Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive214

User:Srkris reported by User:Faizan (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments: The user is continuously adding Non-Neutral content at Mughal Empire without reliable sources, or no sources at all. He has altered the content in many ways. In violation of WP:ES, he provided no edit summaries for his alterations and changes. Despite several warnings, he replaced the term "Mughal Empire" with "Mughal Sultanate" in the lead, removed religions from the infobox, removed the "Kingdom of Mysore" from infobox, removed referenced info about Kings, with much more serious alteration of other text, without citing any source, at all. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply: I am trying to add referenced content to Mughal Empire and the user above (ganging up with his friends) tries to vandalize the article by repeatedly removing large portions of the article (see [8], [9], [10]) without giving any reasons. I have tried to provide reasons for my edits and many of my additions that the user above has tried to revert, were actually references that I tried to add to the article. Bad faith reverts, edit warring and vandalism to the article are what I am trying to avoid here. Srkris (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The diffs you have provided are already there up, there was no need of them. Where you provided references for your edits/reverts? Where the reference for the term usage of "Mughal Sultanate" was provided? Where you cited your removal of infobox content? You provided no references at all, instead removed them. Your blocklog shows that you have been active in edit conflicts before too. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The block was based on the violation of WP:3RR, as well as the edit warring outside the 24-hour window, and the unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism directed against other editors. The blocks from 2008 (too remote) had no impact on my determination.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bodinmagosson reported by User:Kaiyr (Result: No action)

Page: Manchu people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bodinmagosson (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]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

• Declined. @Kaiyr, I don't think you know what you are doing. Part of the problem is a language issue. I suggest you continue discussing the content problems with the other editor, either on your talk page (already begun) or on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:24.149.8.77 reported by User:The Interior (Result: Blocked)

Page: Metropolis at Metrotown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.149.8.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments: This is regarding a "controversy" section for an article on an urban mall in Burnaby, British Columbia. It involves an incident from last year where a youth was detained for taking video of security staff in the mall. I removed it per WP:UNDUE - this is a minor incident by any reasonable definition; no one was injured, no one was charged, no one was fired. Myself and another editor removed it on May 11; the section's author has re-inserted now four times, stating in his/her edit summaries that talk page discussion is not necessary. Note: my talk page post was made after the reverts. The editor has now made a post to my user talk speculating that myself or Emarsee (talk · contribs) is a mall stooge suppressing this info. [18]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Despatche reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19] First edit, unexplained removal of content, reverted by Materialscientist
2. "Yet another lack of explanation? I'll give you mine, then: I don't see where Pepsi themselves use "pepsi" or "PEPSI"."
3. "Wow, really?! Are you kidding me?! Do you even know what a "stylization" is? Yes, we can completely ignore the logo because Pepsi themselves don't actually write..."
4. "Get all the admins you like, I've stated the facts already. There is absolutely nothing controversial about this change in the context of Wikipedia."
5. I've provided valid /everything/, and you have provided nonsense. Overriding.
6. *Please* don't mindlessly revert without an explanation. See talk page. (after report)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pepsi#On "stylization"

Comments:

Also consider this, as this user tends to edit-war ([20]). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I should be reporting you, I just didn't know how.

This user has completely dodged all of my questions and sent me mostly drivel instead. I've tried to answer what I can as well as I can and he dodges those efforts too. Observe him linking to a so-called "edit war" which was handled pretty quickly by simply finding the facts, which not even the other editor had at the time.

While I admit I'm (very!) aggressive with what I do, Tbhotch is impossible to deal with on a basic level, which is mostly why I was more aggressive than usual. That is a mistake on my part, but admitting that isn't going to solve the problem with the article, talk of which needs to be kept there. Which, by the way, probably isn't ever going to be resolved because he refuses to actually discuss further, and is instead opting to be sneaky about it by spamming bureaucratic threats until I'm silenced. I'm not even sure he understands what the proposed issue is.

I'm not even going to get started on the ridiculous "mirror accusations". All I'm going to say is that I'm still waiting for a reply, Tbhotch. Despatche (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply what? You are clearly edit-warring. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You see? This is what I'm talking about. I don't think this guy understands what's going on. Even now he's still dodging the actual discussion, going on about this stupid edit war, determined to get me blocked, hoping I give up.

Tbhotch, you haven't properly explained your case. I have responded to all valid points as well as I can, and there has been nothing on your end except threats and this. There is a reason I keep reverting at all, and it's obviously not to "win". Despatche (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, report me for what? The one who has broken the 3RRule and violate the WP:NPA policy is not me, is you. "There is a reason I keep reverting at all". There is no reason to edit-war, read WP:3RR which you deliberately decided to ignore with this edit, even when there is a report. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Admins note this person is disruptively editing: [21] (WP:NOTBATTLE), [22] (WP:NPA). (edit conflict)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Goodsdrew reported by User:CoCoLumps (Result: )

Page: Haitian Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Haitian Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:Hispanics/Latinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Goodsdrew (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. [23] 10 May 2013‎
2. [24] 10 May 2013‎
3. [25] 10 May 2013‎
4. [diff]

User Goodsdrew and I are debating rather Haitians should be considered Latino are not. I insisted that Haitians are Latino and should be included in the Latino/Hispanic category. Every time I add a Latin category on Haitian Canadians and Haitian Americans, he/she removes them without showing any evidence that Haitians are not Latino. I already explain on the talk pages (Talk:Haitian_Canadians, Talk:Haitian_American, and Template_talk:Hispanics/Latinos) why Haitians are Latino however he/she is not being coherent. Can you check this out please? --CoCoLumps (Love yourself) 12:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Comments:

Temporary fully protection for these page is what I recommend. Theres is a debate that is moving forward - just need theses 2 to stop editing the pages in-question and just talk. It is going to be a long debate as both parties have sources backing both claims ,,,, so lets lock up the page till the debate is over. Both have reverted to many times and blocking both will not move things forward,,,, talking will. Moxy (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor fails to engage on talk page or list sources to back up his position. With his latest actions, he has reverted four times within close to 24 hours (his fourth edits on each article was just outside the 24-hour window).Goodsdrew (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The user engaging in edit warring is CoCoLumps, not me. CoCoLumps has violated the three revert rule--I have not violated it. I have tried to engage with CoCoLumps on the talk page. CoCoLumps refuses to provide sources to back up his contentions, but instead continually reverts. (See report of CoCoLumps below for further details).Goodsdrew (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've combined the reports. We can see both of you on the pages at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User Goodsdrew is a liar. I have engaged and provided evidence that Goodsdrew choose to overlook. This editor is causing a disturbance that needs to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoCoLumps (talk • contribs) 02:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

When my report of CoCoLumps was combined with this one, all of my links to diffs of CoCoLumps's violation of the 3 revert rule and of my attempts to resolve the problem were removed. I wanted to make sure that they remain accessible. Here they are:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 reverts on Haitian Canadians

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

4 reverts on Haitian Americans

1. [30]
2. [31]
3. [32]
4. [33]

4 reverts on Template:Hispanics/Latinos

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]
4. [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38], [39], [40]Goodsdrew (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012reported by Tritomex (Result: PP 1w)

Page: Zionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [diff]

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

[45][46] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:
The article Zionism is under 1 revert rule-The overriding of my (and others) editions through POV pushing, for many consecutive times, combined with removal of other sourced material and its replacement at least twice in 24h in the same article, though violation of 1RR is edit warring. Not to mention the clear context dispute to which user Pluto2012 is very much involved and where he accused other editors of edit warring and "propaganda" while reprehending them for the violation of 1RR, which now he commits.[48] Regarding context dispute: [49],[50].The two edits, removal of long standing material and its replacement with other, came after a removal of huge portion of material by the same user in the same day.I made my best by notifying the editor and asking him for self revert which he after asking for specifications simply ignored.--Tritomex (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani

On Pluto's page, Tritomex raised his suspicion, and was informed by two very experienced editors, User:Nableezy and User:Sean.hoyland, who have great familiarity with 1R that he had misread the evidence. Nableezy, for one, has often hauled me over the coals when I have inadvertently erred on 1R, and told me to revert, and never allows personal feelings to disturb his judgement. I myself suggested Tritomex crosscheck with a third party or admin before bothering this forum. He didn't. If the admin confirms that their judgements were correct, I would suggest a word with Tritomex over WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and vexatious complaining be appropriate.Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that all 3 editors are friends making together numerous edits related to Palestinians. However, removing my material and material from other editors, by Pluto2012 in one day, in the article under 1RR, later replacing it with his own material is edit waring. As I said all of this happened after he reprehended other editor (who was sanctioned for the same behavior) for 1RR violation.[51]--Tritomex (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

False, and don't personalize this as a POV-battle. None are 'friends' (as far as I know), and in any case, as I said, Nableezy has often confirmed the reading of 1R against me made by a partisan 'on the other side'. Neither Sean, nor Nableezy. nor Pluto have in the past had the slightest hesitation in challenging me if they think I have made a dubious edit. Please look up Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas.Nishidani (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I can confirm that I hate everyone. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There has been plenty of edit warring at that article but diffs 2 and 3 cited above are not examples of the edit warring. They are the 2 consecutive edits shown below.

• 2013-05-12T17:25:28‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (97,022 bytes) (+132)‎ . . (don't mix this with Israel. Israel came long after.)
• 2013-05-12T17:21:46‎ Pluto2012 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (96,890 bytes) (-58)‎ . . (→‎History: moved up)

The edits replaced an image that was added here @19:57, 27 February 2012 by user R-41 more than 14 months ago. It is I suppose technically a revert of a 14 month old edit but I don't think it can reasonably be argued that it is edit warring. There has been no edit warring over the image. Pluto was not edit warring with anyone by making these 2 edits. The 1RR restrictions and this noticeboard are in place stop edit warring, not prevent article development and improvement. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 1 week. I see a huge multi-user edit war going on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Nataev reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 48h)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52], 20:12 12 May 2013, restores POV template earlier deleted by different editor
2. [53], 11:14 13 May 2013, same as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article is subject to WP:ARBPIA rule on 1RR, with notice prominently displayed on talk page, on which Nataev has participated.

Comments: Note that whether the editor removing the POV template should be doing so is a separate question from whether there is a violation of 1RR here. Also please look at this ANI discussion, where Nataev is seen talking about the subject of this article in very derogatory terms. In addition to a sanction for 1RR, I would request that Nataev be banned from editing this article, on grounds of repeated BLP violations.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

When I came across the article the other day I realized it was very biased. After reading the discussions on the talk page I became convinced that Goldblum himself has been editing the article. I find this alarming. Now Goldblum and Nomoskedasticity are trying to get me blocked. I have asked a dozen of experienced users who have access to CheckUser to help us determine whether Goldblum is indeed writing about himself. I honestly don't find this subject interesting at all. My only concern is that I believe it's wrong to write about yourself and try to get blocked anyone who questions what you're writing. I wish I could be left out of this entirely. I have far more important things to do. Now that I have notified more than a dozen of experienced users about my concerns, I hope they will take appropriate action regarding Goldblum's use of two accounts to edit the article about himself. I leave it to them to decide where the article is biased or not. Nataev (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48h mainly as a result of continuing the BLP violations at WP:ANI after the above post ([54]) as well as the 1RR claimed here. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
• Note Per this ANI discussion, a topic ban has been enacted, "Nataev is indefinitely banned from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum everywhere on Wikipedia." Zad68 14:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Joshuabcohen reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [55]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60] Protection of the page has been requested: [61]

The user in question is also currently being investigated as a likely sockpuppet - a number of single-purpose accounts and IPs have been reverting well-sourced negative material out of the company's article in a whitewashing attempt: [62]

Comments:
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof here. There has been a series of such edits by a number of single purpose (and almost certainly Sock-puppet) accounts on the article. Also, I myself reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours but I hope 3RR does not apply in my case since this is obvious vandalism. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverts of sockpuppets of blocked or banned users are exempt from 3RR. Most of yours were reverting User:Eyeteststar and User:Thenightchicagodied, both of which have been blocked for sockpuppetry. I would think that would cover it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, two of my reverts are for already-blocked users. Which is why I reverted again. I hope there are no further reverts, after the semi-protection. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This can be closed as Moot - the user in question has been indeffed for sockpuppetry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:IranitGreenberg (Result: Declined)

Page: Culture of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Solntsa90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70]

Comments:
Solntsa90 shows a problematic behavior regarding this article (see also here). Culture of Israel should be under 1RR, but if not, the user already violated 3RR.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This isnt a revert. Further, most of those are contiguous edits, counting for only 1 revert. This and this are contiguous, as are this and this. Id also invite people to look at the rest of the talk page that IG linked (here) nableezy - 13:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a revert. This is a revert. This is a revert... and there are more. Culture of Israel (which relates to Arabs) should be under 1RR (just like Palestinian people), but Solntsa90 also broke 3RR. Funny now you don't seem to be so strict (like you are with me) about these rules.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those first two are contiguous, they only count as one as one revert. If you want to lecture others on the rules then go read the rules. Contiguous reverts are counted as a single revert. So no, the user hasnt broken 3RR. nableezy - 14:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The first one was a revert of my edit. The second one was also a revert (he eliminated a picture). It's very clear.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you really not understand what the word contiguous means? It's very clear. But in case its not here you go. nableezy - 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just let the administrators be the ones to decide if there's a violation or not. --1ST7 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. There's been no WP:3RR violation. I'm not going to construe the very last edit as a revert because it was a good-faith correction of what the editor had done earlier. As for whether the article should be subject to WP:ARBPIA, I'm not going to make a determination on that now, but even if it were, for a new editor to be sanctioned when there's absolutely no notice, would be unfair. As a nit-pick, the word is "consecutive", not "contiguous", but you have the concept down, nableezy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sigiheri reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Blocked)

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

This user has reverted two edits today to put the article back to a state that they placed it in on May 6. I reverted their May 6 edit and reverted their first reversion so am reluctant to go to 3RR. They got the article to that state by reverting User:Blue-Haired Lawyer1 and User:Srnec reversions of the same or very similar edits [[71]]. The edits remove important material about what a Corporation is - well sourced content that is so basic that it does not even need to be sourced - Shareholders are the owners of a Corporation. The issue has been covered on the talk page. The editor got a 32 day hour block for similar edits recently. I'm requesting that someone else consider reverting their most recent changes and consider administrative action on this. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This person, Legacypac, saw that I posted on the Dissolutions (?) page and, based on that, reverted got into an edit war with me. I would think that editors are not supposed to find the trouble (on dissolution page) then create more trouble rather than help to resolve the issue. You can see where Legacy and I have discussed the issue on the TALK page for Corporations. You be the judge and let me know how to handle the situation in the most productive way possible. Thanks.Sigiheri (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw the topic posted on Resolutions. Came and read the arguments and offered my view in an attempt to help resolve the dispute. Instead of accepting my view as an editor not involved in the debate, you debated me. I suggest the best way to handle this productively is to cease removing well sourced basic material and stop inserting junk that can't be supported by any law textbook or article. Every editor you have encountered across multiple pages (that I have seen) disagrees with these edits. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the template. Afraid to mess this up even more! Info is here, just not pretty like it should be. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]
5. [77]
6. [78]

And more - see the history page

Addition: Since this request was presented User:Sigiheri has made another reversion that disrupts the article and reverts the efforts of User:AzureCitizen to fix the erroneous info he introduced with reverts above. This further revert was reverted here by User:AzureCitizen.Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:
This user has reverted two edits today to put the article back to a state that they placed it in on May 6. I reverted their May 6 edit and reverted their first reversion so am reluctant to go to 3RR. They got the article to that state by reverting reversions of the same or very similar edits (sometimes in smaller sections) by User:Blue-Haired Lawyer1 and User:Srnec. The edits remove important material about what a Corporation is - well sourced content that is so basic that it does not even need to be sourced - Shareholders are the owners of a Corporation. The issue has been covered on the talk page. The editor got a 32 hour block for similar edits recently. I'm requesting that someone else consider reverting their most recent changes and consider administrative action on this. Even without a 3RR in 24 hours, this is edit warring. Legacypac (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Also see [[80]] for a recent block and the reasons which include edits to this Corporation article.

Just a note (from a neutral DRN volunteer) that FWIW there is a request pending at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#corporation.2C joint-stock company.2C shareholder.2C share.2C finance.2C corporate finance.2C and others concerning a related matter, though it appears that there is a good chance that it will be closed without assistance from DRN due to lack of response from the participants other than Sigiheri. Also note that Legacypac was not added to that request until after this EW complaint was filed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Legacypac-Why do you think I'm wrong when neither you nor any other editor who disagreed with me provided ANY evidence to the contrary. ZERO. Does Wikipedia based its decisions on the number of editors who on one side or do the weigh the evidence? If it's the latter case, then you don't really have a good case against me.Sigiheri (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We base our opinions of what the text should say on refs that has been removed repeatedly and ANY business law textbook. Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't see you making any cites at all. Second, peer reviewed legal journals clearly trump what is in a textbook. Third, why do you pretend to speak for others?Sigiheri (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:THOMAS MILADINOFF MATOFF reported by User:Laveol (Result: Blocked)

Page: Miladinov brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: THOMAS MILADINOFF MATOFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [82]
2. [83]
3. [84]
4. [85]
5. [86]
6. [87]
7. [88]
8. [89]
9. [90]
10. [91]
11. [92]

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

Comments:
The user refuses to respond to any of the notices left on his talkpage. He has been reverted by 6 or 7 other editors only in a matter of 24 hours and shows no intention of giving up or, indeed, communicating with anybody.--Laveol ^T 22:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:121.44.61.173 reported by User:Lonelydarksky (Result: Brief semi-protection of article)

Page: City of Life and Death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.44.61.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [95] (10 May)
2. [96] (11 May)
3. [97] (13 May)
4. [98] (14 May)
5. [99] (15 May)

The main issue in the edit war is the IP user's insistence on using the term "propaganda film" to describe the film instead of using less controversial terms such as "historical film" and "historical drama film". He/she has received three reminders (in edit summaries) from User:Jonathanfu and I to stop reverting, discuss the issue on the talk page, and provide references to support the "propaganda claim". Our words were apparently ignored. About three hours ago, the IP user changed "historical drama film" to "war film", stating in the edit summary that the use of "war novel" to describe The Red Badge of Courage is the basis for the change. I reverted this edit because I feel that it is going off-topic.

The IP user has a dynamic IP address which starts with "121.44" so we can only communicate through edit summaries and on the talk page. But, clearly, the IP user has seen our edit summaries, based on his/her editing pattern. He/she did not make any response on the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:

Given the variation in address I don't think action against the offending editor will be effective. However, I semi-protected the article for one month, which will prevent IPs and new accounts from editing. Zero^talk 03:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. LDS _{contact me} 04:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:50.72.139.25 reported by User:AnonMoos (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Kurgan hypothesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.72.139.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:37, 10 May 2013‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:51, 13 May 2013‎
2. 04:49, 14 May 2013‎
3. 05:05, 14 May 2013‎
4. 20:20, 14 May 2013‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

User 50.72.139.25 / 50.72.177.136 gets into a tremendous snit, and launches into extended ranting tirades and pointless personal attacks, if everyone doesn't agree with him 100% about everything. His actions have already resulted in semi-protection for the article and a temporary ban for himself. The natural place to ask for help about his current assault on the article talk page would be "Requests for page protection", but they've adopted some kind of policy of deliberate intentional ineffectuality in this type of case (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection), so I'm coming here... AnonMoos (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am enjoying the edit war because I know for a FACT that Kurgan Theory is a fringe theory for NON-linguists who actually fail to understand that language works as a series of waves, not like in genetics where there is a clear ancestry and a clear direction of inheritance. If I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AS DETAILED AS BRITANNICA and this asshole is telling me that a single book from a single author 'has more weight' (POV!) , yeah I tell you to fuck yourself because WP becomes a video game. So let's play! Rock on!

The majority think Wikipedia is stale and shoots itself in the foot. I want to help the necrosis along by arguing in favour of most widely accepted academic views while telling assholes to fuck off and die. LOL! This obviously means that I am "bad" to the simplistic talentless unacademic WP admin trolls because they want to live in a digital ivory tower where their mediocrity is left unchallenged. Aw poor babies. Have a hot dog. Lol. Ah this is fun. (By the way, if you want to silence me, just block all of 50.72.*.* and stop *all* Canadians from editing. Stop everyone too! YAY! Good job.) 50.72.139.25 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I blocked .25 for a week. .136 hasn't edited since May 7, so I left them alone. The article is already semi-protected. If necessary, I will semi-protect the talk page as well. I've put it on my watchlist, but just in case I miss it, please alert me if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:DragonTiger23 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103] (removing the word Circasians from the infobox)
2. [104] (again)
3. [105] (again)
4. [106] (removing pov tag)
5. [107] (again)
6. [108] (again)

DragonTiger23 displays typically wp:own activity during the recent 24h in the specific article. The reverts started when D.23 wanted to remove the word "Circassians" from the infobox and the lead, claiming that the relevant (wp:rs) citation that supports this, is for an unexplained reason wrong. Although I wasn't the only user that advised him that this isn't enough to reject the specific claim so easily, he responded by making aggressive comments in his edit summaries [109][110], removing even the pov tag, without waiting for the discussion to reach an end. I've tried to resolve the issue in every way possible: on the article talk page, as well as advised him kindly that he should calm down. I even told him gently that a pov tag needs to be removed after the issue is settled [[111]] but in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [112]

See here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_pushing_Greek_users_trying_to_cover_up_a_Greek_massacre_of_Turks_during_Greco-Turkish_war_1919-1922 User Alexikoua is extremely pov pushing and source abusing, he is trying to justify, cover up, deny and shift the blame to others in a massacre of Turks by the Greek army. This massacre is documented by an inter allied Neutral Western report. Still he is trying to cover up the massacre, he states that he is of Greek ancestry this may explain his non neutral denying behavior.DragonTiger23 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I have talked pages on the talk page see here but they are not neutral so it has no effect. Talk:Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula massacresDragonTiger23 (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added an additional dif of the latest (6th) rv, since DragonTiger23 still reverts the pov tag placed by various users.Alexikoua (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Nathaniel Glover jr reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Stale)

Page: The Kidd Creole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nathaniel Glover jr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [113]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [114]
2. [115]
3. [116]
4. [117]

Comments:
This is a bit tricky; after removing Category:Black American Emcee's from The Kidd Creole, I received an eMail from User:Nathaniel Glover jr saying 'please don't edit my article', and that he had reinstated the category. I just reverted on the grounds that it was a ridiculous request and currently, I'm at three reverts and he's at four. The following is the eMail conversation:

• I'm sure your trying but PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (The Kidd Creole) any more I DO NOT need you to contribute to it no one knows more about subject than me so I repeat PLEASE DO NOT EDIT this page (plus you keep taking out Black American Emcee's stop this it's annoying....it's like you have something against this category?....you shouldn't because most of the rappers are Black American) your not adding anything so I wish you would stop....thank you
  • I've only edited it once and that was to remove the category. Create the category, and then we'll talk about it.
    • Let's be adult about this there's nothing to discuss please do not edit the page any more please....thank you
      • No. The page, or indeed any article, shouldn't contain nonexistent categories. If there is enough pages to fit the category, it will be created. Also, if you are Kidd Creole, you shouldn't be writing about yourself - although you've seen the messages on your talk pages. I won't flog a dead horse.
        • If we we're face to face would you have the same attitude? And I'm sure you (and I) have better things to do. Can you just stop please okay what what difference does it make to you whether not the categories nonexistent how do you know if I'm going to create a category. Okay stop being a child alright be an adult and stop editing the page okay just stop....thank you
          • Absolutely. As I've said, create the category first. Now please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR before proceeding further.
            • What are you some kind of Internet nerd hiding behind a computer? I wish you would just leave me alone okay you need to just find some other category to edit....there are thousands of them you need to leave me alone okay because you're annoying me Leave me alone and leave the Page alone

Multiple policies have been violated, so a longer than usual block would be appreciated. Thank you.--Launchballer 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stale King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AShennib reported by User:Rizhad Krol (Result: Stale)

Page: House of Shennib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AShennib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]
4. [122]
5. [123]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Hi, continued, unverified amendment of this page will result in your reportage for violation of the three reversion rule. Your amendments are messing up the copyrighted JPEG photos, also you have amended the correct Arabic translations of the terms 'Sayyid' and 'Sayyida'. You have also deleted references to two direct descendents without citing reasons. Wikipedia changes should be verified. Without references, kindly refrain from opinion editing.]

• Stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tomticker5 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Blocked)

Page: Gustave Whitehead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomticker5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:42 May 14 – [125] reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
2. 18:30 May 14 – [126] reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
3. 20:09 May 14 – [127] reverts to restore "eyewitness accounts"
4. 00:52 May 15 – [128] partial revert to restore "eyewitness accounts"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:36 May 14 – [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:

Tomticker5 changed the page today to put a more convincing summary in place, one that makes Gustave Whitehead look more like he was a successful flyer. He was reverted four times, two times each by two other editors, and he reverted/restored four times the phrase "eyewitness accounts". Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that a reference to the Wright brothers must be in the first few introductory sentences of Gustave Whiteheads article to establish notability. The "controversy" is over whether he flew or not in 1901 lies mostly with the Smithsonian. There have been several recent statements by leading aviation authorities that he did in fact fly in 1901. In my opinion, you must cite the root cause of the controversy at the Smithsonian. The flight was witnessed by an editor of a newspaper and several other people who later swore out affidavits that Whitehead flew in 1901. You must also, for the sake of the reader of this article who is not familiar with the Wright brothers, and insert the date of their flights that occurred two years later in 1903. Then, the reader will understand that the credibility of the eyewitnesses who saw Whitehead fly in 1901 are being put in doubt by some not all aviation historians and the flights made by the Wright brothers, two years later, are considered first by some, but not all leading aviation historians.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tomticker5. Actually, Binksternet is trying to control the Gustave Whitehead page as he/she has been guarding it and continuing to insert misleading information. This was occurring with my edits several weeks ago. Gustave Whitehead has been recognized by the only non-conflicted world authority there is, Jane's All the World Aircraft, "the aviation bible", as first in flight. There are fanatics regarding the Wright Brothers who see it nearly (or virtually) as a religion that are very incensed by this appropriate, well-considered recognition. They continually try to disparage any recognition. Smithsonian cannot weigh in on this as they are bound by legal contract to only recognize the Wrights as first in flight. This page on Gustave Whitehead needs to accurately and neutrally reflect the credit Whitehead has been given and what the controversy was, but mostly focus on the accomplishments of Whitehead. The "Wrighteous" need to stop bashing Whitehead, they are the ones doing the edit warring. Binksternet is definitely in need of monitoring and reporting. This page should not be vandalized by the attacks of those Wright-favoring fanatics who cannot accept that Whitehead has been determined to fly first. In fact, B. may be a Smithsonian plant or employee, in my opinion. I support Tomticker5 wholeheartedly. We cannot have history defaced. AviationHist1 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that Tomticker5 has not addressed the root issue of reverting-type behavior. He emphasizes the content dispute but this noticeboard is for behavior. AviationHist1 continues in the same vein, describing the content dispute. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:K7L reported by User:174.118.142.187 (Result: No violation)

Page: AC/DC (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: K7L (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original version: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [132]
2. [133]
3. [134]

Warning on user talk page[[135]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on another article talk page where consensus was against these actions: [136]

:Discussions had taken place regarding broadening the article AC/DC (electricity) where this editor could not receive any consensus, from three other editors, to include more types of equipment into this article. He was told that the lede clearly stated the topic inclusion since inception in 2008 with it's first edit. With a failure to inject off-topic AC/DC motors edits into the article he moved to the disambiguation page to edit the link to include his topic change to include AC/DC equipment not covered by the article. User:I B Wright has also reverted his edits to the article topic. Although, technically this editor has not reached four similar edits on this exact page AC/DC disambiguation s/he was aware that the edits were not desirable and an incorrect description, of the article linked to, from previous negative result consensus discussions. Edits on the disambiguation page were WP:POINTY and against these previous article talk page discussions.

174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP "reporting" this is revert-warring me, namely leaving messages on my talk page threatening 3RR complaints and then reverting AC/DC (disambiguation) once again to their preferred version. There was no consensus from other editors as the question of whether the scope of the article includes off-line SMPS is still under discussion at talk:AC/DC (electricity). Furthermore, the only discussion on the disambig page is about bisexuality. This would appear to be one IP who has decided that AC/DC (electricity) excludes the "AC/DC motor" (not just the off-line switched-mode power supply) and has taken WP:OWNership of the article unilaterally. Removing valid information from articles just to reduce their scope to one particular radio design which has been obsolete since the 1970s (or earlier) is neither constructive nor helpful. "AC/DC motor" does belong in AC/DC (disambiguation), regardless of one IP's love for a completely obsolete vacuum tube radio which used the term on its nameplate. If this user wants to turn AC/DC (electricity) into a discussion of one device instead of any device operable from DC, perhaps that article should be on another title to indicate that it's about just the AC/DC broadcast receiver (we already have All American Five radio which overlaps such a proposed article by at least 50%, were it created). This is agenda-pushing and I'm disappointed to see it as "AC/DC motor" is AC/DC and is electrical. K7L (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking more closely, the first of my edits listed is not a revert and should not have been mislabelled as such. K7L (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. You boldly edited and were reverted by User:I B Wright. Without talk page discussion you then injected the same edit again and I corrected your edit. You again injected the same WP:POINTY edit and I reverted it again, after the warning on your talk page. Your rash of confusion misinformation spewed above is not supported by edit histories. No talk page discussion was initiated by yourself (the onus was on you) on the disambiguation page but previous discussion on the AC/DC (electricity) talk page, you were involved in, clearly indicates three editors do not want your AC/DC motor subject matter inserted in the article and each of your attempts was reverted by other editors. Then you shopped for another injection article AC/DC (disambiguation) with attempts to broaden the article content again. That is editwarring. Currently you have begun to fling personal attacks on myself with IPsockpuppet insults[[137]], as well as suggesting I don't understand English.[[138]] As suggested previously to you in discussions WP:DROPTHESTICK. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The page "AC/DC (electricity)" has been moved to AC/DC receiver design. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:The TV Boy reported by User:Johnmperry (Result: Locked)

Page: TV7 (Bulgaria) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The TV Boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&oldid=554676299

This was on the List of missing references, which is where I came in. I did small edits to clear error.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. The TV Boy reverted my corrections and the previous contribution
   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=554850969
2. I reverted that reversion
   The TV Boy again reverted
   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555016025
3. I reverted that reversion, and issued {{uw-3r}}
   The TV Boy deleted the warning from his talk page. Then he reverted again
   https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TV7_(Bulgaria)&diff=prev&oldid=555193894

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

We have talked via comment on edit plus user page talk

Comments:

I have no interest in Bulgarian TV per se. I am only interested in people following rules. I have already brought WP:OWNER to attention of The TV Boy

John of Cromer in transit (talk) mytime= Wed 12:14, wikitime= 11:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you reporting me? I've tried to explain to the dynamic IP editors that this information is not approprite for the article on the English Wiki, where there is only general info about the channel. This information is about a case that even I didn't know it existed and even though it had referencies it has no encyclopedic value. The dynamic IP's come from Bulgaria, so I've asked them to put the information on the Bulgarian Wikipedia. They just keep reverting my edits and say that they are harmed by TV7 and whant everybody in the world to see this. This is a very small thing just trying to give an international bad image to the channel. It violates Wikipedia core values of neutrality.--The TV Boy (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've fully protected the article for a week. The material removed by The TV Boy has no business being in the article as it was presented and sourced, but not necessarily for the reasons articulated by The TV Boy. Putting aside how badly worded it was, the sources are completely unreliable and cannot be used in almost any context, let alone in an attack on the station.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Whitechristian2013 reported by User:RolandR (Result:Blocked for username violation)

Page: Neo-Nazism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whitechristian2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [139]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [140]
2. [141]
3. [142]
4. [143]
5. [144]
6. [145]
7. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Already discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Whitechristian2013_and_the_Turk_Nazi_Party

Comments:

• Overtaken by other events: Daniel Case blocked this user for username violation. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

User:70.19.122.39 reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Blocked)

Page: Horus Heresy (novels) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.19.122.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [148]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [149]
2. [150]
3. [151]
4. [152] (This is different material being reverted, but still edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153] and [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Horus Heresy (novels)#Concerning the excessive hidden text in the article

Comments:
A previous report was archived without any third-party comment of any kind. IP editor is continuing extreme WP:OWN behavior on the article by reverting any edits by any other editor outside of small spelling corrections and other minor edits, and insisting on excessive hidden text that is contrary to Help:Hidden text and WP:OWN. IP editor has violated 3RR. - SudoGhost 00:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Both editors were edit warring. However, I blocked only the IP because of the nature of the IP's edits, which were disruptive. @SudoGhost, I understand why you reverted so many times, but your only policy-based exemption is vandalism. The IP's edits were unconstructive, but I wouldn't recommend handling it the way you did in the future as you expose yourself to unnecessary risk.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree I'm certainly not blameless in the whole edit warring thing, but I didn't realize exactly how many times I reverted until after the fact (not that that excuses it). I'll be more mindful of that in the future and use WP:DRN or WP:3O or something. - SudoGhost 01:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

i believe that the reasoning given by Bbb23 does not justify this block. the edits he thinks "unconstructive" and "disruptive" were factually, nothing of the sort. i request that a corrective entry to that effect be entered in this ip's block log. past experience shows that sloppy administrators may concentrate their "investigation" to perusal of the block log instead of the case's merits. thank you. 70.19.122.39 (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Your block was affirmed by two other admins as justified (I'm excluding King of Hearts's decline, since it was procedural). The fact that you've already gone right back to reverting the same article shows it was wholly justified. If you keep it up, you're just going to get blocked again. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to continued reverting of the article after expiry of his initial AN3 block the IP editor has been blocked for one month. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Refusecollectionreported by User:Farrajak (Result: Blocked)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Hurly-Burly (journal) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Refusecollection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155] (with my category preference) or [156] (with sourcing problems noted). Article already has a "notability" tag on it. And it went through a AFD recently.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [157]
2. [158]
3. [159]
4. [160]
5. [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162] Second warning[163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]
Plus I tried to discuss my reasoning on Refusecollention's talk page.[169]

Comments:
I was trying to help the article by reducing the overcategorization and removing a huge template that overwhelmed the article. When that was reverted, I tried to suggest other ways the article needed better sourcing, because there aren't solid sources to support the article's notability. The sources are either comments, or only mention the topic of the article peripherally. But the editor refused to consider any of my problems with the article and reverted every edit I made within minutes. Maybe I'm not doing the right thing here, as it's his article. Farrajak (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• In response to Farrajak's comment. I appreciate that, inspired by the notability tag, said user applied him/herself to altering the article, and quite possibly with the best of intentions. I reverted the various edits, as I have explained on the Talk Page, because the said user was requesting: a) that the "Psychoanalysis" template should be removed (when other Psychoanalytic journals carry this template, for ex: International Journal of Psychoanalysis, or at least it did until today when said user removed it after I quoted it as an example on the Talk Page); b) that the selected list of contributors be referenced, when clearly this is in no way a contentious issue; c) that the brief description of the journal content be referenced, when clearly this too is in no way contentious. Furthermore, said user alleged that: d) the existing references do not include the content they purport to include (which I refuted on the Talk Page). I respect the good faith of said user in seeking to alter the page in such a way as to improve notability, but none of these items will influence the notability of the journal, nor justify its notability in the article. In his/her attempted defence of his/her edits, Farrajak has shown a strong degree of incoherence and inconsistency. I repeatedly asked said user to be more specific in stating his/her qualms, and to refrain from altering the page directly until agreement could be reached on the Talk Page. I think the discussion on the Talk Page will speak for itself, but I remain available for further comment.

Refusecollection (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Perhaps both of you can explain what the policy justification is for your edit warring. Hint: the correct answer is there is none. I'd like to see an acknowledgment from both of you that your conduct has been disruptive and that you won't do it again. If I had more time (I'm about to go off-wiki), I'd extract a promise from you that neither of you can edit the article at all for seven days to avoid being blocked. Instead, I'll let another admin handle this as they see fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

:*I will acknowledge that there wasn't a reason to edit war. I've never done so before. I won't do so again and I apoligize for the disruption. Farrajak (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Bbb23. Thank you for your comment. For my part, I would prefer to see the page stay as it is, and so for me there would be no problem whatsoever with not touching it for 7 days. I haven't added anything at all to the article, of which I am the original author, for some months now. My only activity today has been to undo what I saw to be unwarranted edits from Farrajak. The quicker this can be put behind us the better. Refusecollection (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The edit war notice above refers to both Farrajak and yourself, Refusecollection. And just now, somebody else than Farrajak made an edit and you reverted despite the above warnings. That's your fourth or fifth revert in the last 15 hours, meaning that you are way beyond what 3RR allows. --Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would accept this version[170] by User:Epicgenius which was just now reverted by Refusecollection. Farrajak (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• Dear all, I'm perfectly willing to admit that I may be using/respecting poorly WP protocol. I am a very occasional WP user with a poor grasp of the codes and mores. I welcome any enlightenment on this issue, and will try to abide by the rules, which generally seem to have been put in place to make WP a wholesome working environment. My question, however, is quite simple: what do I do when an article I care about is altered, in my view unnecessarily, and the editor does not engage in a coherent way on the Talk Page? I'm being told that I'm breaking the rules, but no one is willing to talk about the nature of these non-sensical alterations. I've clearly stated my reservations on the Talk Page, no one has responded coherently. Refusecollection (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. Farrajak explained what they thought is wrong with the article on the talk page. Your response basically was "you're wrong" and "this is absurd" and subsequently reverted every change to the article by them and others. The main contention seems to be two templates, one "not in citation" (I have no opinion on that one, as it is not a resource that is online and I don't have a printed copy available). The other template asks for a source for the remark in the article that the journal "includes texts by major psychoanalysts and prominent figures from contemporary philosophy and cultural theory". This seems to me a perfectly reasonable request. Note that you cannot source such a remark to the journal itself. Nor can you say: "persons A and B published in it and they are prominent so this is true", you need an independent reference for things like this. As for the overcategorization, this also seems to be a reasonable remark from Farrajak. For example, it is categorized as "psychoanalytic studies". A journal is not a study, even though it may publish the results of such studies. Journals are not usually included in "studies" categories. So this issue should at least be discussed on the talk page before starting an edit war over it. In fact, starting or participating in an edit war is only justified when the edits you are reverting are clear vandalism, which is not the case here. Please familiarize youself with the appropriate guidelines and policies, such as WP:3RR. If you have a disagreement with an editor, the appropriate strategy is not to say "you are wrong" and subsequently revert any edit to "your" article, but to discuss the issues on the talk page and if that doesn't lead to a mutually agreeable solution, there are our processes for conflict resolution. Continuing like you have been doing will only result in a block (as you have, in fact, already merited by your many reverts of edits to the article today). --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• With all respect Randykitty, you are mistaken on all points: 1. I reverted changes by Farrajak and no other editor (the edit from this morning by Epicgenius merely attempted to reinstate Farrajak's edit without discussion on the Talk Page); 2. Farrajak tagged a cn at the end of the sentence you have just cited ("includes texts by..." etc) when the very next sentence lists a selection of authors published, with hyperlinks to their WP profiles. My assertion on the Talk Page was that it would be absurd to include a footnote to support such a non-contentious claim. Farrajak did not dispute this on the Talk Page. 3. The template edits by Farrajak were separate from the cn edits, but in his/her response to my queries it is nigh-on impossible to distinguish what his/her qualms over the templates are. I offered an example of a similar template used for a similar journal featured in a WP article. Farrajak simply removed the template from the article with no further remark on the Talk Page. Lastly, whilst I am grateful for the links you have provided which will surely fill in some of my oversights in respecting WP protocol, may I kindly ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth, or describing my actions in a dismissive way. I have never shouted down another editor. I have never said "you are wrong" or "this (edit/user) is absurd". I expressed my frustration at Farrajak's unwillingness to pursue the dialogue on the Talk Page whilst he/she continued to make further edits that were equally bizarre. Refusecollection (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • With due respect, I was merely trying to revert to the version before the edit war. There should be no discussion about that. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• If 3RR is really a rule, then Refusecollection continues to break it. Whatever the reason, Refusecollection should stop the continued reverting. Everyone has a reason, but Refusecollection has exceded the 3RR and continues to revert. Farrajak (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• If I have broken a rule, then perhaps there will indeed be some kind of consequence for me, which I am perfectly willing to accept. What I find unfortunate is that I am trying to pursue a conversation. A conversation that I would have preferred to have been confined to the Talk Page. You brought it here. So be it. Why are you more interested in seeing me punished/rebuked than in arguing out a point. I am genuinely curious as to how you think the page might be improved and what your rationale is for the edits you've proposed. Refusecollection (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Refusecollection, I respected the request of Bbb23, but I see that's a one way street and you have disregarded it. Why do you think 3RR doesn't apply to you? You are continuing to edit war. Hurly-Burly (journal) is not "your" article. As pointed out above by User:Randykitty, the article, my requests were reasonable. But even if they weren't, that doesn't entitle you to edit war. Farrajak (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Look, let's be clear about the qualitative nature of what happened here, rather than counting edits and reverts. Yesterday we agreed not to alter the page further. A third-party, seemingly unaware of this discussion, reinstated one of your edits, shortly after our agreement, and I undid it, with a note referring him to this discussion. The said third-party (Epicgenius) has since admitted that he/she was not seeking to enter the discussion. The page as it currently stands is exactly as it was when we agreed not to pursue the "edit war" any further. What's the problem? Furthermore, I think you are failing to see the difference between "my article" and "an article I care about". I am not in the least bit precious about the information in the article being from my hand. I just don't want it to contain anything sloppy or non-sensical.Refusecollection (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• A third party is perfectly free to edit that page at any time. It's only you and me that were edit warring and it's only you and me that the sanction applies to. But you are continuing to edit war.
  Everyone has "an article I care about". That's the reason for the 3RR rule. Because editors who "care about" an article are likely to try to enforce their point of view over other editors. That's what you're doing. "Caring about" an article makes editors more likely to edit war. It pollutes your neutrality. It's not an excuse to edit war. Farrajak (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

We should just lock up the page till the kids work this all out!Moxy (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So this edit warring rule, the 3RR, is just a joke? Doesn't apply to editors you think are "kids" or joke editors? And I've apologized for no reason while Refusecollection is allowed to enforce his version? I don't get the point then. What's the point of this whole reporting thing if the result is it's just "kids". So the rule isn't real or it isn't applied equally to editors you don't take serious? Farrajak (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Apparently going off wiki, getting some sleep, and going to my real job is not permitted. I'll cut to the chase. Farrajak has it right, and Refusecollection has it wrong. Atlhough I did not require a promise of no editing, I'm surprised that Refusecollection would revert another editor so quickly, for whatever reason. So, Refusecollection, what you need to do is self-revert. If you do that and if you leave the article alone for 7 days (same goes for Farrajak), you will avoid being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So does that mean you'll block him if he doesn't? Or is it just me who will be blocked if I touch the article? And what's the time frame? Refusecollection clearly doesn't get it. This has been going on for quite a while with no remedy while Refusecollection continues to flout the rule. What's the deal, when I seen other requests speedily decided? Farrajak (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Most probably, the page is going to be fully protected until the issue is worked out. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dear Bbb23. Thank you for your reply. As I was starting to suspect, I have infringed WP rules and this puts me in the "wrong" as you phrase it. I've done everything in my power to pursue the dialogue and explore the rationale behind Farrajak's edits. I've failed. I'm afraid I simply can't bring myself to do make the revert you request. Reinstating sloppy, incoherent and poorly-argued editing is simply against my principles. If being blocked is the price I must pay, so be it.Refusecollection (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I've blocked Refusecollection for 24 hours. I've also made it clear on their talk page that after the block expires, if they resume edit warring on the article, they risk a longer block. @Farrajak, you should not edit the article for 7 days. You are welcome to discuss changes to the article on the talk page. I do not intend to revert Refusecollection's last edit as I am not taking a content position. The same would be true if I locked the article. If it seems to you, Farrajak, that Refusecollection has "won", don't look at it that way. You've avoided a block by behaving responsibly, and you can still argue for your changes on the talk page to try to obtain a consensus for your views. Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, and very little is urgent. Deliberation is constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just as I suspected! So now we'll see if this whole exercise is for real or just a joke. What happens now, Bbb21? Or is it just that Refusecollection's version will be locked into place for seven days and then the whole thing begins again? This really seems like favoring a serial reverter at the expense of me, an editor too stupid to think the rules were real. Farrajak (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Our edits overlapped, Farrajak. Please tone it down a notch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, while I'm not allowed to touch the page for seven days! I've discussed the page with Refusecollection until I'm blue in the face. Also, so has Randykitty. This is a joke, and I have retract my apology. Sorry I stupidly made it. And he even has a meatpuppet or whatever. I can't take this seriously anymore. I ask you to retract the 24 hour block as it's meaningless and an idiotic gesture. It just reinforces how stupid I am. What's the point? Farrajak (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Farrajak, the thing is that if your version is best, other editors will agree with you. Go to the talkpage and ask for a third opinion or even start a request for comment to get other people involved. Getting others involved is key, and there is no massive urgency to have a final decision about which is best. It might take a week or two. But that's fine in the general scheme of things. Slp1 (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? No one cares about that article. And I'm not stupid enough to put energy into any more wiki "processes". You see what happened here. I don't believe any of that now. I see what happens to request for comment. Nothing but a waste of energy. He'll get his way. I was stupid to think that anything fair would happen. Farrajak (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• If you really need help sorting this out, you can ask at the main noticeboard and an admin will help you. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dismas reported by User:112.209.67.216 (Result: Page protected.)

Page: Scarlett Johansson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dismas (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. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542750027&oldid=542749657
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=543143898&oldid=543140461
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542964776&oldid=542964265
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scarlett_Johansson&diff=542961287&oldid=542955149

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

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

Comments:

• Page protected The edits linked in the report took place over two months ago. In addition, the editor making the report was edit-warring, so if any action had been taken against any individuals it would certainly have included blocking that editor. However, since it is a very long-running dispute among numerous editors, page protection is more appropriate than blocking individual editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, this anon is just evading the many blocks set up again Jskylinegtr. I'll go reset and expand the range blocks. With the possible exception of Rusted Auto Parts, none of the other participants edit-warred, and even his borderline behaviour has stopped. I think this protection is inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NorthBySouthBaranof reported by User:Tjic (Result:Page protected )

Page: IRS Tea Party investigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am concerned by massive deletions by NorthBySouthBaranof and have asked him multiple times in the Talk page to discuss the deletions, so that material can be improved.

He insists on deleting and re-deleting the material instead of engaging on the talk page.

We've slipped into an edit war, which I'm not proud of, and would like moderation so that we can reach a resolution that generates a high quality article while addressing all concerns.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIRS_Tea_Party_investigation&diff=555381177&oldid=555375013

Comments:

It takes two to edit-war, and the reporting user here has arguably violated WP:3RR by blindly reverting attempts at rewrites, but I don't intend to request a block. As it stands now, the article repeats itself about three times. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Looks like there is some discussion started on the talkpage. I've protected the page for 3 days to allow that to mature. I or any other admin can unprotect if you sort things out before then. Slp1 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Tejanorules reported by User:TreyGeek (Result: Not blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [171]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [172]
2. [173]
3. [174]
4. [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning not explicitly made. Possible vandalism warning made here: [176]. User responded to reverts of their edits here and here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None.

Comments:
User has been reverted by multiple (two) users. They have received notifications on their talk page in regards to images and fair use rationale and they have continued to revert changes. I can do nothing more than escalate the matter as the user appears to have no intention of reading talk page messages or understanding Wikipedia's policy. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: While constructing this notice, the user has reverted for the fourth time here. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked - Tejanorules has never been given any warning that suggests their behavior could lead to a block. I just gave them a 3RR warning. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  To clarify, the first time I see you inform him of 3RR is on your own talkpage at 03:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC), but that comes after his last revert. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012 reported by User:IranitGreenberg (Result: Topic ban of IranitGreenberg)

Page: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pluto2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [177]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [178]
2. [179]

Comments:

Pluto2012 is an hypocrite. He warned me against 1RR violation but he broke the rule first.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am an hypocrite ? Once more you are insulting me against WP:CIVIL. And it is not the first time that I complain to you about this.

Both these reverts refer to different material. This is not 1RR. You should stop inserting such pov-pushings. You should also have understood that these in any case would not stay long in article and you make everybody lose time and nothing else.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Different material? It's irrelevant. You can't revert twice in the same article in less than 24 hours. You should know that.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nishidani

Perhaps Pluto has misread the rule this time. I don't know. I've never understood its niceties myself. But, if so (?), in mitigation I'd just note that this last comment by IRanit Greenberg shows one of the defects of our system. One cannot make more than 1R or 3R reverts, depending on the article, but, an advocacy-driven POV-pusher like IranitG, as experienced editors have often noted, can enter twice or three times over 24 hours, in the same article, dubiuous material or sources over that same period which fail scrutiny, and place serious editors in a dilemma. And he not only consistently abuses editors who have a strong reputation as scrupulous in their article contributions, but tries to get them roasted on the only rule he apparently cares for, if others break it.

This is the second time IG has called Pluto a hypocrite as witness this earlier example 3 days ago, in response to his request you do not use talk pages to discuss politics. He has not retaliated by reporting this strong violation of WP:AGF to the appropriate WP:EQ page. As other editors have noted, (here, here and here, for example) Iranit Greenberg engages in WP:ADVOCACY, consistently ignores all rules, and obligations to edit neutrally, as the two passages Pluto revert show.

Reverting to enforce certain overriding policies is not considered edit warring. In the first edit Pluto said the material IG introduced had nothing to do with the article. That the UN national assembly voted for Resolution 3279 when Kurt Waldheim, who, 11 years later was revealed to have formerly been a Nazi, presided, is both irrelevant and not germane to the page, unless a RS source makes that connection. Sources introducing matter like this must relate it to the topic of the page. Neither source is related to the issue. (a) The Daily Telegraph nowhere mentions that resolution. (b) The Jewish Political Studies Review mentions an insane telegram sent to Waldheim by Idi Amin in 1972, before the passage of that resolution, and nowhere mentions Resolution 3279. Thus Pluto's revert cancels an egregious WP:SYNTH piece of POV-pushing.

The second revert removed

Beginning in the late 1960s, the Arab states together with the Soviet Union initiated a campaign to demonize and delegitimize Israel in every UN and international forum, and supported by what became known as an "automatic majority" of Third World member states.

The introduction of this language violates several principles. (a) The edit copied and pasted the material, without editorial indications that this was a quote, directly from the source.(b) UN Watch is an agenda-driven NGO, and dubious as an RS for this kind of statement (WP:RS) (c) the view cited is that of the UN Watch source, but is pasted into the page in a neutral voice (WP:NPOV). Every editor knows that, and Iranit has been told this often, you cannot edit in a subjective POV as though it were a fact, or try to pass off a controversial generalization as in fact a neutral state of affairs. (d) The source nowhere mentions the topic of the article so the selective use of an irrelevant snippet constitutes WP:SYNTH and violates WP:POINT.

Iranit was warned on several occasions (User:Dlv999, User:Zero0000, User:Sean.hoyland laid the policies out for him some weeks ago) not to make the kind of edits he made today. He won’t learn from advice, but plugs away, and if vigorously challenged, resorts, as here, to an attempt to use the rules to get a good editor sanctioned. How serious and experienced editors are to handle high active POV pushers as they range over pages, creating on each page a controversy by a patently bad series of edits, is not something we have efficient mechanisms for coping with. Those edits were indisputably in violation of many basic wikipedia principles. No rule stops him from such rule-insouciant POV pushing. Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment No violation, the reporting user should read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Faizan 12:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I have an extremely high regard for Pluto's contributions, and have the impression that, from time to time, editors do try to get at him, and the animus or ideological posturing of poor editors can make him impatient. But, one should never allow personal sympathies to distort one's analysis. The rule is:' A revert means undoing the actions of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period.' The question is, is that page covered by ARBPIA and does the rule allow one to revert patently poor, indeed abusive editing that violates core policies, even if it is not technically vandalistic'.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie. For example, warning another editor against 1RR violation, but breaking the rule at the same time in the same article. I'll abstain myself from using this word in the future, though.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no deception here or hypocrisy. The irony is, Pluto is, as anyone reading my earlier archives can see, on the other side of the border to an editor like myself. Privately we disagree on how the I/P conflict is to be interpreted. But, whether Zionist or not, I've never seen him allow his personal views to get in the way of a commitment to meticulous and neutral sourcing. If he erred from impatience, or misreading, he will have to submit to the sanction. But your editing here is execrable, whatever the outcome, and one unfortunate consequence is that we will probably lose for a time an excellent encyclopedic contributor. Perhaps that is one of the functions of those who keep putting in absurdly poor material: to test people's patience and make them overstep the mark. POV pushers, on the other hand, are a dime-a-dozen, and like clones, or some hydra-headed figure, keep repeating the same bad patterns of indifferent editing and uncomprehending use of poor sources to defend a cause. Perhaps even they are not hypocritical. They are convinced they have the truth, and must bear witness to it before a 'hostile' world.Nishidani (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Zero0000

IranitGreenberg is one of the worst editors in the Middle East department. S/he hardly ever does anything except push a particular POV into articles, without the least regard to NPOV, RS, and common sense. This article is quite typical. Look at this "[UN Sec Gen] Waldheim was a former Nazi and suspected war criminal" in Wikipedia's voice, supported by two references neither of which even mention the topic of this article. Then inserts an opinion of a right-wing advocacy group in Wikipedia's voice. Her/his political motivation for being here is clearly indicated by this attempt to canvass support from another editor assumed to have similar views.

Technically Pluto violated 1RR, apparently though misunderstanding the rule. If there is a sanction (which I urge against in favor of a warning) it should be lenient. IranitGreenberg, on the other hand, should be topic-banned. Zero^talk 13:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Sean.hoyland

This may be better handled at AE. While Pluto appears to have violated 1RR, none of this would have happened without IranitGreenberg violating two core policies, WP:SYNTH at 2013-05-17T02:31:20 and WP:NPOV at 2013-05-17T04:18:07 as others have noted. It was of course reverted, but they restored it at 2013-05-17T04:23:09 only to self-revert when they realized it was a 1RR violation. Their POV pushing is blatant and becoming increasingly disruptive. Their behavior at United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 is just one of many places where they are lighting fires. Their editing is consistent with what I would expect to see from a radicalized nationalist teenager, so if they aren't one of those they are certainly sending the wrong message, at least to me. They are a catalyst for disruption and edit warring in ARBPIA, the kind that has happened countless times before when nationalist editors bring the Arab-Israeli conflict to Wikipedia. At some point someone will need to waste their time compiling evidence for an AE report but in the meantime, please do not allow this editor to continue starting fires across multiple articles and filing reports against people who try to put them out. They violated 1RR yesterday themselves so their personal attacks against Pluto are particularly weak and unethical (see User_talk:IranitGreenberg#1RR_at_Boycotts_of_Israel). Sean.hoyland - talk 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Pluto2012

I violated it. I was really not aware. It would have been the same if I had done both modifications at once and it would only be 1 revert. I self-revert then. Sorry for misunderstanding this rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston

Given Pluto2012's apology I don't see a need for action against him. But the recent editing of User:IranitGreenberg is very troubling. They've been blocked twice in the month of May for editing on I/P articles, and they've received the WP:ARBPIA warning. They seem to be engaged in simple-minded nationalist POV-pushing, as when they added mention of Kurt Waldheim in a context that did not call for it. A three-month topic ban of IranitGreenberg from the I/P area ought to be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that both Pluto2012 and IranitGreenberg have done at least one self-revert to cure their respective 1RR violations. I would still consider a 3-month topic ban of IG to be an appropriate response to their recent POV editing. This might be avoided by a convincing offer to edit more neutrally in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Bbb23

I am in agreement with Ed, both on the issue of Pluto and of IranitGreenberg, although I probably would favor a 6-month topic ban. As an aside, I'm mildly curious why the most recent block was not logged at WP:ARBPIA. It was for a violation of 1RR on an I/P article, but the block notice did not indicate it was an ArbCom block. King of Hearts is a meticulous admin, so perhaps they had a reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it should have been logged there. I am not very active in ArbCom enforcement, so I did not know about that requirement. Fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by IranitGreenberg

Considering there are so many users involved in POV-pushing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict, I think it would be unfair to block me. However, I won't re-add controversial material in the article and I will try to make more neutral contributions. Sorry if I bothered anyone.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg, you miss the point.

The problems with you is that 1. you are convinced that "there are so many users involved in POV-pushing when it comes to Arab-Israeli conflict" and that 2. you don't know the topics in which you want to collaborate.

The first problem prevents you to comply with the 4th pillar of wikipedia. It's up to you to change your mind about this. The second problems prevents you to comply with the 1st pillar of wikipedia and is a big issue. When it concerns 2013 attack here or there, it doesn't matter much because googling can solve the issue but when it refers to topics linked to the "1948 war", to "Zionism" or to a "1977 UNGA resolution" there is not a single chance that you can bring anything interesting before you can forget all that you believe or was thought on this and that you study deeply what scholars wrote on these topics.

Do you undestand this and do you agree with this ? Pluto2012 (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. But the sources I provided in the Zionism article are reliable. And this (or this, this, this, this and this to name a few), is clearly POV-pushing (much more than mine).--IranitGreenberg (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Dlv999

I would take the statements by IR that he intends to "try to make more neutral contributions" with a huge dose of salt given that even while this discussion is ongoing he is continuing to introduce the same POV material into the same article that he has already received a block for. Dlv999 (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly what the source says. It's not POV material and I wasn't blocked for that. Not more POV than this, this or this, for example. There is a clear double standard here.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 09:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it is not "exactly what the source says". The description of the image is " Palestine 1020BC; Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land by George Adam Smith in 1915". Looking at the image itself, you can see the title is "Palestine in the time of Saul 1020BC". Kingdoms depicted on the map include Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia, Israel. You stating in the caption "Depiction of the Israelite kingdom (colored)", may be true, but it is not a neutral title for the the map as it depicts far more besides the kingdom of Israel. It is consistent with your general edit pattern on the page to push the Israeli nationalist viewpoint, which isn't appropriate for a page about the Palestinian people.

I think you will find that the edits you cite of mine are consist with the cited sources. For instant I restored the map title "Syria and Palestine" because that is the title used in the file description. "Syria and the Holy land" is unsupported and seems to be part of a general trend on the page by several editors to remove any reference to Palestine. If you can't tolerate the use of the word "Palestine" where supported by cited sources, you probably should not be editing on the Palestinian people article. Dlv999 (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't try to "push the Israeli nationalist viewpoint" (like you try to push the anti-Israel point of view all the time). If you read the image's caption/reference at the right bottom, it says "Kingdom of Israel coloured", it doesn't mention Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia...--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Moab, Edom, Aram, Phonecia, Amon, Philistia are identified by being labelled on the Map, KoI is identified via a key in the bottom right hand of the picture. You are picking one detail from the map (not from its title) and highlighting it. Your consistent approach on the page of highlighting Israel and downplaying and removing references to Palestine is not appropriate for an article about the Palestinian people. Your assertions that everyone else here is at fault and you are not, does not offer much hope that you are willing to acknowledge the issues that have been raised here and amend your editing pattern accordingly. Dlv999 (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not my fault the picture highlights the Kingdom of Israel (the only reference at the right bottom, look again). And I never said I'm totally right and "everyone else here is at fault"... but you are fault for systematic bias, POV pushing and you don't have the honesty to recognize it.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You choose to highlight one detail from the map instead of using the actual title of the map per the source. In all honesty your opinion of my editing carries very little weight given there is a consensus among experienced editors and admins in agreement that your involvement with the project thus far has been problematic. Dlv999 (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Problematic for who? Pro-Palestinian editors like you?--IranitGreenberg (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:IranitGreenberg is indefinitely banned from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on all pages of Wikipedia, with the option to appeal the ban at WP:AE in six months. This action is under the authority of the discretionary sanctions provided by WP:ARBPIA. See the appeal section of WP:AC/DS for your other options. EdJohnston (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOriginalSoni reported by User:99.147.28.115 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [180]

Comments:

This page has systematically been stripped of historical information appropriate to Wikipedia by a number of users acting in concert. They have replaced wiki-appropriate content with current events, POV, and heresay. 99.147.28.115 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. To the extent you have a legitimate beef - and I have no idea if you have - this is not the forum for it. Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bobrayner reported by User:84.74.30.129 (Result: IP blocked as sock)

• Bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am concerned about the events to have taken place on the above named site. This report comes in fresh light of this investigation outcome on 4 April 2013 on a similar note.

Fresh information was inserted onto the article here:

• [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armed_Forces_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=prev&oldid=555654257 ] Fresh information inserted.

Then came the following reverts:

• [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armed_Forces_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=555665395&oldid=555654317 First]
• [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armed_Forces_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=555701978&oldid=555678673 Second - re-inserting a figure of 1.4%]
• [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armed_Forces_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=555785216&oldid=555760776 Third (don't be fooled by the repeat fatuous summary from the first - check the time]
• [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armed_Forces_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina&diff=prev&oldid=555789564 4th - claim of socking].

Concerning the fourth, there has been no investigation or issue raised into whether I (the account in question) am an alleged sockuppet - therefore the summary is an arbitrary declaration and can only be ruled an act of edit warring, in breach of 3RR - particularly if it is found I am not a sockpuppet of any user. 84.74.30.129 (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by bobrayner

The "fresh information" was fiction; I removed it. 84.74.30.129 is another sockpuppet of Evlekis (talk · contribs); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis/Archive. Just like the last time that Evlekis used socks to revert factual errors into articles and then took me to ANEW for removing them, there has been no actual breach of 3RR, and the sooner Evlekis stops reverting and socking, the sooner our articles will reflect what sources say. Just like last time, Evlekis is canvassing an ally too. Baiting another editor into reverting is hardly new for Evlekis; the difference is that Evlekis is now completely blocked and topic-banned, rather than merely limited to 1RR as before, so now the IP has to be used for all tendentious edits & canvassing, rather than just the second, third, and fourth reverts. Srsly; I haven't broken 3RR, I removed factual errors from an article, and a blocked editor uses a sock to put factual errors back into the article, canvass supporters, & report me to this noticeboard. Some days, editing is quite frustrating... but removing factual errors from articles makes me an easy mark for somebody who has no such qualms and who wants to set traps. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Note. Without an exemption, you have in fact breached 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be exemption 3 of WP:3RRNO: "The following actions are not counted as reverts for the purposes of 3RR: ... Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned and blocked users." bobrayner (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but you appear to be saying that even if the IP is not a sock, you have not breached 3RR. Part of what you accuse the IP of doing is bring a false report here. That's how I understand your comments here and at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Without comment on the merits, I suggest pausing until the SPI is complete. I have commented there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea to me. bobrayner (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks. Dennis blocked the IP as a sock based on WP:DUCK.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Neo. reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Blocked)

Page: Shashi Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neo. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [181]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [182]
2. [183]
3. [184]
4. [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187] (user talk page); [188] (MCQ discussion)

Comments:

Editor has repeatedly substituted a nonfree image for a free image in a BLP infobox, reverting two other editors (including me), despite a complete lack of support for his position in the MCQ discussion he opened (linked above). His edit summary for his most recent revert (first linked diff) admits an intentional 3RR violation. Editor apparently believes that the existence of an open noticeboard discussion prevents any other editor from removing an obvious NFCC violation and allows him to violate 3RR. Similar edit warring at Meenakshi Seshadri [189] [190]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Image File:ShashiKapoor.jpg.jpg is already tagged as disputed. As the tag explains, exception can be made after consensus. Deadline for discussion is 19 May. No user had commented on talk page of image. Only 1 user had expressed his opinion here. Above user superseded all wikipedia users, admins, closing admin and took 'decision' long before deadline and discussion that above image is voilation of copyrights. I repeatedly stated it edit summary. Sole intention of above user was to override admins/discussion and flame me. neo (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• Please note: This is a case of longterm edit-warring since 14 April 2013 which has been rekindled by Farolif since 18 May 2013. He keeps removing references from the article about the shipping industry of Greece.

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 21:10, 13 April 2013 Farolif clean-up of various rollbacks; sidebar data should match source - please cite a new source if you wish to use the old data)
2. Farolif Revision as of 04:16, 14 April 2013 (Undid revision 550255172 by Dr.K. (talk) Whether it sounds right or not is irrelevant - the cited World Factbook source no longer lists "shipping". Also, no reason given for reverting my other changes.)
3. Farolif Revision as of 05:55, 14 April 2013 (OK. We can ignore the source from 1997 - a national economy could have changed drastically since then. And the "Country Study Guide" looks suspiciously like it was copied from what the World Factbook used to say. The other sources seem credible for now.)
4. Revision as of 18:58, 14 April 2013 Farolif (Again, I think we can sensibly avoid any sources more than 5 years old here.)
5. Farolif Revision as of 21:31, 14 April 2013 (Undid revision 550352315 by Dr.K. (talk) Which is my point exactly - it's *historical*. The factbox should only reflect current data. These other items would be better suited for the body of the article.)
6. Farolif Revision as of 17:20, 18 May 2013 remove Citation overkill)
7. Revision as of 03:45, 19 May 2013 Farolif (I fail to see "a good reason to keep multiple citations" (per WP:Citemerge) to make the same point, esp. where older sources are concerned)
8. Farolif Revision as of 23:21, 19 May 2013 (no such discussion ever occurred abt citation overkill or citemerge)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 14 April
• 19 May

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• On Greek Shipping but also on CIA Factbook and facts generally (a humorous note in order to prevent any continuation or reemergence of edit battles or wars.Note:see recent edit history)
• Rejection of his application at DRN due to no discussion on the article talk since 18 April

Comments:

Faroliff has waged a longterm edit-war to remove references supporting the content in the article of Economy of Greece. Ironically the references that Faroliff is asking to be removed are used to support content that he removed without a valid reason in the first place. There has also been a long, relevant discussion on the talkpage of the article which Farolif abandoned on 14 April only to return more than a month later to restart the edit-war without apparent reason. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasons for my recent edits are explained in their respective summaries as well as on the article's talk page (which was posted before this report was made here). The reverting users have not addressed my concerns in either case. Farolif (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are just repeating the identical removals of the sources which you did on 14 April. Only now you are dressing them up quoting an essay: "Citation overkill" which does not apply in this case. Same edit-war, same actions, different dressing. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So what's your point? Yes, I am approaching this issue anew with a more specific concern - a concern that you could not address then and still cannot explain now why the article needs seven sources for a single item in a list. Farolif (talk) 01:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

While WP:BRD isn't a policy, it's a guideline that editors should abide by in order to prevent violating policies and potentially creating a rift within the editorial base. I closed your dispute resolution case on the basis that you needed to discuss your edits prior to making them. However, you've gone and edited again despite that, including ignoring the message I put on your talk page about the closure (See [191]). Crashdoom ^Talk 01:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I know you closed my dispute resolution case. Apparently, I incorrectly assumed that the reasons for my edits spoke for themselves and that there wasn't a 30-day time limit on how far back the discussions on the talk page needed to be. But I didn't ignore the message you posted on my talk page - I only hid it as your justification for closing the dispute was completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Farolif (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find sufficient reason to prolong the case as from the talk page discussion it seemed to be on a completely different matter, thus I closed it with the reason I did. If you feel my action was inappropriate, please feel free to discuss it on the dispute resolution talk page and another volunteer will look into it. Crashdoom ^Talk 01:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I've blocked Farolif as much for disruptive, retaliatory editing as for edit warring. I am particularly struck by the following sentence written on the article talk page by Farolif back in April: "You will notice that I haven't attempted to remove "shipping" from the factbox since Dr. K added the numerous citations to support its inclusion." It is tendentious for Farolif to then return now and remove the sources he said were necessary in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 for looking into this. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 06:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So I was blocked. I guess that's what happens when you choose the wrong page to try to clear away clutter from. And don't think I haven't noticed that amongst Crashdoom's bureucratic wrangling and Bbb23's knee-jerk reaction, neither volunteer attempted to address the concerns that sparked this nonsense. How strange. Farolif (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Declined (amicable resolution, I hope!))

Page: Cooper Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [192]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [193] 14:06, 20 May 2013
2. [194] 14:26, 20 May 2013
3. [195] 14:33, 20 May 2013
4. [196] 19:29 20 May 2013

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Because it was about the spelling of "Bowery" in the article Cooper Square, the discussion tool place at Talk:Bowery#"The Bowery".

Comments:
User:Beyond My Ken, who you can see has a history of contentious editing at Talk:Cooper Square, has been edit-warring with two editors today, myself and User:Epicgenius. I'm afraid this behavior pattern isn't a one-off. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I don't think any action is necessary here. I've protected the page and, on reviewing the article history, note that BMK was restoring the long term stable version. I suggest leaving the protection in place and letting the associated discussion at Talk:Bowery run its course. --regentspark (comment) 23:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That is, of course, fine with me. I am, though, concerned that Epicgenius, in particular, does not seem willing to follow what the reliable sources I presented there say, and has presented no opposing reliable sources to support his contention. His objection appears to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It might be best to protect Bowery as well, or at least drop a note to him top say that he should not make the change from "the Bowery" to "Bowery" in any article while the main discussion is ongoing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also fine with me, of course. And I want to acknowledge I've no doubt Beyond My Ken is acting in good faith to improve the article; that's not at issue at all.

I should note, however, that the lowercase "the" he uses here is different from the capital "The" in his edits to Cooper Square. I've never had issue with the colloquial form with lowercase "the." --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: Please see the comment I just posted on Talk:Bowery. I have no problem with not capitalizing the "T" in "the Bowery" except at the beginning of sentences. If I led you to believe otherwise through some revert of mine, than that was my error and I apologize. My only contention is that the street and neighborhood are properly called "the Bowery" and not "Bowery" (except when it is used as an adjective, as in "Bowery flophouses", not "the Bowery flophouses", although "flophouses on the Bowery" is correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

@BMK: It's not about the usage of the word "the" that is bothersome. It's its excessive usage that is somewhat annoying to me, which is why I was adjusting many of the "the Bowery"s in the article. Just a note about my edits. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 00:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While is it true that repetitive use of a proper name is bad writing that can become monotonous to the reader, the answer to it is not to replace a proper form ("the Bowery") with an improper one ("Bowery"), but to rewrite the sentence in such a way that the proper noun does not have to be used. Thus "The Bowery is.... The Bowery was.... The Bowery had...." can be rewritten as "The Bowery is... The street was... It had...", or whatever the situation calls for. What it doesn't call for is replace "Fifth Avenue" with "Avenue 5" (to take a ridiculous example). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Declined I'm going to mark this as declined. I think that BMK makes what seems to me a good editorial point above, something worth thinking about. BMK, do try not to break the 3RR rule.--regentspark (comment) 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:LoveWaffle reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Warned)

Page: Iron Man 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LoveWaffle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [198]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [199]
2. [200]
3. [201]
4. [202]
5. [203]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [204]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205]

Comments:
LoveWaffle appears to be one of a couple of editors that, for whatever reason, wish to remove any mention of an actor portraying "the Mandarin". Editor has made several reverts, violating 3RR with the last four reverts. - SudoGhost 03:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have only reverted edits twice:

1. [206]
2. [207]

Furthermore, I am not removing mention of an actor portraying the character in question. It's mentioned elsewhere in the paragraph that the actor in question portrays that character. I am merely removing information redundant to the paragraph. I apologize that this issue had to be taken here.
LoveWaffle (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Content aside (which is irrelevant to edit warring), you have made five reverts per the definition of a "revert", four of those reverts being in the past 24 hours. - SudoGhost 03:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If "revert" does not mean "undo an edit", I apologize for my ignorance.

LoveWaffle (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment by third-party editor

Sudo is editing aggressively and in an WP:OWNy fashion at Iron Man 3. He has made a false accusation on my own talk page about edit-warring and throws the label about in harassing, bullying fashion. This needs to be taken into consideration.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring, so it's not "third-party" nor is it a "false accusation". Your accusation, however, of harassment and bullying are personal attacks that you've been asked twice now to stop. It's also hypocritical to remove content "during an ongoing discussion" as you put it and act shocked when it's reverted, yet you then go and revert an edit because it was made "during an ongoing discussion" as if that's a good reason to revert. If that's not "WP:OWNy" it's WP:POT, and if my two edits are somehow "WP:OWNy" I'm at a loss as to how you think that yours are not. - SudoGhost 16:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I made one edit at the time you made your accusation. That is not edit-warring, hence your accusation is false. If you believe I am edit-warring, then report me here. Otherwise, we do not make such unsupportable allegations. As for the rest, I think your language and behavior here say more than any words of mine. -Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So you claimed you were not edit warring, argued that you didn't do it, and then continued to edit war after the fact, as if that makes it better to continue to edit war? Ironically, if you think I am "harassing" and "bullying", you are more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI, because it's not relevant to AN3 and isn't the forum for it, since we apparently "do not make such unsupportable allegations" otherwise. - SudoGhost 17:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort; again, you falsely accuse me and I wouldn't be surprised if you do it with other editors. To make this perfectly clear: I said I'd made one edit [208] when you made your accusation. A second, unrelated edit [209] left alone what someone restored after I removed it in the first edit! For goodness' sakes: If you'd have read and looked more carefully, perhaps you wouldn't have made a second false accusation. I guess I wil take this up at WP:ANI. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion on AN/I. - SudoGhost 20:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned LoveWaffle about edit warring. I'm not blocking them because I think at this point it would be punitive. They've apologized. They haven't reverted since the apology. They should have taken more time to read the policy after being warned by SudoGhost, but I'm willing to cut them some slack. I've urged them to leave the article alone for a while. Any revert in the near term may result in a block. @SudoGhost and @Tenebrae, stop sniping at each other. You did that enough at ANI. Give it a rest.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Sean.hoyland (Result: Blocked)

Page: Palestinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicago Style (without pants) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: see details below

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 2013-05-19T08:22:32 - "Undid revision 555574589 by Lazyfoxx (talk) long and unnecessary quote removed" (which is a repeat of this edit from 2013-05-09T05:24:50 and this edit from 2013-04-29T02:17:08 by the same editor. This is a clear example of an editor edit warring over an extended period to impose their view on an article.
2. 2 consecutive reverts 2013-05-20T00:29:06 - "Undid revision 555806875 by RabeaMalah (talk) Unexplained deletion. Restoring content to English-language conventions." and 2013-05-20T00:59:05- "Undid revision 555762912 by Dlv999 (talk) This is the simplest way to express this information." The second of those edits is a repeat of this edit from 2013-05-09T10:00:06 and this edit from 2013-05-02T10:07:35. Again, edit warring over an extended period to impose their view on an article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Edit warring in the article and discussions on the talk page have been going on for weeks.

Comments:
The article was protected from 2013-05-09T10:47:57 to 2013-05-16T10:47 because of edit warring. The edit warring continued shortly after it was unprotected. It may be better to fully protect the article for an extended period and possibly permanently so that editors have to use the "Edit protected" template. Banning Chicago Style (without pants) from that article would help because they persistently edit war and are the source of much disruption. But they will no doubt be replaced by equally disruptive editors/socks, so full protection might be a better long term approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've used the talk page to the best of my ability. I won't say my editing has been flawless, because I am still an inexperienced editor. I will say that I have good-faith and will try to learn from the criticism leveled by this report's author. Perhaps I need a mentor. Would the author accept me as a Protege? Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

And RabeaMalah has just broken 1RR at the same article too [211][212] Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps grist for a separate report, but RabeaMalah's unexplained and unsourced series of edits at Arab American, along this line [213], violate WP:3rr. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The user Chicago Style has made little to no contributions to the Palestinian article since they started edits on it, they make POV pushed edits that attempt to disassociate Palestinians from historic Palestine, as well as making many edits changing the wording to more ambiguous terms and deleting useful and sourced content without justification or even a hint of consensus. This user's edit history is akin to the user IranitGreenberg who was just perma-banned from the Israeli-Palestinian area recently. I agree with Sean Hoyland's solution, "banning Chicago Style (without pants) from that article would help because they persistently edit war and are the source of much disruption. But they will no doubt be replaced by equally disruptive editors/socks, so full protection might be a better long term approach." Lazyfoxx 22:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I've blocked Chicago Style for one week and formally notified RabeaMalah per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MDPub13 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: User blocked )

Page: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MDPub13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [214]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [215]
2. [216]
3. [217]
4. [218]
5. [219]
6. [220]

...and probably more by now.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Also reported at WP:AIV

Comments:
I have reverted over 3RR at this point because his edits are clearly vandalism - completely-unsourced negative attacks inserted by an editor with an obvious axe to grind against the organization. The accusation is wholly unsupported by anything except his alleged documents.

Sample edit summaries:

• "this is true about UMKC. You can verify it by calling UMKC or I can email you the documents"
• "I have signed letter from dr Nasca, ca med board , Georgia med board, where do u want them?"
• "what is not to verify about UMKC, State Med Boards ACGME? ACGME fanboy im here is ignorant to corruption and lies at UMKC PAthology department"
• "Baranoff your a coward, answer the questions, where on this page can I upload"
• "where you live you jerk"
• "Fuck you UMKC you piece of shit I live in a cardboard box because of you. Fuck You the worst medical school in the country and the worst pathology residency in the world!"

This user is also a suspected sock or meatpuppet - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis

User has just admitted to an intent to sockpuppet: "I have access to hundreds of CPUs with unique ip. No need to make me restart go fix ACGME and UMKC lying to ACGME and state boards about probation. Letter from dr Nasca says I was never on probation why then did Dr Moormeier inform Georgia that I was??" [222]

Obvious troll is obvious. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked Lectonar (talk) 08:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hortbagy reported by User:WikiDan61 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Origin of Hungarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hortobagy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [223]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Hortobagy

1. [224]
2. [225]
3. [226]
4. [227]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229]

Note: I am an editor uninvolved in this dispute, and have made no contributions to the discussion. I have just observed the edit warring, and feel the need to bring the offending user to the attention of administrators.

• Blocked – for a period of one week. There is also a report at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AussieLegend reported by User:DavidinNJ (Result: Both editors warned here)

Page: List of The Big Bang Theory characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AussieLegend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [230]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [231]
2. [232]
3. [233]
4. [234]
5. [235]
6. [236]
7. [237]
8. [238]
9. [239]
10. [240]
11. [241]
12. [242]
13. [243]
14. [244]
15. [245]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters talk page

Comments:Aussie Legend reverted my edits to List of The Big Bang Theory characters 15 times in a 24-hour period, in violation of WP:3RR. Any edits that I make, he reverts. I tried to have a discussion with him on the talk page, but he essentially told me that I cannot modify the article because of compromises from the past. That violates WP:DRNC and WP:BOLD, and sounds like ownership of an article.

Two things immediately stand out when examining this situation: a) DavidinNJ has been giving as good as he gets where the edit war is concerned and b) DavidinNJ made no effort to warn AussieLegend prior to opening this discussion. Moreover, the level of edit warring is badly blurred by other, unrelated edits made by both editors. There is an active discussion on the talk page; AussieLegend's last four edits were to the talk page, with no activity on the article itself, so why the headlong rush here? --Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I reversed two of Aussie's edits, and that's it. I filed the complaint after AussieLegend began to reverse all my changes in the last 24 hours without reason, and basically told me that I cannot make changes because of past discussions. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't revert all of your edits, only the bad edits (see below), and in doing so I assumed good faith, even when you did the same on the talk page.[246][247] Most of the edits that you made, including deletion of the cast table and re-organsisation of the various sections have been retained.[248] I did not tell you that you could not "make changes because of past discussions". I said that the content you were deleting was there for a reason and I explained why it was there on the talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think DavidinNJ should read WP:3RR, which says that "a series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert". Since 7 May 2013 I've edited the page only twice, once here and then here, although DavidinNJ did manage to get one edit in a few seconds before I did in the middle of the second run.[249] He edited List of The Big Bang Theory characters making several questionable, and some quite incorrect edits such as demoting a main cast member to a recurring role despite MOS:TV#Cast information, adding redlinks to personal names despite WP:REDNOT, unexplained deletion of some content and duplication of different content,[250] screwing up heading levels,[251] leaving the article in a mess. Assuming good faith, something he obviously hasn't done,[252] I simply cleaned up the edits.[253] Despite specifically noting that Leslie Winkle should not be demoted,[254] (there's an FAQ about it on the talk page), he again demoted her in his very next edit,[255] I did revert that[256] and then set about cleaning up the article, explaining what I was doing in multiple edit summaries, rather than doing everything in one swoop.[257] While I was ding that, he managed to get in one edit while I was restoring some content that had been deleted inexplicably, after I had just removed a whole load of redlinks,[258] even though I had already explained that the statement he insisted on was untrue.[259] I thought we were still talking on the talk page.[260] --AussieLegend (✉) 18:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

None of my edits were "incorrect." We may have a difference of opinion of the formatting of the article, but nothing I added to the article was factually false. Moreover, while I changed the order of characters, I did not delete any characters from the article. In fact, I added several characters which had not been listed. Pretty much, you have decided that if article doesn't use the exact language you want, it's wrong. On the talk page, you made the following comments that implied ownership of the article: They weren't added by me but I, and other editors who have been watching the article for a long time agree they should be there and Everything that has been done in the article until now has been done for a reason. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained above, with diffs, some of the bad edits that you made Here are some specific errors.

• Unexplained removal of content [261]
• Removal of maintenance templates without addressing the identified problems [262]
• Demotion of main cast to recurring, despite what MOS:TV#Cast information says.[263]
• Demotion of "Recurring characters" to be a subheading of "Main characters", addition of factually incorrect and misleading information.[264]
• unexplained duplication of a significant amount of text that I later had to delete.[265]
• This revision, before you started editing shows no redlinks in "Minor characters" but this revision, after you'd finished clearly has a number of redlinks to personal names, contrary to WP:REDNOT.

Fixing the errors was a nightmare. The comments that you've quoted imply WP:CONSENSUS, not ownership. As I've asked you previously, please assume good faith. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

164 - I did remove the second paragraph, but I subsequently replaced it with a new paragraph that I thought was clearer.

165 - I did remove three out of the four maintenance templates, which were outdated, as I explained on your talk page, and as another editor commented on the article talk page about a month ago. Maintenance templates can be removed once an issued is resolved, and there is no evidence that the article suffered from original research or lack of citations. I left the template on for excessive detail.

166 - As I stated on the article talk page, I did demote Leslie Winkle to the recurring character section based on the fact that she was only in 8 of the 135 Big Bang Theory episodes, and her role seemed similiar to that of many of the characters listed in the recurring section. I acknowledge that if the show's producers list her as a 'main character', then we should also.

167 - As I explained on the article talk page, your categories of characters are somewhat contradictory. You define 'recurring character' as "these characters appear in several episodes." My proposed definition that you undid is that "these characters have a significant role in multiple episodes." Based on your definition, a character who has a bit role in a few episodes should be considered a recurring character. On the talk page, I gave you five examples of characters who have repeated minor appearances, and yet you class them as 'minor characters' instead of 'recurring characters.'

168 - The duplicative information that you cite was on the talk page, not in the article.

I'm not sure if there was ever a real consensus for the current article format, but regardless of that, a consensus can change, and per WP:DRNC and WP:BOLD, you cannot use a consensus to block future changes. Normally, issues like the ones we cite above are edit disputes, but I filed a complaint here because you reversed almost all my edits, including very minor and uncontroversial ones. Furthermore, your comments on the talk page indicate that you believe that article shouldn't be modified: They weren't added by me but I, and other editors who have been watching the article for a long time agree they should be there and Everything that has been done in the article until now has been done for a reason. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The paragraph that you thought was clearer only addresses one character and ignores the rest. It completely removes Leslie Winkle. You explained removal of the templates after I had restored them, I didn't define recurring characters, the article does. The content you added here is actually incorrect as these minor recurring characters did not have significant roles, and so on.......However, this is not the place for this discussion, the appropriate place is the article's talk page and I thought we were discussing it. However, it's hard to discuss when your kneejerk reaction to somebody correcting a multitude of errors that you had made in the article is to complain about them. You didn't even try to discuss the corrections that I made, instead you came here while I was posting on the talk page.[266] And, as I've explained, I didn't revert you 15 times, and most of the edits that you made are still in the article. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Both of you are edit warring. Neither of you has yet breached WP:3RR (you have 3 reverts each). David, you need to (1) learn what a revert is with respect to edit warring policy and (2) present a report here with links, not just text. The two of you have a discussion going on the article talk page. You've continued that discussion here (where it doesn't belong). I strongly urge both of you to resume the discussion and NOT to edit the article until you've reached a consensus. If you can't, there are dispute resolution mechanisms available to you to resolve the content dispute. If either of you continues the battle at the article itself, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the text now and converted them to links. Just a little side note. Epicgenius^{(talk to me • see my contributions)} 12:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:71.176.201.28 reported by User:Paulmcdonald (Result: No action)

Page: List of people from Overland Park, Kansas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.176.201.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (other IP addresses involved as well)

Previous version reverted to: last revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [267] - April 18
2. [268] - May 8
3. [269] - May 9
4. [270] - May 16

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [271] - May 22

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of people from Overland Park, Kansas has gone ignored.

Comments:
I have recently picked up on this issue. As I've investigated, it seems that this has gone back quite a ways with more than just three reverts going on, many by me without actually picking up that it was the same revert. While they are not in a 24-hour period (appear to be spread out over time), they are the exact same revert. It appears to be unproductive edits that are unsourced and borderline something more. Would appreciate an uninvolved third party to review and make recommendations from this point forward. Because my involvement has gone on longer than it probably should have, I'm going to step back and let someone else take over for guidance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. The edits are from different IP addresses, and there doesn't even seem to be an obvious relationship between them. Thus, I think of this as a page protection issue, and if it were at WP:RFPP, I would decline it as insufficient recent activity. Therefore, I'm taking no action. If it gets worse, you can always go to RFPP directly.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for checking!--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sageo reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: Warned)

Page: Hans-Hermann Hoppe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sageo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] RE: Immigration, [272] RE: Austrian School Economist, etc. [273] RE: Academic Freedom/Views on Homosexuality section title [274]

Diffs of the user's reverts: RE:Immigration

1. [275]
2. [276]
3. [277]

RE:Austrian School Economist, etc. (unsourced content in lede)

1. [278]
2. [279]

RE: Section title "Academic Freedom" vs. "Views on Homosexuality"

1. [280]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [288] [289] [290] [291]

Comments:
User:Sageo has steadfastly continued to assert that his versions of text are correct and has reinserted them repeatedly, ignoring specific responses and discussions from other editors as to what sources would be needed or other policies would need to be met in order to support his reinsertions. There is ongoing discussion on talk during which Sageo continues to edit war. User:Sageo has been warned several times. User:Sageo states that he is an experienced editor on Spanish WP, even though his experience on the English site is less extensive.

SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I second everything SPECIFICO is saying. In addition to edit warring, Sageo does not even attempt to provide any specific justification for sweeping wholesale deletions of well-sourced material, apart from vague claims that content is "malicious" and incorrect claims that edits violate "consensus." His or her editorial history should be looked into and promptly addressed. Steeletrap (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment. Please note that Sageo has a 27k edit history on the Spanish Wikipedia. Some of his/her English comments have been awkwardly expressed, so the use of single terms, such as "malicious", should not be read out of context or held up as evidence in this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will remark on the section heading question, as I am involved with it. The first fairly recent section heading change was here [292] by user FurrySings (no edit summary was provided). I reverted here [293] with a somewhat inaccurate edit summary about discussion, but asked for justification on talk page. SPECIFICO re-reverted here: [294]. Saego then re-re-reverted here: [295]. (I then initiated a talk page section [296].) The present section heading is the one before this series of reverts, and a discussion is underway. WRT BRD, Furry did the Bold, I Reverted and asked for Discussion, SPECIFICO did another Reversion, but did not initiate Discussion. Saego Reverted, but did not initiate discussion. All in all, I'd say, this portion of the ANI is a mole-hill. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I hardly think this is the place to litigate a small matter, which is raised here only in the context of listing Sageo's reverts. Nonetheless, Srich, let the record show that the Bold was in place, Furry did the revert, you began the edit war with a false summary as your "justification" and I called you out on it. Why make a mountain out of a mole hill? SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I was under no obligation to "initiate Discussion" it was late where I live. I responded to your comment upon seeing it the next day. I am not understanding why you are speaking to issues which do not appear related to Sageo's edit history. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's no doubt that Sageo's edits on 108/109 have been part of an annoying edit-warring pattern over the last few days on that issue where neither Sageo or Specifico bother to find correct references. [[Per editors request for clarification added later: i.e., finding good new references for whether Hoppe was a libertarian philosopher/Austrian School economist/anarcho-capitalist, which both of them are knowledgeable enough to research]. (Mea culpa myself on not doing that, in part because of confusion on the nature of one reference.)

However, the other edits are at worst Sageo's over-reaction to real WP:BLP problems with one editor using loaded phrases and section titles, excessive commentary, and cherry picked or even misrepresented quotes to smear the subject of the article. There has been a lot of discussion of these BLP violations at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe. (At one point I put a warning notice on the editor's talk page regarding libel, which was discussed on the article talk page and at WP:ANI here.) So I do not think User:Sageo other edits should be considered edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Carol's claims about libel are false. Anyone interested as to why can see her talk page. Now, let us try to return to the issue at hand. Steeletrap (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• The main issue is: is good faith deletion of material problematic under WP:BLP a violation of 3rr?? Sageo was rather aggressive in doing so after reading my critique of the problematic edits at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Use_of_primary_sources_in_Immigration_section (and he admitted he too was engaging in WP:OR regarding primary sources and removed his own as well as yours). The context is the past negative material that had been put in (which was not allowed to remain), as I linked to above. But that discussion is finished. We are now discussing problems with new material and the right to remove them under WP:BLP guidelines. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 05:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On another article, i.e. Cody Wilson, after his earlier "reducing content" edit [297] was reverted with valid reasons for the revert [298], Sageo again removed large portions of the article [299] claiming material was merely a copy of another article (inacccurately, imo). This is or was while engaged in discussion concerning merging Cody Wilson with Defense Distributed. Apparently this may have been trying to prove the article being "blanked" (i.e. Cody Wilson) had insufficient notability and thus should be merged (with "Defense Distributed")...?

Sageo's second "blanking" was reverted by another editor [300], followed by an explanation (or "answer") posted on the editor's talk page [301]. In part, Sageo claimed "repetition of info from another article (to one proposed to be merged in) don't help to centre de discussion in the relevant issues of the biography itself" which is inaccurate as several edits had FIRST been made to Cody Wilson and then later added to Defense Distributed, thus were not copied from Defense Distributed to Cody Wilson as incorrectly seemingly believed by Sageo -- example/s here (several others are available), note three edits on Cody Wilson followed later by edits on Defense Distributed to add the same or very similar content to both articles, intially Cody Wilson and later to Defense Distributed: [302]. I was going to state, Sageo had only made two reverts (i.e. "blanking"), but it seems he has now made a third while this is being posted, [303]. :-( 98.70.82.5 (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Sageo is warned that if he continues to revert at either Hans-Hermann Hoppe or Cody Wilson without first getting a talk page consensus he may be blocked. It is more than 18 hours since his last revert at the Hoppe article, and he did not break 3RR at Cody Wilson. He has 27,000 edits on the Spanish Wikipedia and has never been blocked there. Language ability is a factor in whether you can negotiate well here, but it would be smart for him to dial down the reverting until he gets more experience on the English wiki. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Malizengin reported by User:Dr.K. (Result:24 hours)

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

• Please note this is a special edit-warring 1RR violation on Armenian Genocide for which this user was warned earlier today but he continues. He is also edit-warring across other Armenian Genocide related articles.

Previous version reverted to: [304]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 20:36, 22 May 2013 Malizengin
2. Latest revision as of 02:58, 23 May 2013 Malizengin

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning under WP:ARBAA2: [305]

Comments:
Editor is edit-warring across many hot-button Armenian-genocide related articles adding POV edits. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours as a first offence per report. As the user did not previously have a warning expressly naming the terms of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBAA, I have not placed this block under AE rules, but have issued a direct warning which guarantees that any future blocks may be so placed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Heimstern. I agree. Unfortunately I know of no template which can be used as a warning under ARBAA2 by regular editors. The one you issued can only be used by admins. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dr. K: As I recall, this was actually a controversy at AC a bit ago, who can warn and how it should be done. I don't know if anything ever came of it. I'm'a ask AGK; he'd know. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Heimstern for pointing this out. I wasn't aware of that. I also saw NW's reply to your question at AGK's talkpage. I'll watch for further developments. Thanks again. Take care. I also took the liberty to fix the link to my username. Hope you don't mind. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:AdamLukeDocker reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: Page protected and final warning)

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

Previous version reverted to: [306]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [307]
2. [308]
3. [309]
4. [310]

And since this was filed:

1. [311]
2. [312]
3. [313]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [314], [315]

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

Comments:
A new user adding unreferenced material to a WP:BLP, repeatedly inserting it even after advised of our policies. They need to stop and take time to learn the relevant policies, etc. but so far have not. Currently the article has a large body of glowing, WP:SPAMmy unreferenced BLP material. Heiro 18:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to avoid blocking a new user so have locked the redirect for 3 days and will leave a final warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's good for me, mebbe they will read some of the policy pages several users have left for them now. Thanks. Heiro 20:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/BeingFaridKhan. Captain Conundrum (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And, blocked as a sock per the above. Guess we are done here. Heiro 21:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Dervorguilla blocked; MarkBernstein warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Previous version reverted to: [316]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [317] 01:18, 19 May 2013
2. [318] 13:52, 19 May 2013
3. [319] 16:29, 19 May 2013
4. [320] 22:33, 19 May 2013

Related reverts

[321] 21:16, 23 April 2013

[322] 15:41, 30 April 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [323]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [324] (by May122013 (talk))

[325] 22:49, 20 April 2013 (by reporting user)

Comments:

Swartz died on January 6, less than six months ago. I think the article’s covered by BDP policy. Recent history-

1. The user tried to evade a request for disclosure of interests.

User:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Stale, editors discussing) 01:40, 3 May 2013

“My employer's house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I'd completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book.” --MarkBernstein (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2013 [326]

“The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an 'employee'. I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article.” --Collect (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC) [327]

2. At 16:29, 19 May 2013 the user warned other editors at Aaron Swartz that he and David in DC are working as a team and can keep doing reverts indefinitely.

  22:33, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555850908 by Dervorguilla. RV because the rationale in prev comment seems wrong; what do Harvard downloads have to do with anything? Talk, please.)

  21:55, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→JSTOR download: 'JSTOR download' -> 'JSTOR incident' (no evidence supporting any implication that Swartz didn’t make large downloads at Harvard))

  16:29, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555804479 by May122013. We provide references later. There's no doubt. DavidInDC has did yesterday's reverts, so I'll volunteer today.)

  16:01, 19 May 2013 May122013 . . (Please discuss further on talk page. Sources use attributive language but Editors here do not seem to want to do the same and seem to want to make our own determinative statement of fact, which is not Wikipedia policy compliant.)

  13:52, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555751485 by Dervorguilla. What is gained by merging sections, other than making the merged section longer and more forbidding? What is the intended improvement?)

  06:26, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (merge 'Federal indictment and prosecution'with 'Arrest and prosecution')

  01:57, 19 May 2013 MarkBernstein . . (Undid revision 555726011 by Dervorguilla. Let's wait on this, or at the very least take it to talk. See "hacks and hoaxes" for example.)

  01:18, 19 May 2013 Dervorguilla . . (→In the press: -'Salon covered story of a Brooklyn NY muralist who created a mural of Swartz' (article subject not really notable for being an artists’ subject, but item would fit well in an ‘Iconography’ sec if others found!))

3. A quick review suggests that the user has rejected sysops’ recommendations more often than not.

BLPN:Stephen Heymann 00:27, 18 March 2013

“Silvergate's essay … is simply a conspicuous journalistic account of the affair…. Bbb23's insinuation that it is anything else is unjust.” --User:MarkBernstein (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

“It's an opinion piece that attacks Heymann.… And in response to your claim at the article talk page that I personally attacked you, what do you think I said that constitutes a personal attack?” --Bbb23 (User talk:Bbb23talk) 00:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

4. The user is holding up an effort to fix a silly error in a BDP.

Arrest and prosecution[328]

JSTOR download

Arrests, charges and indictments

The first subheading should read “JSTOR incident” or “JSTOR incidents”. Swartz wasn’t arrested for a “JSTOR download” — he was arrested for two incidents of breaking and entering.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is about the 5th or sixth time Dervorguilla has resorted to a noticeboard to achieve what she cannot achieve by consensus in what is, essentially, a content dispute being fought by a tenaciously single-minded editor. I think argumentation here is pointless. I urge admins to review the history of the Aaron Swartz article and talk page and compare the various editors' contributions. The wheel-warring accusation above, as to me, is groundless. It rests on a single, inartfully written edit summary by MarkBernstein. I have more to say about that on the Swatz talk page, here. David in DC (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In Revert 4, the user reverts an edit had that had brought the heading closer to the less controversial language of 19:18, 16 March 2013 – 16:32, 19 May 2013 (“JSTOR: Arrest and prosecution”), which says nothing about a download — or a breaking-and-entering. --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain the difference between "controversial", in this usage, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Because I'll be darned if I can find anyone else deeming the things you complain of here (or on the Swartz talk page) as particularly problematic. Occasionally, someone agrees with you. See stopped clocks and their frequency of accuracy, or blind squirrels and the frequency with which they find nuts. But even when some other editor aligns with your thinking, it's never with your vehemence nor are they ever moved to go running from forum to forum crying Controversy!, Controversy! David in DC (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Without regard to whether the edit is necessary, which I find doubtful, I've re-edited the passage about the conditions preceding Swartz's arrest to meet OP's concern expressed in Point 4: "The user is holding up an effort to fix a silly error in a BDP." Please see [329]. David in DC (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Time for a topic ban. Dervorguilla's behaviour at this article, the couple of related articles, and their continual trivia at the ALLCAPS boards is well past WP:TENDENTIOUS. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I couldn't agree more. This one user has tied many editors in knots for months, pursuing WP:POINTy ends known only to that editor. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Sadly, I reluctantly concur. We want to have as many eyes as possible and should abhor the idea of a topic ban. But given the volume of unnecessary conflict created by a single user on a single point, this may be the best course of action in this case. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week. I've blocked Dervorguilla for extended edit warring with just about everyone. However, I am not closing this report because Mark violated WP:3RR, and I can't just let that go. I've therefore communicated with Mark on his talk page and am awaiting a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Mark has been warned and has agreed (reluctantly would be an understatement) not to edit the Swartz article for 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to say, I think the 5-day topic ban is unhelpful. MarkBernstein has gotten more this share of harassment due to a sometimes-hostile and often tendentious Dervorguilla. While 3RR does merit a warning, I worry the net result of this that a tendentious user has successfully used edit warring and noticeboard to demoralize a valued contributor. I would really like it if someone could "reach out" to MarkBernstein (talk) to ensure that this doesn't unnecessarily demoralize him. --HectorMoffet (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Agree with HectorMoffet. Bbb23, would you be amenable to reducing the 5-day period to a three-day period? I think Mark was clearly operating in good faith and so this punishment is especially frustrating. I think there may have been some confusion on MarkBernstein's behalf over whether 3RR required the edits to be "warring" or on the same topic. I certainly had a similar bit of confusion, and I've posted a note on his talk page to that effect. I'm not quite sure what to effectively say to Mark on this one. Maybe I'll give him a call tomorrow evening after giving him some time to potentially read the public note I left him on his talk page. jhawkinson (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree Viewing all the behavior in its totality, including my own, I think it's clear Mark was acting in good faith. A gesture of recognition for his contributions to this article and to wikipedia, in the form of a symbolic reduction might help us keep a good editor. It would be very sad to retain the worst actor in this episode as an editor and lose a very good one. I understand Bbb23's actions and decision here, and they're not something any other actor should change. But I'm hoping Bbb23 can see the way clear to tempering justice with mercy. David in DC (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:210.195.84.194 reported by User:EBusiness (Result: Semi)

Page: GeForce 700 Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 210.195.84.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [330]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [331]
2. [332]
3. [333]

Diffs of similar reverts by 210.195.80.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), same user, new IP:

1. [334]
2. [335]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [336]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [337]

Comments:
I have removed a lot of unsourced and irrelevant information from the article. 210.195.84.194 seemingly did not agree with this decision, but have not in a single word defended reverting to the old article. Protecting the article might be a good idea. EBusiness (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The problem is you've both made three reverts, and if you revert again, you'll breach WP:3RR. I'm uncomfortable semi-protecting the article without something more than a content dispute. I suggest two things. First, tell the IP clearly that you've opened a discussion on the article talk page and they should contribute. Second, and particularly if the first suggestion fails, try one of the dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve the dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is, dispute resolution seems to be geared towards solving outspoken disputes, my one-way conversation doesn't really fall into that category. This whole system is really big and confusing, if you think I posted on the wrong board please point to the exact course of action that I should take. As for semi-protecting that is mostly because articles on unreleased and unannounced hardware tend to get a lot of content on the rumour level, if User:210.195.84.194 hadn't reverted someone else probably would have, or they would have copied a new pile from their favourite rumour site. But I suppose proper protocol is to wait for a couple of drive-by editors to prove what I'm saying. EBusiness (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you that this kind of situation is not easy to resolve. Theoretically, a request for comment doesn't require talk page discussion, just an attempt to discuss. However, upon reflection, I don't see why you should have to jump through hoops if another editor refuses to engage. User:EdJohnston has left a warning on the IP's talk page, but it doesn't account for the fact that the present state of the article is the IP's version. I'd wait a bit, and if the IP continues to be unresponsive, I think you can revert the last change without fear of being blocked. I would put something in your edit summary like "see your talk page and the article talk page" so it's clear that you want to talk. I don't think I've ever recommended that someone revert before except in the case of a policy violation; I suppose there's always a first.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Of course wanting the article protected when continuously being reverted by an IP user also has to do with the possibility of that user possessing a dynamic IP. Say hello to User:210.195.80.31 who continue the job of User:210.195.84.194. EBusiness (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one month. The IP is in the wrong by using multiple addresses to revert a disputed article. EdJohnston (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrm7171 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)

Page: Applied psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrm7171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [338]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [339]
2. [340]
3. [341]
4. [342]
5. [343]
6. [344]
7. [345]
8. [346]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [347]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Mrm7171

Comments:

No response on talk pages. Shouting in edit summaries is only form of communication. - DVdm (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the user's persistent failure to respond to multiple requests for a discussion, I am coming to believe that a block will be necessary to get the user to engage in a way that doesn't involve blanking and edit-warring with ALL CAPS edit summaries. At minimum, a block would prevent the user from continuing the edit war across multiple pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 days. There is edit warring from both sides here, which makes it difficult for me. I want to avoid blocking so I've fully protected the page for 2 days; if the edit warring continues once protection has expired, users may be blocked. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note - this might not stop with page protection: see [348]. With a null edit and an edit summary ([349]) user Iss246 tried again to communicate with Mrm7171, but to no avail. Other than through shouting in edit summaries, there seems to be no way to communicate with this user. - DVdm (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours As the user continued to edit war on a different page after my final warning (and numerous warnings from other users), and because their approach to the dispute has been purely disruptive, I have now blocked the user. I will also unprotect applied psychology. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Azcat90 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Protected)

Page: Lois Lerner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Azcat90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [350]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [351]
2. [352]
3. [353]
4. [354]
5. [355]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [356]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [357] - I suggested that the user write a draft in userspace and propose that it be moved into articlespace.

Comments:
The article is a proposed "biography" of a person involved in a recent controversy, and several editors have expressed concern about WP:BIO1E issues. The status quo was a redirect to the page about the controversy, 2013 IRS scandal. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Idea that Lois Lerner is not a public figure would be plausible before 5/15/2013. Not today. She is without question a public figure worthy of a wikipedia page. Google "Lois Lerner" news search results in 53,600 results. The continued deletion and redirect of her page to "2013 IRS Scandal" I contend is an example of edit warring. Azcat90 (talk) 04:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the policy, vs. making arguments that the policy specifically undermines. Federales (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

After this notice was opened, Azcat90 reverted a fifth time: [358] - the editor is clearly aware of the 3RR and shows no interest in abiding by it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have just read the BIO1E and pseudo-biographies policies and will not be making any more "updates". I believe LGL is important enough to warrant an independent URL but recognize that a biographical page should be complete and balanced before "publishing" occurs. I was not aware of the myriad of rules and regulations that have been developed around Mssr. Wales' creation. While it still should not be used as a cited source for research, crowd-sourced peer review does make wikipedia a very useful resource as a starting point for research. Azcat90 (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked The above statement seems to suggest hat Azcat now understands the problem and has committed not to continue the edit war. I'm hoping that this means an end to the edit war without anyone being blocked; Azcat, if you do continue to edit war, you will find yourself blocked. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • How is this cat not blocked after 5 reverts on a BLP? We have gone soft around here. Years back, as I recall, 3RR was enforced with nearly zero tolerance... -- Y not? 13:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Maybe I'm softer than other admins, but Azcat said above that he'll stop edit warring; since posting that, he hasn't edit warred. I can't see how blocking him now would prevent any further disruption. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • In a lot of the reports filed here, there is not necessarily one "right" result. Different approaches are healthy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Blocks shouldn't be punitive, and if this got the editor to stop reverting and start discussing, that's all that needed to happen. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Ohwrotcod reported by User:Bondegezou (Result: Blocked)

Page: Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ohwrotcod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [359]

Diffs of the user's reverts: [360]: added 'not in citation' tag [361]: reverted removal of 'not in citation' tags

1. [362]: deleted large amount of text, added WP:SYNTH tag
2. [363]: revert mostly the same as before
3. [364]: revert mostly the same as before; edit summary accuses me of vandalism
4. [365]: repeat of last revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [366]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [367] and subsequent discussion there.

Comments:
Additional background is at an AN/I report here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ohwrotcod. As seen at User_talk:DonQuixote#Possible_vendetta.3F, Ohwrotcod (then editing as 41.132.117.15), took offence at some edits I've been making to some Dr Who articles and accused me of a "vendetta". There were later comments like [368] and [369]. In what appears to be a response, s/he then focused on various Dr Who novel articles, with tags, PRODs, and AfDs. Further non-WP:AGF comments today include [370] and [371]. Along the way, s/he started an AfD for the article under question, Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). I sought to improve the article to justify its retention and the result is as above. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) also. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. @Bondegezou, for the future, warning another editor of edit warring is not the same as notifying the editor of the filing of a report. Despite the lack of warning, there was too much disruption here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)