the world, his recent added map don't even show Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives as part of Indian subcontinent. He was having so much concern about small dotted line around Pak administered Kashmir in earlier map but here he is not even aware about entire 4 nations.

As I shown in my earlier link see here again that he writes internationally recognized "terrorists" in Kashmir valley as "freedom fighters", his main mission is only Kashmir-Kashmir-Kashmir, some people are using Wikipedia as tool to increase Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir, Some people have mission that small kids of Kashmir when reads wikipedia they should know that these militants are "freedom fighters".

They can't see anything other than Kashmir, I have used strong words but anyway I am going to block in all cases so I'm using some my liberty.

If you see his old edits he has been always a biased editor, I'm new at wikipedia, came 3 months ago and since I came here he is finding his democratic right of Freedom of Expression in danger and he is reporting my ID, we were involved in so called edit wars many times.

Stii I'm firm on my promise of getting blocked, my family members are scolding me being busy on Laptop all the time but I couldn't stop myself from being on wiki because of repeated vandalism by "some" people. But I welcome my block. I need a break. --Human3015 10:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That map is technically correct as all definitions agree that Pakistan, India and Bangladesh form the 'core' of the subcontinent; the other countries (Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives etc.) are usually only described in extended definitions. If there is a better map that shows the three countries in dark and the extended countries in lighter shade, that would be the best map. Why don't you WP:VOLUNTEER? As for the rest of your personal attacks, I am not even going to bother to respond to your malicious attempt of salt on wounds. Mar4d (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Now its new info that only India, Pak and Bangladesh are "core" of Indian subcontinent. Any source??? Atleast don't deny about Nepal and Bhutan which have continuity of land with India. And you will not reply to any of my allegations because you have nothing to say and you have been caught red handed. I'm waiting for my block but till I'm not blocked I will keep on reverting all kind of vandalism. And all nations which I mentioned are considered as part of Indian subcontinent since this concept of subcontinent exist. See this map --Human3015 11:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, And you have been caught again, you said your posted map shows India, Pakistan and Bangladesh as "core" part of Indian subcontinent and rest of so called "extended" territory like Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives in light shade. But see you map again.. Click here , it don't show as you said, It shows entire rest of the world in light shade. It don't even show Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives in Map. Now is there any ground remained for you for debate?? --Human3015 13:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Human2015, this is not helping your case. You have:

• Reverted 5 times recently, and 4 times in a day,
• Went on to accuse two established independent editors (who are not even on the same continent) to be socks of each other,
• And have started a WP:SOUP at this discussion along with requests for blocking you.

Please stop before it gets you blocked. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

TopGun, Maybe you both are from different planets, it doesn't matters, its about groupism. Atleast read everything properly, I'm fighting my case to get blocked, and I have already accepted my mistake. I'm just describing what mistakes others have done. Like recent map was not having Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka in it, and I reverted it and you are considering that too in reverts. Why Mar4d didn't discussed in talk before changing map again to non-Nepal containing map? I think everything is fair for him, not for me. --Human3015 15:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. If you are asking to be blocked so as to stay off Wikipedia, see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658829220&oldid=658775284

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Jewish

1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658757606&oldid=658664624

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Jewish

1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=658339746&oldid=658249605

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=638466007&oldid=638410128

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

1. [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosa_Raisa&diff=626889677&oldid=575632242

Reverted from Russian-Jewish to Polish-Jewish

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oliszydlowski#Your_.28repeated.29_error_about_Rosa_Raisa]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oliszydlowski#Your_.28repeated.29_error_about_Rosa_Raisa]

Comments: Oliszydlowski is not familiar with Rosa Raisa and he never claimed to be, but he is constantly abusing the Wikipedia article about her. He didn't even read the Wikipedia article, let alone her published biography with the memoir as cited in the References in the Wikipedia article about her. He is constantly making up ehr identity as well as her name. I contacted him on his talk page to ask about his credentials about this soprano. He provided none and instead demanded from me the source for my own editing .I gave him the reference to this book, published by the US academic press, in which it is demonstrated through the copious documents, her own letters, and interviews with her immediate family, that her identity was Russian-Jewish. Oliszydlowski then decided to ignore it and again reverted the edit by erasing "Russian". In the past, her would constantly would replace "Russian" with "Polish" and then, after I alerted him that the only languages she spoke were Yddish and Russian (which were fully documented) before moving to Italy and US, he dropped "Polish" but is relentlessly reverting by purging "Russian" from her identity without any evidence On his Wiki page he claims that Lithuania, universally recognized as independent state, should be a part of Poland. he is ultranationalist who is abusing Wikipedia to propagate his ethnic intolerance. Please stop this man because he has no idea who Rosa Raisa was and he is dismissing the authoritative biography *and* her memoir as not sufficient to convince him about her identity. He has absolutely no source to support his own reasons for constantly reverting the national identity of this singer nor did he offer to give it. I alerted him on his talk page that I will report his abuse and he continues to ignore it and the facts about this singer. Please stop him and let this lady rest in peace.
Unsigned comment from Wikiuserthea

You need to inform the user that you've reported them here. I've done it for you. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, this isn't a 3RR violation, since one of the differences is from December 2014, and another is from September 2014. This looks like a content dispute to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. Her nationality is a tricky problem. If she was born in 'Congress Poland' that area was hardly distinguishable from Russia in 1893. You might ask other users who have worked on similar historical articles. Please use Talk to find consensus. Look at Category:People from Białystok to see how other Jewish people born in Bialystok in that period are identified. For example, Simon Segal. User:Wikiuserthea, if you are editing both as an IP and a registered account, you shouldn't. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Castle Rock, Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Prairie Dog Controversy */ removed unsourced information"
2. 19:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
3. 19:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inappropriate information"
4. 15:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Inaccurate information"
5. 22:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC) "Information from non-reliable source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Castle Rock, Colorado. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Discussion at User talk:Winner 42#CastleRock
• Discussion at WP:COIN#Castle Rock, Colorado

Comments:

They are also under discussion at WP:COIN, where they have complained about this. They seem overly keen to removed sourced content, and refactor this paragraph to their liking. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. The user complained about a non-reliable source but did not identify it. Another admin pointed out back in March at Talk:Castle Rock, Colorado#Prairie Dog incident that the talk page should be used to reach a consensus, but neither side has joined in there. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on IntelliStar. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Products */ new section"

Comments:

This user has continued to add unsourced and original research to the IntelliStar article that is trivial. It has been taken down at least three times and put back up twice by the same user. The user has also disregarded my first warning, and has now been warned twice by me. --ZLMedia 00:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Vanessa Lynne Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [39] - Sixth revert.
2. [40] - Fifth revert, even as this case is pending.
3. 07:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658955741 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
4. 07:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658955223 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
5. 07:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 658954171 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) ugh"
6. [41] - on an obviously-related IP, 104.156.240.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [42] - on the obviously-related IP.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent Changes */"
2. 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Recent Changes */"

Comments:

Reverting questionable/disputed negative material into a BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved editor note: I consider it probable that 104.156.240.162/104.156.240.163 is the same editor as 168.1.75.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who reached 3 reverts on the page shortly before 104.156.240.163 started editing. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I have edit warred in fact less than the reporter. Neither he, nor the previous non-IP editor seems interested in following BRD. It's strange he should report it; I didn't report it to spare him. An active discussion is ongoing on the talk page, the article should stay in its stable state until that's concluded. If there are any improperly sourced BLP claims they should of course be removed immediately. There are none I can find. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Yes, I am .162 and .163. Here are the diffs of the reporting editor violating 3RR:

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]
• [47]

104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The first diff you post is not a revert. The fourth is taken under BLP guidelines, and is a response to your fourth revert which inserts questionably-sourced and unduly-weighted negative material into the biography of a living person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I note that the editor has reverted this questionably-sourced, unduly-weighted negative material a fifth time. They quite obviously have no interest in discussion, editorial process or compliance with the biographies of living persons policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A common piece of content was removed in all 5 diffs. This material does not rise to a WP:3RRBLP exception. The sources are not questionable. You effected a significant change to the article, multiple editors objected and the first (168.1.75.52) began a talk page discussion which neither you nor the editor above chose to participate in before edit warring. Reach consensus on the article talk page and stop this silliness. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the definition of a revert. The first diff you link is my initial edit, which made specific changes to the article and did not "undo" any person's work. A person undoing that edit would constitute a revert. You also seem to have a poor grasp of the BLP policy. The source (specifically "AllGov.com") is absolutely questionable, and the weight placed upon its brief description of some anonymous random website's claims about a living person is absolutely subject to BLP standards. That material is questionable, and it stays out until consensus is reached that it isn't questionable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Your attempts to offend me will be ineffective. Stop edit warring and discuss your changes on the talk page. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss your proposal to insert anonymous claims about a living person into their Wikipedia biography; of course, as it violates fundamental content policies, it will be rejected. We don't care what anonymous people on anonymous websites say about people, any more than we republish what someone says on Reddit about a living person. It simply isn't of encyclopedic quality. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

When a neutral, respected RS sees fit to report them we report them. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, no. We aren't required to report anything, and the inclusion or exclusion of such content based on its quality is a matter for editorial judgment and the weighting of policies. The BLP policy demands that questionable content — particularly questionable negative content — be removed by default, until clear consensus establishes its reliability, necessity and suitability for the article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The above editor has reverted yet a sixth time, this time after another editor saw fit to remove the content in question. This should put to rest any debate about whether this editor is interested in discussion or is merely an anonymous POV-pushing edit-warrior. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. The burden of discussion is on the editors seeking change and neither you, nor this most recent editor has discussed anything. I posted a message on his talk page - in his edit summary he indicated we don't source BLP content to "ratings sites", yet no ratings site was sourced in that article - only in previous versions of the article. If he has valid objections lets discuss them. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll provide that diff here because the editor has chosen to remove it without responding. 104.156.240.162 (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The material in question is nothing more than anonymous gossip — it's strident and vicious attack quotes taken from an anonymous messageboard which is explicitly designed to allow nameless attacks on living people. Were this to have been republished in The New York Times, that might be one thing, but "AllGov.com" is, at best, an extremely-marginal secondary source and there doesn't appear to be any indication that anyone else cares about what these anonymous cowards said about this woman on the Internet. Ergo, it stays out until there's consensus that it belongs. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Original "reverter" here. Baranof: that would be horrible if it were true. However the site is run BY lawyers FOR lawyers and requires the "anonymous" commenters submit identifying information to be verified as lawyers. The quotes were reported in RS and attributed in our article to the source. It's unfortunate the responding admin didn't sufficiently investigate or allow reasonable time to respond to these nonsense claims. I notice you don't mention the critical information you removed sourced to The Hartford Courant and the American Bar Association - or are they also "marginal" sources?

@EdJohnston: I expect you to respond to the filer's breach of 3RR. The BLPN concerns have merit but nowhere near the level required for 3RRBLP. I will file a separate request if no action is taken here. 168.1.75.50 (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Whether they're lawyers or not, they're still anonymous. Whether "AllGov.com" is really a significant reliable source suitable for sourcing contentious negative claims about living people is an open question. Whether quoting the second-hand thrice-removed anonymous opinions of anonymous lawyers from a marginal website is really suitable material for an encyclopedic biography is also an open question, as is the question of whether or not we are placing undue weight on those anonymous opinions. But these are questions for discussion on the article talk page, not for edit-warring, and BLP demands that questionable material be removed first and then discussed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Valid BLP concerns have been raised, and it is time to discuss them on the article talk page. If necessary use WP:BLPN to get additional opinions. It is possible that negative information is being used that originates from anonymous web commenters. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Can somebody here have a look at the dispute I'm having with User:Bobrayner at Stealing a Nation? He has blanked the page in the past, and now he's blanking a piece of information that's central to the documentary itself. I've been reverting these attempts, but now I'm being accused of harassment and stalking (see edit history and comments). Would someone please look at the dispute, are the accusations baseless or reasonable? I simply don't understand the stubborn removal of content about this documentary. I'm posting it here because the edits have been too much back-and-forth, and have been coming to close to an edit war situation. Thanks in advance for any help. - Anonimski (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski stalked me to that article, and every edit Anonimski has ever made there is reverting me. [48] [49] [50] [51]. There has been similar harassment on other articles. I would welcome some admin attention to this problem although it's unclear to me why Anonimski raises this on the 3RR noticeboard when the evidence shows that it's Anonimski making kneejerk reverts of any change that I try to initiate. bobrayner (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The part of Wikipedia where our editing habits have overlapped the most, are Balkan topics. And I can't really see much that's out of the ordinary in the past disputes there. There have been some debates that have gotten really strange and filled with "loaded questions" and unconstructive approaches, the most notable from my perspective is Talk:Goraždevac.

Another thing: my notice on Bob's talkpage was reverted with the edit summary "stop harassing me", despite that it was a formality that I was obliged to do when starting this thread. It's unfair behavior to repeat this accusation over and over again when I've started a discussion to get some help with resolving this issue.

Disagreement is not harassment, but your loaded questions at for example Talk:Goraždevac are much closer to it. - Anonimski (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Anonimski; your best defence is a case last year where you stalked me to Goraždevac to revert my edits, you edit-warred to reinsert unsourced content, then I repeatedly tried to explain WP:V, and now you call that harassment. I would welcome more eyes on this problem. bobrayner (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I told you that the sources were on the page which was wikilinked there, but you seemed to pretend that they weren't any sources at all. If you would have said that you wanted me to copy over the refs, everything would have gone so much better and quicker. But your behavior towards me was as if I never cared about verification in the first place. I'm not trying to deny you the right to come with criticism, but have you ever heard of "constructive criticism"? And you've seemed to jump to conclusions about malicious intent very quickly (such as the first thread on Talk:North Mitrovica), when it would be very easy to pause for a moment and think it through. There are much easier and much less complicated ways to interact with other Wikipedia editors. I don't know what more to say at the moment... - Anonimski (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Armenian Genocide recognition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.236.197.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

This IP is refusing to participate in the talk page, and is removing sourced information that has been agreed to be included in the article at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Vanessa Lynne Bryant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• [59]
• [60]
• [61]
• [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] (Note: user's talk page is protected)

Notification of filing: @NorthBySouthBaranof:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
User edit-warred to preserve major article changes without consensus, removing almost all content critical of the subject sourced to established RS (e.g. The Hartford Courant and the American Bar Association.) User has several previous blocks for edit-warring: [65]

Disclosure: I am the previously IP-only editor 168.1.75.52 who posted to the talk page. G'day mates! (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Those were incandescently obvious reverts of WP:BLP violations. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Criticisms sourced to RS are not incandescently obvious BLP violations. Wow! Filing closed in record time. All that's obvious is that the content of these filings matters less than the filer or the accused. Further confirmation I was right to not register previously; I may have always "lost" to the unblockables but at least I wasn't targeted. Likely that's no longer the case. G'day mates! (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, did you have a lot of admin trouble under your previous account? Bishonen | talk 19:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC).
      • I wouldn't say a lot, certainly no more than the editor above. Are we calling IP addresses accounts now or is this more good faith on your part? Just the kind of helpful response one should expect from an administrator. Thanks, you've told me all I need to know. G'day mates! (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The correct response would've been WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE; there's no point in blocking them now that the warring has ceased. If you're concerned that the reverts did not fall under WP:BLPREMOVE, perhaps it would be best to approach an admin on their talk page to take a look. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Ah, if only this had been reported in time! But wait, an IP editor did report it in time in the first response to the filing here while the edit-war was ongoing. That administrator's response was to semi-protect the page, effectively siding with registered users in a content dispute between two IPs and two registered users, where the registered users disregarded BRD and began the edit war. Or this entirely accurate post to an experienced editor's talk page after he was likely canvassed by the registered users and participated in the edit war. He responded constructively by reverting it. There's always an extra i that could have been dotted or t crossed allowing you to believe that these processes work despite continued evidence to the contrary. You might convince yourselves because you have so much invested, but every outside observer and new editor has a more difficult time believing it - and that won't end well for wikipedia. G'day mates! (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
        • That report was filed by NorthBySouthBaranof, not the IP who had jumped across several accounts to continue inserting poorly sourced negative BLP content into the article. Are you the IP in question? PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Oh hey, it's the other edit warring editor. Several times now you've suggested I and the other IP were the same editor based only on the observation that he "showed up" to revert after I hit 3RR. Interesting, because just after you hit 3RR NorthBySouthBaranof showed up to to continue your reverts. And looking through your contributions you edit almost exclusively in articles he's banned from editing. Very interesting. What do they say? Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. G'day mates! (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Dunk Tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bob1764 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Improved content"
2. 04:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Easy Dunker */Improved content"
3. Consecutive edits made from 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to 05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Added content"
   2. 04:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Added content"
   3. 04:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The Easy Dunker */Added content"
   4. 04:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Clothing */Added content"
   5. 04:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Safety */Added content"
   6. 05:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Experience */Added content"
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) to 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 05:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Fundraising */Added content"
   2. 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Clothing */Added content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dunk tank. (TW)"
2. 05:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Dunk tank. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Made reckless disruptive editing on Dunk tank. The Snowager-is awake 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Ezra A. Bowen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659097173 by Interference 541 (talk) rv?"
2. 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "{{Proposed deletion/dated |concern = Notability |timestamp = 20150425061200 }}"
3. 05:54, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659096058 by Interference 541 (talk)"
4. 05:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659094810 by Haminoon (talk) let an admin decide"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments: See Special:Contributions/Bobbertybob for what has been going on at other articles.

This account has been edit warring over deletion tags with other editors on many (10+) articles. That seems to be the only contributions this account has made. Jbh (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I don't believe I've broken any rules - if I have, please do me the courtesy of telling me what I've done wrong. I will watch THIS page, and look for more info. Thnak you. Bobbertybob (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Regards the specific things show above - I note that the 'revert/undo' are to differing edits, and that there is no notice of 'attempt to resolve', etc.

Let me know, ty. Bobbertybob (talk) 06:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So the 14 reverts over deletion tags on 6 different pages in the last hour and a half in your edit history is not, in your opinion, a disruptive edit war? Anyway the admins here can sort it out. I would strongly recommend reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy completely before placing any further deletion tags or edit warring to replace a properly removed PROD or CSD tags. When someone reverts you it is a signal you should stop and discuss things. Jbh (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also wasting others' time here. Editor does not seem to understand deletion criteria despite (deleted) notices like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Edit warring continues here after case opened at Muara Bungo history using the pattern CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert- which is the same pattern as at Ezra A. Bowen CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert-AfD This seems calculated to cause disruption while nominally avoiding 3rr. Jbh (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is some very strange definition of 'edit warring'. So I also hope that "admins here can sort it". Watch out for boomerangs. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'd like to respond re "CSD-revert-revert-PROD-revert-revert"

I cannot 'revert'. I don't have that power.

The other users here can, and appear to be abusing it, according to wikipedia rules.

I've only used 'undo' for inappropriate uses of revert.

I don't think there's anything wrong with using a PROD once a CSD is declined? Bobbertybob (talk) 07:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Reverting" isn't a power. Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits. Please read WP:PROD. Your edits are disruptive. --Onorem (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, read Wikipedia:Reverting. Esp "The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting, but you should avoid reverting edits other than vandalism most of the time.". Thanks. Bobbertybob (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

/boggle. Did you read your link? It says exactly what I said. --Onorem (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I read it. Did you read the link I put?

You shouldn't be using 'revert' for non-vandalism (basically). Right?

Admins can sort this out, I hope. Bobbertybob (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm done being trolled. Have a good night. --Onorem (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Multiple examples of ignoring the three revert rule and general disruptive editing.  Philg88 ^♦talk 08:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

List of Cross Ange episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
2. 08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
3. 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."
4. 08:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "removed template."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
2. 07:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
3. 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
4. 08:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
5. 08:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

He removed Template:Notability. Empire M (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Empire M (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Empire M (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The reporter is blocked (subject to appeals etc) as a LTA, and most would consider this report a waste of time. Please note, without a mention of bans or sockpuppets, this wasn't the most judicious use of rollback I've seen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 23:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Incredibly one sided. Tried to bring some balance.."
3. 23:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "this is crucial stuff, not POV. if we cant even mention the claims of Turkey, are we then simply being a propaganda tool. Whatever one sides says is correct and the other side is outside the debate?"
4. 07:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "I added sources. this article needs to be cleaned up. It relies heavily on Armenian, Russian and Western sources. the use of missionary accounts is especially alarming, as are those of official British accounts."
5. 09:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(please stop removing sourced content. I am nowhere disputing what is written in the text, I am simply adding facts. There is nothing wrong with that, especcially in a biased piece like this is.)"
6. 10:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "(This is historical background, crucial in understanding what happened. Not allowing this crucial fact, is setting yourself up as a propgandist. No need for consensus here.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Article is on WP:1RR. Editor was informed of this. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

S/he seems to be on unresponsive, automated edit-warring mode. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Last block they got was for a week. One would think they would take that on board. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I don't have an account on this website, I would like to leave a comment on what happened. I added a notice in the last week on the talk page of the mentioned article calling the editors to fix this obvious and undisputable "Template:Systemic bias" of the article. The article is heavily propagating one single view (the view of those who claim that there has been "an Armenian genocide" and under-representing the view of the other party (those who claim that there has not been such an event). I asked them to present the two views in a balanced manner without bias and without this advertising language. However, no one of them made any positive response except "Rarevogel" who started to add some "sourced information" to the article in order to bring for it some of the needed-balance. The biased editors of the pro-Armenian view didn't accept to keep these sourced information, in spite of the fact that they are sourced, in the article and made an illegal removal of them.

Theoretically, these biased editors of the pro-Armenian view should be blocked because of their co-operation to prevent anyone of the other editors, who don't share with them this bias toward the Armenians, from adding "sourced information" to the article.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You are advocating a false balance. We have parties that claim Evolution doesn't exist. The article isn't "balanced" to highlight these views. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"Evolution" is a scientific theory based on scientific evidence. The Armenian claims are not "scientific" and are not based on scientific evidence.

So it is you my dear who is advocating a false balance, not me.

Here we have a legal case: in which the Armenians and their supporters are on one side, while the Turks and their supporters are on the other side. In order to be just and neutral, we have to give them both an equal space to represent themselves and to introduce their arguments. Without doing so, our judgment becomes unjust and unbalanced.

The Christian conscience is one-eyed. That is why an article written by the Christian majority of Wikipedia is almost always one-sided. (Full stop)--95.141.20.198 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

History is not a legal case. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you use WP:NPOVN. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Crisco 1492. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71] [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kargil_War#Kargil_War_Result & [73]

Comments: User edit warred with two users on the concerned article, editing in content that is contentious, without consensus and currently under dispute at the talk page. The user has no recent history of edits at the article, nor has he participated in any of the past discussions at the talk page until mysteriously coming in to make the reverts. He abused the rollback feature and knowingly broke 3RR [74] yet has chosen not to self-revert despite being warned on his talk page and being asked to on the article talk page, and let the article remain in present form until the dispute is settled. Mar4d (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Mar4d has made 5 reverts. Thus page protection would be a better choice, I had already requested it on WP:RFPP. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 10:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There were 3 reverts, not 5. You went overboard with 3RR by not only reverting me, but also TopGun. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Rahul's statement in the editsummary (no matter who was 'right') while breaking 3RR that he's knowingly breaking 3RR isn't the way to go. Regardless of block, protection etc outcome, it is clear that he does not need the rollback user rights. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment, I would like to present the following points in my defence

1. TopGun amd mar4d are engaged in some kind of groupism where they edit as a group and always support each other in talk pages. They are various instances where they both have been part of a edit war [75] [76] [77]
2. As they edit as a group, they are using the 3RR rule as shield to insert their views in the article without any consensus and threatens users who do not support their views with block warnings.
3. In this particular case , there is an active debate on the talk page regarding the issue and in my edit summary i have repeatedly urge them to gain consensus on talk page before making any changes.
4. This is my first engagement in any kind of edit war while both topgun and mr4d have a history of edit wars
5. I request the ADMIN to check the concerned article and the talk page before making any decision.
6. I used twinkle for reverting their edits and the single use of rollback was a mistake on my point
7. I believe common sense will prevail here

Rahul^{Text me} 11:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Both TopGun and I were involved in that article previously and had been participating in the talk page. You appeared out of the blue without any history at that article and started making reverts while completely ignoring the entire discussion taking place at the talk page. I am more curious about your motives and what brought you into the edit war. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well its Ironic that after giving human3015 a lecture about bad faith you are accusing me of editing in bad faith. I dont care about your participation in the talk page regarding older topics, but this particular topic is under discussion in the article's talk page with my active participation Rahul^{Text me} 12:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment, Mar4d has made 5 reverts and page protection will be a better option. I want tell one more thing, few users are always acting in group to write Anti-India matter in any related article. Mar4d, TopGun together made me to get blocked for 48 hours recently. And here also they fighting together to get another user blocked. They blame others for making 3-4 reverts(which they actually revert vandalism), but Mar4d and TopGun together makes 6-7 reverts(that too to enforce personal POV). --Human3015 12:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you should have some introspection on the way you conduct yourself. You've been following me at places and involving yourself in matters that do not seem to be of relevance to you. This attitude got you blocked too for 3RR. I have noticed that your habit of making personal attacks and bad faith remarks on me has become quite consistent at almost every thread. This is something that is of deep concern. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, who said I'm following you, you recently nominated me on this same page so this page was on my watchlist. You, your team and your agenda has been exposed several times. We should always maintain good faith, we all are Humans, we should use wikipedia as a neutral tool to make positive change in the society. Please read Wikipedia:Five pillars. --Human3015 12:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

And Mar4d, you can't say that this matter is not relevant to me, Kargil War has always been on my watchlist, and as soon as I got unblocked I took part in discussion on talk page of Kargil War which is now going on. --Human3015 12:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a load of bollocks. You've never edited that article before, and you only commented on the talk page an hour ago from now. And that is also your very first edit on that article talk page. It is clear you are following me, and it is also clear that this seems to be some attempt at tag-teaming. Just quit it. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1) A few editors who have edited the same articles since ages and have them on the watchlist support a similar version of the article as an attempt towards neutrality... that's not groupism and calling it that is plainly divisive, 2) Human3015 was just blocked because he ediwarred at another article and has chosen to turn up at this article and report as a tit for tat gesture which is hostile attitude. I don't mind this article getting protected until a clear consensus is achieved towards what the infobox should say but blatant and divisive accusations and casting of aspirations towards established editors should be curbed. Inspite of my repeated attempts to engage in content related discussion on article talkpage, Rahul is instead choosing to accuse editors which is definitely not achieving anything. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've Blocked Rahuloof for 24 hours, not only for breaching 3RR, but for knowingly doing so and apparently not caring. After OccultZone's revert, the article is currently Rahuloof's version (retreat). Thus, they had no cause to revert again, but I have no confidence that they wouldn't. Mar4d did not breach 3RR. They made three reverts in a 24-hour window. There was a previous edit war on April 23, though, in which Mar4d was involved, but actually less so than other editors (one revert). I know everyone is screaming that they have consensus for their version, but I don't see any clear consensus, although I went back only so far in the rather contentious Talk page discussions. I suggest an RfC to determine whether the infobox should say retreat or return to status quo. In the meantime, the following editors are Warned: Mar4d, TopGun, Imperial HRH2, and OccultZone. If there are any reverts of the disputed material in the next seven days, you may be blocked. And that includes the revert of a revert. If you want to report a revert, come to my Talk page or report it to another admin, but don't revert back. It's a bit unfair to include OccultZone because they made only one revert, the most recent one, in quite some time. However, they have edited the article before and are participating in the discussion on the Talk page. Having entered the fray with more than just a simple revert to keep the peace, they are stuck with my warning. I can't force you folk to initiate an RfC, but whatever you do, can't you at least be more civil and stop throwing nationalist slurs around? I don't even care if there's evidence to support them, they are never constructive. If someone is making consistently biased edits to Wikipedia articles, then take them to ANI. Otherwise keep your mouth shut about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Battle of Milne Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dannemel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts: (both logged in as Dannemel and logged out)

1. [79]
2. [80]
3. [81]
4. [82]
5. [83]
6. [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85] [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
This person has been using the Dannemel account and logged-out editing to add POV-pushing material to the feature article Battle of Milne Bay. Nick-D (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clearly the same editor as the IPs. Clear reverts, was warned prior to last revert. Blocked longer for the deceptive edit summaries. Also blocked the IPs used. Can semi-protect if he rotates to other IPs. Kuru (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94][95][96][97]

Comments: The user just does not want to discuss his edits, even after telling him to do so four times. And when he opens a discussion at the talk page, he reverts my edit just 2 minutes later. I do not understand what's the point of opening a discussion at the TP when the user is just going to keep on edit-warring. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Warned and has continued reverting, even while this discussion was open here. Kuru (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I have opened a new report because sock has started the edit-warring hours after release from block. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Superfluous man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Total revert by the sock reinstating his/her edit up to 14:12 UTC. Includes all five consecutive edits
2. 18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) "(Sorry, but this is the Turkey article, therefore "Turkey's official stance" on this issue should also be briefly described in one sentence. Removing referenced content is vandalism.)"
3. 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) "(Sorry: Restoring the correction of the GDP figures, which was originally made by myself.)"
4. 18:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC) "(There isn't a single sentence in this paragraph which is incorrect or unreferenced.)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* The views of "all sides" (Armenian, Turkish, neutral) must be given */An understatement"

Comments:

Sock of Lord of Rivendell. Started exactly the same edit-war on Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for which he was blocked. Previous report is still item 4 on this noticeboard. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Blocked for at least the edit warring. No comment on the socking; will look at that when I get time. Kuru (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Kuru. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659019842 by Mann jess (talk)The order is good the previous way."
2. 18:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659026103 by Mann jess (talk)He is not a scientist but Stephen Hawking is and he says it is "the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology"."
3. 18:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659029138 by Mann jess (talk)Yes, take it to talk, per BRD, Not BRRD."
4. 19:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Mann jess (talk) to last version by Bill the Cat 7"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on William Lane Craig. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Ordering of Lead */ new section"
2. 18:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Craig is not a scientist. */ new section"

Comments:

4 reverts today, with no attempt to engage in discussion of sources. Editor insists on restoring unsourced content and original research to the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The 4th revert was a mistake (my apologies), but MJ began the edit warring with his second revert in violation of WP:BRD, removing well-sourced content and not willing to discuss. And he continues to [98] chop up the article rather than improving it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing more than an attempt by Mann Jess and Theroadislong to cut down the page, and now they are trying to ban all opposition.--TMD Talk Page. 22:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith your recent edit at William Lane Craig removed 24 good quality edits which were all based on sound Wikipedia policies.Theroadislong (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Those were not quality edits, but were attempts to remove quality information from the article.--TMD Talk Page. 15:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to double check then, most of my edits removed unreferenced material and Mann Jess's edits improved the grammar and readability enormously. Theroadislong (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If the 4th revert was a mistake, I'm sure you'd be happy to self-revert. Or, I'd be immensely happy for you to discuss the reverts, instead of refusing to. No editor is entitled to 3 reverts, despite the patterned behavior (e.g. April 2nd: [99], [100], [101], June 7th: [102], [103], [104], [105], both in just this last year on this article). Repeated reverting without participating in discussion is edit warring, regardless of the number of reverts. It just so happens this time you also went over 3rr.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly would have self-reverted had you not continued to make edits without consensus. By the time I figured out what had happened, the whole string of edits that were made got removed so that we are now at a point where we can "D" in the BRD process, which is all I was trying to get you to do (how's that for a run-on sentence?). Remember, it's a BRD process, not a BRRD process. So, let's discuss. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to make changes, hence B. There's nothing stopping you from self reverting now, considering your revert is the currently standing version, and there's also nothing stopping you from discussing. It's been days, no response whatsoever to the long list of sources I provided. Yet, you felt comfortable enough reverting without participating in the discussion I opened, even over 3rr, and you don't see that as edit warring; that's a problem.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Battle of the Somme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 19:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 19:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 20:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 10:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 18:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) to 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has been repeatedly warned, with apparently a dozen warnings in the past 24 hours. Making the same nonsense edit 15 times in just two days seems more than excessive. Editor has never explained the edit, nor engaged in any talk page discussion. RolandR (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Very similar behavior on 2015 military intervention in Yemen as well, so there's a history. BMK (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days. Given the severity of their behavior, user warned that next edit warring block will be substantially longer. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Laurentum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DF27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: # [106]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [107]
2. [108]
3. [109]
4. [110]
5. [111]

Exactly same thing going on at Laurentius as well.

1. [112]
2. [113]
3. [114]
4. [115]
5. [116]

Similar tendencies at Spanish language, where it comes closer to vandalism with repeated removals of sourced content

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122] (an edit summary, not a comment on the article talk page, but encouraging the user to explain his constant removals and to stop the edit warring. As it concerns several articles, I tried both to warn the user (when they did not respond) and then explain it to them on their talk page. Other users have tried to do the same but just been reverted [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128])

Comments:

After trying to discuss with the user on their talk page, warning them for the repeated blankings and their edit warring (always alone in edit warring against several other users), I thought the matter had subsided. Apparently not, as the user has now restarted. The user seems to edit infrequently so there is no 4RRs within 24 hours, but the pattern of removing smaller languages (Basque, Swedish, Hungarian) for no reason, and refusing to give a reason is repeated over and over again Jeppiz (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz was notified in regards to the reasons of my actions on my talk page, but s/he refused to acknowledge my reasons, and did not appear willing to cooperate. I was only given one final warning (instead of an introduction or level 1 warning), and was attacked for my edits. The only other editor involved in this issue is Brianann MacAmhlaidh, who was actually the first editor that reverted my edits prior to Jeppiz. What is a pattern of removing smaller languages? Smaller than which language? What classifies a language as small? This makes no sense and is out of context. DF27 (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to note that aside from directly issuing a final warning as a first warning, I was never directed to WP:3RR, as Jeppiz claims. DF27 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced information from articles because you personally feel there's "no reason for it" it arbitrary and disruptive. Consensus determines what information is appropriate in articles, and in general, stable, verifiable, uncontroversial existing article content is considered to be supported by consensus. That is why if you make a change, and someone disagrees with your change, the proper course of action is to discuss the issue and seek a new consensus, rather than repeatedly reverting to your change. We call this the bold, revert, discuss method and it is the cornerstone of collaborative editing, dispute resolution, and edit war prevention. Please utilize this method when your block expires. Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Female genital mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[129]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [130] [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [133]

Comments:

I understand that this user is an administrator, but that shouldn't in theory mean she can overrule me on that basis.

My edit consists of summarizing the prevalence data in this article in the lead and sidebar of the main article. The argument she is using to revert it is her personal claim that UNICEF is the only reliable source for female genital mutilation statistics. On what authority is this claim valid? Sources for all of the information I'm trying to include are cited in prevalence of female genital mutilation by country; they include official data published by the US and other governments. If that article can use other sources why is UNICEF the only acceptable source for this one?

2 other users, Johnuniq[134] and Zad68[135], also reverted my edits, similarly ignoring the cited sources. Wikipedia shouldn't rely on the consensus fallacy as a measure of verifiability. If the material I want to add is deemed unacceptable, please explain why in a way that makes sense rather than arbitrarily discounting any information that doesn't come from a particular administrator's preferred source. PolenCelestial (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I first saw this as a result of an RFPP request. I was giving PolenCelestial the benefit of the doubt and issued an edit warring warning instead of a block, but to now go and file this report on the 3 editors on the other side, while arguing about the substantive point shows they just don't get it. Outside of the narrow edit warring exceptions, not applicable here, being right is not an excuse to edit war. Combined with the deliberately waiting the 24 hours to avoid 3rr issues, (admitted in edit summary), and the battleground mentality evidenced by the filing of this report, I think a WP:Boomerang may be in order. Monty₈₄₅ 03:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

So the content of an article isn't determined by the accuracy of the content itself as per WP:Verifiability but rather by the manner in which it was added? As in, regardless of what my edit consists of, it's being excluded because I was supposed to know that the 24 hour limit specified in WP:3RR doesn't actually mean 24 hours, and no one is going to examine the edit to see whether the information should be in the article? Editor politics, rather than objective verifiability, is what decides what readers get when they consult wikipedia? PolenCelestial (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If this isn't the appropriate forum to resolve this dispute on the basis of the content as I intended when filing this report you could direct me to such a forum, rather than blocking my account so that I am unable to do so (obviously I'm not allowed to use another account to avoid the block). I'm assuming that I'm the only one who cares enough to initiate a dispute resolution about whether the information should be in the article, since all that is being discussed here is the method by which I'm trying to include it, so blocking me is de facto consigning the edit to the memory hole on completely irrelevant grounds. PolenCelestial (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an irrational report. SV has made 2 reverts, the OP has made 3 plus a revert-self revert pair for the express purpose of spacing the reverts out past the 24 hour mark. As the OP notes there are indeed three editors who disagree that the proposed edit is an improvement to this Featured Article. OP is not engaging the concerns on the Talk page and just reverts back their content. How this makes SV guilty of edit warring I don't understand. Zad68 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

My report is about the violation of WP:V, not WP:3RR. PolenCelestial (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, how am I not "engaging the concerns on the Talk page"? The only "concern" (the only reason given for reverting my edit) is an arbitrary claim that only UNICEF data can be considered reliable, which I disputed on the talk page. PolenCelestial (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. I don't think intervention is warranted for either party here. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you're dealing with an admin either. You have just as much right to edit as any administrator. But here's the thing. If anyone disagrees with you, you're simply supposed to discuss it with them. And if you need more feedback, there's many means of dispute resolution that can aid your discussions. I can see clearly that you have not discussed the issue that much on the talk page and you probably haven't tried dispute resolution either. So there's not much I can do for you right now other than to direct you to continue discussing the matter and seek dispute resolution if needed. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659400778 by Winkelvi (talk). Please go away and find out how to edit correctly."
2. 03:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659400399 by Winkelvi (talk). WHAT?? HAving a section break and having an incorect description is ok?"
3. 03:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ do it properly"
4. 03:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659399177 by Scalhotrod (talk). Yoiu did a crap edit. I fixed it. Don't think that is yr 3rr"
5. 03:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ you still can't get it right"
6. 02:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659398027 by Scalhotrod (talk) yes i did"
7. 02:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659395569 by Scalhotrod (talk). Why dont u check it before reverting. I took out a dead link and I put in a better explauination!!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mormons. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ agreed"
2. 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* External links */ +"

Comments:

• Involved comment (because I edit the page regularly) I saw the edit war and was going to report it to WP:RFPP. I suggest protecting the page for 48 hours because everybody is editing in good faith (no vandalism), there is a talk page discussion, and there are at least 3 people over 3RR including the OP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pending revisions reverts count in 3RR? If that's the case I was unaware of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• • Wouldn't be any edit war if it they got it right first time. 118.93.85.100 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Involved comment I became involved when the article popped up on the Special:PendingChanges list.[136] Things devolved from there as described above. After an exchange on my Talk page[137] and a warning on the IP User's page[138], another Editor became involved[139] and I started the Talk page discussion[140]. The incivility I can get past, but the IP User is Editing with a WP:BATTLEground mentality. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
• Concur with Adjwilley entirely. Page protected for 48 hours. Both users did indeed break 3rr as well as the IP. Just because an article's under pending changes does not mean you're exempted from edit warring policy. Pending edits aren't considered invalid by default just because they're subjected to review. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I now know pending changes reversions count toward 3RR. Don't remember what gave me the wrong impression they didn't. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I too am glad to see the article protected, in the mean time we're discussing the contents of the External links section. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's an understandable assumption to make considering the edits never appear in the article, but at the end of the day the principle against is still the same. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the IP User seems to be a fairly conscientious and decently productive Editor[141] when they aren't swearing in Edit summaries[142][143]. Maybe someone can suggest they register. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I know this original reporting was "resolved" - but here's another comment..... Though I haven't looked at some of the other potentially conscientious edits that Scalhotrod notes above, it seems the user not only continues to dispute the issues addressed on this page, with little civility, as shown here, but perhaps more troublesome is an apparent unwillingness to acknowledge how WP operates, as shown here. While I have reverted a 2nd time the changes noted as having consensus to keep (shown here), I fully anticipate another reversion. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've kind of written it off as someone who's having a "bad day", but this particular IP User seems to have quite a few of them. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: Gordon B. Hinckley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vermilioncliffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]
5. [148]
6. [149]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [150]

Linke to article talk page discussiiono: [151]

Comments: Although the editor, to their credit, went to the Talk page (and I did not), they continued to revert on the article over and over. One other editor commented in the discussion, and my edit summaries, which admittedly are not the same as discussion, noted that they needed WP:CONSENSUS at the Talk page for their additions, many of which are poorly sourced or unsourced, and are obviously promotional.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bbb23, I am frustrated by the current situation. I have written numerous posts on the talk page, and neither you nor Neiln has responded to my comments about the substance of your claims. I asked which sources would be better, and which sources were 'poorly sourced' or non-neutral, and I have not received a specific reply. What is worse, you are merely 'undoing' everything I have added, rather than deleting or modifying specific entries. I have asked, how is a statewide newspaper a poor source? How is the only extant biography of Hinckley a poor source? Moreover, there are countless entries in there no with no source whatsoever, which makes your wholesale revert seem unevenly applied. And I am not reverting wholesale like you. I am trying to engage in your comments, but neither you nor NeilN are looking at the sources themselves, offering alternatives, etc. I am happy to seek consensus, but I do not see how your not engaging with the sources, and simply undoing anything I have added will lead to that. I am attempting to make a good faith effort to improve a wiki page that needs significant improvement. And as far as I understand, edit war involves reverts like you are doing (undoing wholesale). I am going back, re-analyzing the text, and trying to find a solution. Otherwise, being accused of reverting would mean I simply cannot modify and add anything I have ever added.Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You posted, which is great, but you need to allow for more than 8 hours for a reply. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I can wait. And just please in the future, be specific about which sources, sentences. It is frustrating to spend a good deal of time researching to improve a page that needs much improvement just to receive a "yeah, nope: all crap" revert. Thanks. Vermilioncliffs (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First, even if you got zero response at the Talk page, you cannot breach WP:3RR. There are other dispute resolution mechanisms you can try besides the Talk page. Second, I notified you of this discussion at 17:52, and at 19:02 you reverted yet again. Your "frustration" aside, I have trouble believing that you will not resume disrupting the article. At the moment, another editor, ChristensenMJ has reverted twice (similar to your reverts), while 70.34.2.50, like you, has clearly breached 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Stale. No action. Please file a new report if the problem continues, or simply reactivate this one by removing the "result" from the header. Hopefully that won't be necessary! Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Template:2012 Major League Soccer season table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

J man708 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Teams in other countries qualify for tournaments like the Europa League through non-league means, (ie-FA Cup winners). This is shown on their overall season table. Why must it be different for the MLS?"
2. 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Talk it out here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Inclusion_of_MLS_Playoffs_in_the_overall_table. The current edit conforms with other similar league systems (ie. A-League, ASB Premiership). The US league has no need to be an exception."
3. 21:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Read the WikiProject Football page to see WHY it is to be kept like THIS during discussions. Thank you."
4. 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "Consensus has already been reached a good month ago and this is a part of it being rolled out as part of WikiProject Football. We're not going to "Leave it in the longstanding format" when a new format was already voted on and passed to show playoffs."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Edit warring instead of discussing */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

A second warning provided at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football&diff=prev&oldid=659201874 where a discussion is happening to determine consensus Editor seems to think a unilateral decision to change to a different format, similar to those used in other leagues, means that it should stay despite two editors reverting. Similar activity on Template:2013 Major League Soccer season table and Template:2014 Major League Soccer season table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to add an outside comment that User:Walter Görlitz also reported me 8 days ago for edit warring when he also had 3 reverts. The result was that both was advised to stop warring (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive278#User:Qed237 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Advice)). Seeing the same pattern here, I wanted to bring it up for knowledge to the closing admins. If it is a habbit (not saying it is) to report "opponents" in an edit war when you have 3 reverts on your own, I dont think it is a very good habbit. I have been told that you dont have to break 3RR to be edit warring, and it seems like Walter Görlitz stops at 3 reverts not to be blocked, but reports the other editor. It is not my job to decide, but it might be appropriate to inform Walter Görlitz with a message to let him know he can not edit war himself. QED237 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't stop at three reverts intentionally. I stop when I realize it's an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Walter, I understand the issue at hand, but I've been lead to believe that the consensus reached at WikiProject football is something to stick to. Your reverts of the article make it fail to conform to this consensus. Whilst I understand that the 3RR has been breached, this whole situation happened over a short space of time, wherein we were both reverting articles and writing responses to one another (I think the majority was within a ten minute period or so). Regardless, I assure you that the edits I have made to the articles in question have been voted for in a LONG debate (which actually lasted for about two months) over at WikiProject football (ironically enough with QED who responded above), wherein both sides came to an equal and content consensus over their issues and requests. For this, I hope you can see that this issue has been pondered over for a very long time and isn't just an edit that I've created because I think it looks good or something. I'm actually surprised to be perfectly honest that the American league tables have slipped through the cracks and not been updated to conform to the consensus. - J man708 (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay User:Walter Görlitz, I can understand and relate to that, I have done the same. But then report the other editor for edit warring when you are edit warring yourself might not be the best idea, it may look like you want to stop the other editor to get your will through. In my books User:Walter Görlitz just are as guilty as User:J man708 and both can be seen as edit warring. QED237 (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You claim there's a consensus, but you have not pointed to it.

I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block. I want the other editor to know that their behaviour is over the line and they need to stop since the subtle warnings were ignored. It's also obvious that other editors may revert and then we have a worse problem on our hands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By the way, I also was/have stopped editing once realising it has turned into an edit war. The other user who is involved in this debate has since reverted the 2015 article, to which I have left (despite the fact that I haven't reverted that one at all). Perhaps you should see that as me not being a reverter and instead leaving it for the higher powers to deal with, too? I feel as though you have honestly reported me on here, whilst being just as guilty as I am. It's as though you had this page all readied, waiting for a third revert to cause an issue, rather than trying to discuss this on the WikiProjectFootball page like I had suggested we use after Revert Number 1 had taken place.. QED, I 100% agree with you. - J man708 (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not trying to stop the editor since, as was seen with you, admins don't always block" and yet, you said also "I expect an admin to step in and block you for breaking WP:3RR if you revert to your preferred version prior to establishing a consensus to accept the new format."... Really? - J man708 (talk) 22:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the consensus is voted upon here. Something I HAVE already linked you to before. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_93#Consensus_2 - J man708 (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the former: a public comment for the Footy admins to do with as they please. The latter is reality. I didn't actually expect you to cross the bright line after I wrote the statement. Since you did, were you expecting the admins to step-in?

You claim consensus. I don't see that actually being accepted. Several editors argue with you. And you even ignored the consensus in applying the formatting to the templates in question, correcting it only now. Thanks for pointing me to it. Do you think other FOOTY participants know about it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

And the consensus, now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season, so it is recognized, is only for the colouring of the table, not for the inclusion of other national qualifications. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that other Footy Participants know about it, as it is on the League Season page that you yourself presented. Can you provide evidence of ignoring the consensus in applying the formatting? I'm sure there is a logical reason behind that occuring. Besides, I do honestly believe you're bringing up points here to try and get me blocked or something similar, something you see as justification for arguing with you. The facts are that we're both on two different sides of a conflict. I took the means of taking this discussion to the Football Project page, where it (like all other similar football issues are discussed) and you chose to put up an edit warring admin notification against me and bring up stale arguments with the intention of trying to get me into trouble. Please wait for an admin to discuss this issue further. Thank you. - J man708 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I can't prove that they don't know about it any more than you can prove that they all know about it. That's flawed logic.

I nominated you because you went past WP:3RR not to offer an argument.

Now that another the other editor has reverted, the third to do so, do you plan to discuss? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It's on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/League season page. This is the template for everything football on Wiki. "Another editor has reverted", no... That's still just two. Yourself and BMF. I intend on waiting for an admin to mediate this, as despite what you say, you do seem to be hell bent on finding an argument here. As I said before, please wait for an admin to discuss this further. - J man708 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Two editors have restored to the older version. Not looking for an agument, simply a discussion. I have received several answers and this discussion has been worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for one week. This allows plenty of time for discussion and surely no harm is done to either party for this one week. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659458917 by MShabazz (talk) the source is the torah and i even said IN THE TORAH and give you quotes from the torah."
2. 10:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659460458 by MShabazz (talk)it is in the torah in Ezekiel 37:21-24 look it in the verses and i said IN THE TORAH so my source is very reliable."
3. 12:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659473387 by NeilN (talk)why does it need secondary source if i said IN THE TORAH and gave verses? its i said according to the fbi site and i give this source from the fbi site."
4. 12:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659475622 by NeilN (talk) i said its written in THE TORAH i didnt said other sources said that. why does i need secondary source when i said the torah said that?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Sourcing */ new section"
2. 12:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Messiah. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [152]
2. [153]
3. [154] - User not yet warned
4. [155] - User warned and notified of NORN discussion
5. [156] - User ignored NORN discussion
6. [157] - User ignored this report

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [158]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Undead#Resurrection_VS_Undeath and Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Undead_and_Ezekiel

Comments:
Three users (an IP, NeilN, and me) have supported removing the material, two of them (not the IP) citing relevant policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 10:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* NATO bombing timeline */"
4. 11:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 13:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kosovo War. (TW)"
2. 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I also see references to socking in other editors' summaries. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Stana Katic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Caskett2015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

The text that is always removed refers to the marriage of a celebrity:

Katic married her long time boyfriend Kris Brkljac in a private ceremony in Croatia in April 2015.^[1]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff diff

Comments:

The editor goes by the username "Caskett' which is the couples name of two fictional characters, Richard Castle and Kate Beckett, . It's clear that she has issues with one of the actors getting married because she has deleted this information four times in the past few hours. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by richwales (talk · contribs). I would have been inclined to indef this editor and that is the action I will be taking if this editor is brought to my attention again. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 04:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Street performance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Robynthehode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st revert by Robynthehode
2. 1st revert by BMK
3. 2nd revert by Robynthehode
4. 2nd revert by BMK
5. 3rd revert by Robynthehode
6. 3rd revert by BMK
7. 4th revert by Robynthehode
8. 4th revert by BMK
9. 5th revert by Robynthehode

BMK then adds this personal attack on Robynthehode's user page, despite being warned very recently by The Rambling Man not to do so, otherwise they'll be blocked. This warning was also regarding WP:3RR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yup, BMK has lately embarked on a personal attack campaign, including those diffs provided by Lugnuts, and calling me a "jerk", obviously nothing like leaving a message saying "Hey, asshole, stop fucking around", but seemingly symptomatic of this user's inability to work in a collaborative environment right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The edits in question have to do with a sentence in the article. It originally was in the section about one-man bands, and was unsourced POV complaining that street performers who used backing tracks and MIDI-sequencing were not true one-man bands. I originally removed it for being POV, but eventually returned it to the article without the POV. Then the complaint was that it wasn't about on-eman bands, so I eventually moved it to another place in the article which described changes in street performance in the 21st centuty, but apparently the sma editor doesn't want it there either. So,I give up. I'm taking the article off my watchlist and other editors can be responsible for keeping an eye on it.

The personal comments from the two editors above are beneath response, as both are aware of the circumstances beneath the events they so skeletatly and deceptively described, so I shall not respond to them. BMK (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Striking my remark on the recommendation of admin EdJohnston. BMK (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Take it off your watch list but it doesn't excuse the blatant violations of 3rr nor the flagrant personal attacks you are so quick to resort to. No deception here, just reporting the truth. No excuses for either the multiple violations of 3rr nor the personal attacks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm less concerned about the edit warring than I am about BMK's comments to Robynthehode on their talk page. I don't find a notice to Robynthehode about 3RR or edit warring anywhere in their talk page history, so I think at most a warning is appropriate for them. BMK has said he'll leave that article alone, and (more importantly, to me) apologized to Robynthehode, so I'd be inclined to close this without action, but with a reminder to BMK that another 3RR in the future, or a similar comment to another editor, will probably lead to a block. But I can see how that might be viewed as being too soft, so I won't close this officially, and will defer to another admin instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I was recently engaged with BMK in a senseless edit war, where he wrote "To expect me to treat you as a colleague under those circumstance is asking too much, so this is how you'll be treated instead, like the pest you have become." for enforcing the rule of not setting an image size in infoboxes so that the new dynamic sizing can take effect. BMK sets the images to sizes that are optimized for his screen like 192px and 275px. He is a very grumpy person, difficult to work with in a collaborative environment, not open to accepting changes to policy as Wikipedia changes. ~~

• Result: Mostly per Floquenbeam. BMK and User:Robynthehode are warned against further edit warring; BMK is advised to watch his language in this and other disputes. BMK has apologized to R. for personal attacks and says he won't continue to edit the article; Robynthehode wasn't properly notified of 3RR before these events. User:Floquenbeam has advised against blocking either party. If BMK genuinely wants to apologize then he should avoid attacking others in 3RR reports. (See the last sentence of his 20:54 comment above). He might fix this by striking out the sentence. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't know whether this is the correct place to comment but anyway - I think the behaviour of BMK is deplorable it is not only the use of swearing at me but the attitude in a previous post on my talk page that because he has been editing Wikipedia longer than me that this gives him some sort of superiority. While I understand I did edit war if you look at the previous edits I did on the Street Performer's page I asked for the edit dispute to be taken to the talk page and reminded editors that the edit in dispute was uncited. My history of editing has been, in good faith, about following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I have no other reprimands or negative edits. I have always tried to listen to other editors and take on board their comments. I think the conclusion to penalise me in the same way as BMK is unacceptable considering his history and attitude towards editing and other editors. Please commentRobynthehode (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659600136 by Jytdog (talk)"
2. 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659577610 by The Four Deuces (talk)"
3. 23:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659576944 by Yobol (talk)"
4. 23:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659533005 by Jytdog (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[159]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[160]

Comments:

Reverted after warning given. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; was warned. Kuru (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Necromancy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 151.44.206.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [161]
2. [162]
3. [163]
4. [164]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [165]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:151.44.206.178#Recent_edit_to_Necromancy

Comments:
IP does not understand English well enough to accurately judge article content, and is censoring sourced information because he has misread its contents to say the opposite of what it actually says. He thinks the article accuses Da Vinci of being a necromancer, when the article contents are clearly Da Vinci calling necromancy foolish. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Economy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Krull The Eternal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

1. 06:23, 27 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:52, 28 April 2015
2. 20:54, 28 April 2015‎ "Undid revision 659747752 by Sciophobiaranger (talk)"
3. 21:09, 28 April 2015 "Undid revision 659748322 by Sciophobiaranger (talk) Don't edit anything, I have written in the talk page. I don't see why I am the one who is supposed to stop."
4. 21:17, 28 April 2015 "You are wrong. I dispute the subject in the talk page and there is and there is no consensus, so you are a liar who say untrue things."
5. 21:23, 28 April 2015‎ "Undid revision 659751891 by Sciophobiaranger (talk) You did not wait for a common consensus by users, and therefore FIRST CHANGE IT. Stop violating Wikipedia policy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

In several of the edits the user undone, he was told to stop edit warring. The same goes for his comment on the user talk page.

1. [166]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Attempt 1 Attempt 2 Attempt 3

Comments:

I repeatedly tried to get the user to dispute the subject on the talk page, and leave the official statistic as originally stated until a common consensus is reached. Despite the fact that this user was told in March that the GDP ranking should stay as-is until there are two sources that have official statistics the user continued to edit the page and even after appealing to the talk page continued edit warring. The user also posted an offensive and antagonistic link on this user talk page, instead of discussing the issue. It is noted on the article's talk page as to why the user's excessive revisions were undone. The official sources for the ranking are provided on the talk page of the article, as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talk • contribs)

I would want to say that there are currently newer statistics from the CIA World Factbook, which provides the Only official statistics on the subject. The page was reverted by me before fore than 10 hours and nobody stated that this is wrong. Than this user started changing it constantly and providing old sources to the argument. Consensus in the talk page is not made yet.Krull The Eternal (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook is one source that clearly says they're estimates. Official or not, there are two other official sources that still dispute the matter. And even the IMF estimate is different than the estimate provided by the Factbook. The sources are not old, as the source provided from the IMF was published in April, 2015 (this month) and the World Bank source is the official report provided here, which clearly says "Last Updated 14-Apr-2015". These are not "old" sources. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The IMF sources for the 2014 states that China has bigger economy than the united states, and it is even the information into the Wikipedia's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)). They ALSO states that China has bigger economy, but because this information is just an estimate this user says that it shouldn't be taken into account, so only the CIA World Factbook remains as a source. This user wants the information from 2014 about the usa to be compared with information from 2013 about china, which is wrong. Krull The Eternal (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you care to look at the sources, you would see that they're estimates (IMF and World Bank). And the IMF clearly says that "IMF staff estimates continue to serve as proxies for historical series when complete information is unavailable." Here is the IMF report. Here is the World Bank Source as well. Did you not care to look at them? --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

If you care to read, I'm talking about CIA World Factbook, which is neither IMF nor the World Bank, but you don't even take it into account. There are 3 sources. You say that they are just estimates, OK. Let take only the CIA World Factbook into account, which is the only remaining source that you doesn't disagree with. It states that China has the biggest economy. Krull The Eternal (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Remember this? The source used for the ranking is the IMF. You only have one source and even that mentions that they're just estimates. Then there are two sources that state there is no official statistic for 2014 yet. With the IMF stating there is no complete information available when staff estimates are used. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Krull has been doing this since November of last year, and was 3RR warned in April by myself. Also this edit summary is concerning: [167] Ha-ha-ha. It is the second economy by PPP, and even it's corrected in wikipedia's list. Ho-ho-ho-he-he-he-hi-hi-hi. Stickee (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I was happy, because I proved you wrong. I have tried to change this before, and then they told me that there is no reliable sources. Now there are reliable sources, so I am happy. Krull The Eternal (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: User:Krull The Eternal is blocked 48 hours, User:Sciophiobiaranger is warned for edit warring. Krull has been carrying on the dispute since November 2014. For example see this edit. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

CLC (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 16:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "/* Members */"
3. 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 05:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on CLC (band). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User will not stop adding unsourced information to the article. Random86 (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: Warned. If the editor continues to revert with no discussion they may be blocked without notice. EdJohnston (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: John Hay, 12th Earl of Erroll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikimandia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [173]

Comments:
The editor is breaking all the reference formatting and was asked to discuss on the talk page but has failed to do so.

• Boomerang. First, I didn't see the invitation to discussion; secondly, being told I had created "ugly infoboxes" was childish and uncalled for, as was the comment from "Eric Corbett" that the article was "an abortion." By the way, as you can see from the timeline, "Eric Corbett" coincidentally immediately stepped in to revert after Sagaciousphil had reverted it twice... what are the odds? These are likely sockpuppets or colluding offline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:BRD was linked in my edit summary and I immediately left a note on the talk page. When another revert took place, I left a second note on the talk page, pinging the editor at the same time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Warned. Wikimandia is definitely not behaving well. But they haven't reverted more than 3 times; this wasn't a revert. Moreover, this isn't an edit warring warning, it's just an alert about this discussion. Sagaciousphil, use for instance {{subst:uw-ew}} to warn edit warriors. Wikimandia, you were edit warring against two users, and both your sockpuppetry accusation and your argument here are objectionable. No, infoboxes are not "standard", and you don't have consensus for adding one. If you carry on with this kind of behaviour, you will be blocked. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Sorry, Bishonen, I've never had to do one of these reports before. SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Traian Vuia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Ion G Nemes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "changed lede to match reliable source which is already posted here"

2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1
2.
3.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Traian_Vuia sections 21-38, plus an RfC.

Comments:

Slow burn edit warring and another revert against consensus despite current RfC as recommended at ANI, see here which was an attempt to resolve the issue. There have been many attempts to resolve this on the article's talk page, and on the editors talk page, including here and they are all met with sarcasm. Flat Out talk to me 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 month. I see five reverts by User:Ion G Nemes in April to restore his own POV about early flights by Traian Vuia. He seems not to have budged one inch in spite of the many discussions he's been part of. For background, see this ANI discussion from April 23. In his opinion, the subject of the Traian Vuia article is a 'lying scumbag'. I doubt that Ion G Nemes can remain impartial enough to edit this article neutrally. EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Kim Richards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [174] - 19:42, 29 April 2015

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [175] - 21:35, 29 April 2015
2. [176] - 21:43, 29 April 2015
3. [177] - 21:46, 29 April 2015
4. [178] - 21:50, 29 April 2015
5. [179] - 22:35, 29 April 2015 (after another editor, independent of me, reverted the anon IP's edit).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [180] - User talk:2605:A000:FFC0:44:51EC:69DA:22F8:643F#Required 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [181] - Talk:Kim Richards#Appearance on Dr. Phil

Comments:
I made a good-faith effort at informing him of WP:BRD, I began a talk-page discussion, and I invited him to join the discussion. [182]. Despite this, he continued to edit-war over what he himself said (at revision #1 above) is "purely subjective" content. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Materialscientist (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Page: Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: 46.177.166.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

46.177.166.134 Disruptive editing, no dialogue or justification, violation of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule in Olympiacos Women's Water Polo Team article.

As you can see here: [183], [184], [185] this ip user violated the three-revert rule by making disruptive, unjustified and unexplained edits (he wants to impose his version or who knows what), despite my clear explanation after reverting his second edit. I am looking forward to your help, thank you so much for your attention.

This is also listed on WP:ANI here is a link. AlbinoFerret 19:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stale – EdJohnston (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DD2K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:50 (UTC) "No! Stop it"
2. 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659952330 by Kenobi5487 DO NOT remove my comment"
3. 22:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950989 by DD2K (talk): Rvv. (TW)"
4. 22:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950705 by DD2K (talk): Rvv. (TW)"
5. 22:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659950239 by DD2K (talk): Rv - And I said no, again, Opposers are NOT going to be the only ones prevented from posting replies. (TW)"
6. 22:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 659949949 by DD2K (talk): Rv --No way, opposers are NOT going to be the only ones not able to reply. (TW)"
7. 22:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659949672 by Calidum No"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Doubtless this'll be framed as being a way to censor this user, given their edit summaries behind the reverts... but that's 5 reverts in ten minutes, against two different editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Involved comment. I was merely trying to move his comment to the discussion section. The user in question noted replies should be moved there yesterday in response to another user. Calidum T|C 22:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  Just an FYI to whoever closes this, the response DD edit warred over is now in two sections and should be removed from one of them. Calidum T|C 22:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with all above, user clearly knows where the comments belong by this edit, and now edit wars over his own, even as multiple users tell them on their talk page and by reverting. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• I would like to point out on this move request that there have been several Support voters posting in the Oppose AND Neutral sections. I asked one editor to remove their comment on my Oppose vote, and he stated that it was allowed and I could not remove his comment. The initiater in this very complain has posted several comments harassing both Opposers and Neutral voters. It is ridiculous that my comment kept being removed. Dave Dial (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes there are three very short replies in the oppose section, but any long ones (especially ones that mess up the numbering and indentation and require conversation back and forth) have been direct to a new section, by multiple editors from both sides of the debate. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe that people do have edit wars on talk pages too. One should not revert things written on talk pages unless it is very much abusive. Talk pages are made to express ourself freely. --Human3015 23:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• I want to point out that after DD2K commented here (22:32, 29 April 2015) with full knowledge of 3RR he went back and continued to revert again (22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659952330 by Kenobi5487 DO NOT remove my comment") blatently ignoring bright line 3RR. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• And what about the bright line of TPOC, which states

  Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.

  I can take responsibility for my actions, as long as everyone, based on their own actions, knows that they violated TPG. As shown, an admin told me I could not remove his comment, and has now made other comments on other !votes. Yet mine was the only one repeatedly removed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I tried to implement a solution by hatting the comment, so as to not fragment the discussion, but DD2K still reverted me, isisting on the comment remaining untouched. I really think that they should take a step back from this at this time. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) ^{may the force be with you} 01:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• Look, I think any comments on a support or oppose vote should be moved; neutral is a bit more ambiguous really. But Dave, there is really no excuse for this many reverts (seven), and the fact you've made two more since the report was filed wasn't a smart thing to do. Describing things as vandalism when they clearly weren't is also a red flag. Your post was not (intentionally) removed, it was moved, or at least, it was supposed to be (everything seems to be lost in the mess of that edit history). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It appears the dispute has quiesced. There were enough reverts to justify a block, if we wanted to go that way. All parties are advised to stay cool from now on. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [191]

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

Comments:

• See my (and others') comments immediately above. Calidum T|C 23:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Somewhat involved comment: The warning was issued after the last revert. As far as I can tell, there was no revert by Calidum after the warning. If the first edit (part of moving the comment, not a simple removing) should count as a revert is debatable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't surprise me that you would make that comment here, without making the same note that my 'warning' was given afterwards too. I used to believe you were a good admin and stand up guy. This whole move request has opened my eyes to a lot of Wikipedia cliques. The boys club. Dave Dial (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I didn't make that comment up there, because, as is clear from the time stamps, you made two of your reverts after the warning was on your talk page. I'm somewhat anal about facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Facts ARE facts. And since you were one of the Support editors who made comments on Oppose votes(mine), and when I asked you to remove your comment because I believed it was not allowed, you refused and told me it was allowed and that I should not remove your comment. Yet, you allowed several editors to keep removing mine wihtout any comment from you at all. Yep, unbiased good admin that you are, the facts are shining through. Dave Dial (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I also allowed a cat in Jakarta to be hit by a car last month. I only turn my omniscience on during duty hours. More to the point, Comments that are placed in the wrong section may be moved to the correct section by administrators or other participants. There seems to be a general agreement that short replies are ok, but long rants with formatting that break the page are not. But all of that is quite irrelevant for this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid excuse for breaking WP:3RR, and neither is Wikipedia:Cabals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved observer comment Both editors are in the wrong here. "Do not edit war, even if you think you are right" is right there in the canned edit warring warning. Calidum should have known better. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Am I next on your list? Calidum T|C 00:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action, per the report above. One party was more at fault than the other, but we are closing with no block in hopes that people will move on from here. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: List of fastest production motorcycles by acceleration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.198.72.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [192]
2. [193]
3. [194]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196] also on user's talk page earlier: [197]

Comments:

Anon editor's hostility and unwillingness to engage in consensus-building forces me to bring to 3RR noticeboard. This is evident in userpage edits here and here where he tells editors basically do it his way or "stop altering wikipedia". – Brianhe (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Only three reverts. The IP editor is warned they may be blocked if they revert again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660096606 by Lukeno94 (talk) this issue has been widely discussed in talk, please see talk page. Except 1/2 POV users, everyone has consensus. Please read talk page., long discussion"
2. 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660094673 by Mar4d (talk) revert of sourced material, don't indulge in edit war, groupism."
3. 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "added more citations by Human rights watch accusing Pakistan too. consensus made on talk. Read talk page. Discuss there before deleting highly sourced matter"
4. 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660090481 by TopGun (talk) unexplained revert., see the talk page for earlier discussion on this issue. Don't revert sourced material."
5. 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659983004 by Kashmiri (talk) don't revert sourced matter, see talk page. "Human Rights Watch" accused Pakistan."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[198]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[199]

Comments:

Open and shut case; reverting four separate editors without gaining any consensus, and using bogus edit summaries as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Human3015 was blocked very recently on 23 April for edit warring at Indian subcontinent. The user still does not seem to have developed an understanding of 3RR, making five reverts and undoing 4 different editors within a day at this article. As in the previous block, there's the same attitude - constant warring, refusal to use the talk page, and not accommodating alternative views. Like last time, this time he was also notified of 3RR and asked to self-revert, and he chose not to. This is as damning as it gets for total disregard of 3RR. Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• here is long discussion where final decision was to write section on Pakistan. Kindly read it if you have time. Some POV people kept on reverting highly sourced matter without reading whole talk page.
• That section has citations of Human rights watch that Pakistan does human rights violations by supporting militants in Kashmir. And that report clearly mentions that.
• Some users whose user page shows they are from Pakistan always revert it. They deny even sourced matter. Read the talk page again.
• Long discussion on same issue has been already done, it was two day long discussion and whatever I wrote has valid sources. --Human3015 18:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Two day discussion? That's nothing. In fact, for something clearly this controversial, it's nowhere near sufficient. You also allude to a consensus that does not exist in the slightest. You were discussing an edit that had about 1.5k of content; this one is FOUR times that as well. Oh, and sending me bogus edit warring notices in your position does not help you one jot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I will elaborate it.

• Here is my first revert I reverted user Kashmiri : His name suggests that he is from Kashmir and many Kashmiris support Pakistan so this user will not see talk page or will not think anything and will directly revert anything written against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.
• My second revert User TopGun reverted Me : He has been involved with me several times. He is also from Pakistan(his profile says, he want Kashmir in Pakistan soon) and he was so enthusiastic that he not even gave edit summary to his revert. He just can't tolerate anything written against Pakistan even of it is sourced and highly discussed on Talk. But I reverted him adding two more citations. See above.
• My third revert I reverted Mar4d: Mar4d also involved with me earlier many times. His profile also says he is from Pakistan. He also can't see anything against Pakistan. I will give an Example. read here Mar4d's old edit where he wrote "Kashmiri militants" or "Kashmiri designated terrorists by UN" as "Freedom Fighters". Means he edit wikipedia with that mentality and he also can't see anything against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.

• TopGun and Mar4d usually work in group and I was got blocked for 48 hours very recently for edit warring with same two guys on page Indian subcontinent. They always work in group to get other users blocked which can be threat for their hidden agenda.
• Hope admin will study this matter deeply. And I'm ready to get blocked because I have broken 3RR rule and I accept my mistake.

'I AM OFF --Human3015 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Everything is not a conspiracy. This has more to do with your attitude and your approach to dealing with content disputes. With a might makes right attitude like that, where everyone else is wrong and you are right, you can't go very far unfortunately. Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Human3015, don't edit war even if you think you're right. I quote the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, to which you have been repeatedly linked: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Frankly, I think you ought to have got this clear in your mind the last time you were blocked for edit warring. Accusations of other people 'working in group to get you blocked' are unconvincing and inappropriate, please read WP:AGF. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

Page: St. Augustine, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Wildthang22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [201]
2. [202]
3. [203]
4. [204]
5. [205]
6. [206]
7. [207]
8. [208]
9. [209]
10. [210]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [212]

Comments:
User presents their point of view, then reverts to their preferred version while consensus still not achieved. There may be weight issues, but they are not even being addressed. Other uninvolved parties would be appreciated to help resolve this. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Continuing edit-warring even after warning given. Also may be an WP:SPA, as they have only made edits to the St. Augustine article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

David Corriveau & James Corley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143565 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
2. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143397 by Joseph2302 (talk) Don't be an idiot, search for c-r72Nr8A44"
3. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143297 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
4. 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143153 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
2. 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
3. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
4. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content, ignoring my warnings about unsourced content and edit warring. This user is suspected as a sockpuppet, but if not then their edit warring, and edit summaries calling me an idiot should lead to a block. As I already explained, WP:VERIFY means they have to provide a source for their claims. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Page: Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.180.153.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [213]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [214]
2. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No.

Comments:

The user is an IP editor who appears to be in breach of the 1RR restriction in place on Syrian Civil War related articles.[217] The editor has solely made pro-Zionistic/anti-Palestinian edits since it began editing yesterday.[218]--Anders Feder (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Appears to be an WP:ADVOCACY account. Alerted to the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: Aleksandr Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Benjamin.Franklin.1706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is the remove the statement that Aleksandr Dugin is known for his fascist views. All his/her edits are marked minor. He/she has never posted on the talk page.

Previous version reverted to: [219]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 15:01, 29 April 2015
2. Revision as of 15:08, 29 April 2015
3. Revision as of 15:25, 29 April 2015
4. Revision as of 15:29, 29 April 2015
5. Revision as of 18:32, 29 April 2015
6. Revision as of 16:05, 30 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:21, 30 April 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been numerous discussions concerning the statement that Dugin is known for his fascist views on Talk:Aleksandr Dugin. I expect that User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 participated in them as an IP editor or under a different ID.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Page

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Could you please explain why you remove sourced content which is crucial to understanding the background?"
2. 11:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "People reading this article would be made to believe that the Ottomans were sending the Armenians to death camps to be exterminated, Nazi-style. This article is utter propaganda. It relies too much on Amenian sources. I have added some background facts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Fresh from a two-day block for violating 1RR s/he starts another edit-war and is at revert #2. Previous report on this user is still on this noticeboard and is currently #3 from the top. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a 1RR violation, since each of the listed edits is trying to restore material he was warring about earlier in April. We could try to go through discretionary sanctions and propose a topic ban, but the editor's persistence suggests he wouldn't be willing to follow the terms of a ban. How can we keep this sequence from going on forever? I'd favor an indefinite block, but would listen to other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor and Administrator who has encountered this editor a number of times, I have no reason to believe that Rarevogel can change. Take a look at the editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Agree with EdJohnston. Never met the editor before, but a look at their block log, which includes personal attackssource misuses, block evasion, and warring, strongly suggests that an indefinite block is in order.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – This report was open for two days and I hoped the editor might respond. When someone is this persistent we can't be optimistic that they will negotiate with others or recognize the problem they are causing. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced the editor will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indicative of the disruption this user is used to create that he did not even bother to respond to the generous conditional offer on his talkpage prior to being indeffed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Pages

TVXQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (please see merged report)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 09:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 09:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 08:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 06:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW)"
2. 07:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit warring across multiple articles and will not stop adding unsourced information. Dr.K. gave warnings as well. An IP-hopping editor was making the same edits before the page was protected for three days. Random86 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: here they have also just been warned about adding copyrighted material at that page. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ) (Merged report)

Page

TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 09:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 09:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TVXQ . (TW★TW)"
2. 08:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ . (TW★TW)"
3. 09:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW★TW)"
4. 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on TVXQ. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is a separate report which was merged with the one about TVXQ Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. I see that he's done the same previously with IPs; let me know if semi=protection is needed. Kuru (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and American Horror Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: on American Horror Story and on American Horror Story: Hotel

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. AHS: Hotel revert 1 - falsely referred to the edit as vandalism
2. AHS: Hotel revert 2
3. AHS: Hotel revert 3

1. American Horror Story revert 1 - again falsely calling it vandalism
2. American Horror Story revert 2 - and again
3. American Horror Story revert 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning given and very quickly reverted

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User began a talk page discussion after all of the reverting and after my warning.

Comments:
LLArrow was blocked for edit warring on the exact same article for 24 hours very recently. Has not learned a thing and continues to edit war. Neither article has the user passing 3 reverts in 24 hours (stopped at 3 on each), but this is the edit warring noticeboard and the user is clearly edit warring on these two articles. A 1-revert self-restriction was proposed to the user in the past but they declined. Reverting my warning and continuing to revert again after it shows that they're not willing to stop edit warring. Gloss 04:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I know I should not engage in edit wars with vandalizing IP's, but I was under the assumption that it was not considered edit warring, when it's a case of vadelization. I plead with Gloss to stop this unfounded vendetta towards me. They watch my actions like a hawk, it's borderline creepy and hounding. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. It's not very long since LLArrow was last here at AN3. He has been reverting things that he claims to be vandalism which actually are *not* vandalism. It's taking him a long time to come up the learning curve on policy, if we judge by a prior discussion at ANI (28 Feb 2015). The common element on these cases is him doing a lot of reverts that he claims to be justified by policy, but actually are not justified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Page

United New Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656423088 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
2. 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660018691 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
3. 14:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062481 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
4. 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062722 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
5. 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062997 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
6. 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063405 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
7. 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063668 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
8. 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063772 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
9. 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063875 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
10. 14:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660064137 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
11. 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660065003 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
12. 14:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660065078 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
13. 02:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660066784 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Similar behaviour on New Progressive Party (South Korea), Korea Democratic Party, Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War, Democratic Republican Party (South Korea), Japan Restoration Party and many more articles. Editor would appear to be a sock of serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. RolandR (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Obvious massive edit war; was warned. Not sure on the sock claim, best to resolve at SPI (where you've already added it). Kuru (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: Economy of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzowu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [220]
2. [221]
3. [222]
4. [223]
5. [224]
6. [225]
7. [226]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [227]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [228]

Comments:We all need a constructive discussion. I began a talk-page discussion, and I invited him to join the discussion. Despite this, he continued to edit-war. He has changed and reverted the article without the consensus. We can have a constructive discussion and reach a agreement on the talk page, but is seems that he does not want that.

Lol, so this is why you were disrupting my edits on the Economy of Croatia article, to get me banned :D. First you ask me to shorten the article, then revert what I did to report me. However, you made one mistake in your low actions, there is still no more than 3 reverts on that page, while the stuff I removed on those edits you linked was actually material that I added previously. I can't say that I'm surprised by this, it's just lame. Tzowu (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please you have started to edit-war, and now you are what, trying to play a fool? I have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page but you ignored and made the changes anyways. Everyone can see that.

Yea, sure, you were so constructive in your comments and thoroughly explained your issues with my edits and never even thought about an edit-war, while "I ignored you". "Everyone can see that." Tzowu (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You have violated the rules, and the administrators can see that.--Tuvixer (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are also two examples where recently Tozwu has tried to start a edit war:

1. [229]
2. [230] --Tuvixer (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, so when you start reverting me without explanation when I actually remove content that I added to fulfil your request it's not an edit war, and when I revert your unexplained removal of well sourced content it is an edit war? Tzowu (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You can lie all you want but the administrators can see what you are doing. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And what do my parents have with our discussion? [231] Tzowu (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) Tuvixer is involved in edit warring. A topic ban is needed. AlbinoFerret 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally Timbouctou is involved in edit warring with Tuvixer on the same page.

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

Diffs of users reverts

1. [232]
2. [233]
3. [234]
4. [235]
5. [236]
6. [237]
7. [238]
8. [239]
9. [240]

I dont edit this page, but was canvassed about it. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Timbouctou diff AlbinoFerret 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a mess that goes well beyond the edit warring of one editor, I'm still looking at the history, but I'm considering bringing it to AN/I or AE. For now the article is fully protected. Monty₈₄₅ 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Monty845 I agree that this is far beyond simple edit warring, there are civility issues and I am sure other things. I think your idea of moving it to AN/I is a good one. AlbinoFerret 15:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Monty845 can you make timbouctou to stop harassing me? In the first days I only edited the articles related to the next elections in Croatia, but then someone has called me to a discussion and I saw that I can edit other articles and that here are some really mean users who are trying to change some articles just because of their political preference, so I started editing other articles, I improved some articles and created new one regarding the government a and the parliament, but all that time timbouctou or someone else, with no reason, have reverted my edits and have called me by names, I really felt then and feel now awful, I live in a liberal city and have never met so mena people, and I have always been thought not to tolerate those who are not tolerant. I really don't know all the rules of Wikipedia and they are many, I just wanted to improve some articles. I am really sorry because I broke the rules, it will never happen again. I have reported timbouctou before for a obvious 3RR, but the report was ignored, so I really don't know how to handle this kind of harassment. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have made a general AN/I report on the incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Privatization_in_Croatia. I don't know what the resolution will be, but you may want to ask there, as it will probably be where this is resolved. I would suggest we suspend this report pending an outcome from AN/I, because as mentioned above, I think the issue goes beyond just edit warring. Monty₈₄₅ 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Page

The Island of Doctor Moreau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660337789 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
2. 23:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660337285 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
3. 23:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660336640 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
4. 23:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. [241]
6. [242]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[243], [244], [245]

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content claiming that Montgomery and Dr Moreau were partners. Even if true, it's unsourced. Ignoring editors telling them to stop. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Based on his talk page comments claiming to be Dr. Moreau, this is just a troll. Kuru (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)