Page

Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 11:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC) "Zelda Rae Williams can be inserted in the infobox since she is notable."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Robin Williams. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Williams' children */ comment"

Comments:

Editor has been warned several times at the article talk page about not changing the content per discussion and consensus. There is an edit warning/direction imbedded at the info box which the editor has ignored at least twice. His behavior at the article talk page and at editor talk pages has been disruptive. He was also given a NPA warning a week ago for personal attacks at the same article talk page. I will be surprised if the most recent revert from him will be the last for this particular bit of content at the Robin Williams article. Asking for a preventative block based on obvious edit warring behavior with intent to continue regardless of discussion and warnings. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. We don't preventatively block editors, and there's no basis for filing an edit-warring report.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite confused. This policy [1] says differently. If admins don't preventatively block, then what does "preventative not punitive" mean in light of the policy link I posted above? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Two edits is not, in this situation, an indication of ongoing disruption, which would be a preventative block to prevent this ongoing disruption. If your interpretation were correct, you would need to be blocked as much (if not) than the editor you're in a dispute with, not least of all because you misused rollback in an entirely inappropriate way in a content dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If I did use regular rollback, it was inadvertently. I usually always use Twinkle for reverting. I don't misuse rollback and am very careful with it. If it ever might appear I have misused rollback, it was in error - a mistake only. And, sorry, but I completely disagree that I am being disruptive in this situation. Look at the user's history at the Robin Williams page. Look at his interactions with other editors at the same article's talk page. I truly doubt anyone involved in this disagreement with KahnJohn would say it is me being disruptive and not KahnJohn. User:Masem being one of the other editors who has "Experienced" KahnJohn's edits and behavior at the same article. But as far as the edit diff you included, no, it was not a misuse or inappropriate, but very appropriate considering the circumstances and the consensus already reached on the article talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You are still responsible for your mistakes just as everyone else is. You are being just as disruptive as the other editor (which isn't saying much because there's nothing terribly disruptive going on), but it's disingenuous for you to call for the block of an editor when your actions match theirs, even more so when you add the misuse of a user right to it. To my understanding, using twinkle in such a way would add (TW) to the end, but it's still terribly inapproriate; no edit summary and marking the edit as minor when it is anything but that is inappropriate. If you feel that your use of rollback was appropriate there that's a pretty clear sign that you need to have rollback rights removed until you learn when you can and cannot use rollback. Using rollback to edit-war is never appropriate, even if you think consensus has been reached (which I don't see in that discussion at all). - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess you're not understanding what I've said. I am almost completely certain I did NOT use regular rollback on that edit. I am 99.99% certain I used Twinkle rollback - it's not the same as someone having rollback rights using those rollback rights. Anyone in Wikipedia can get and use Twinkle to rollback. Once again: that revert was not done with rollback that is granted as a user right and privilege. And I most certainly was not demonstrating edit warring behavior. You're way off base, here. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I'm going to comment and then I don't want anyone to post anything more. First, Winkelvi, you're confused about preventative blocks. The way you're using the word, what you really mean is preemptive, meaning you think there's going to be disruption so you want a block before it happens. We don't do that. A normal preventative block is when there's already been sanctionable disruption, and you block to prevent further disruption. Here, there was no sanctionable disruption. One revert in 24 hours (you listed two but they were more than 24 hours apart) is hardly edit warring. Second, in one of your reverts of the other user, you did it with an explanation. To me, that's not a rollback. In the later one, you reverted without an explanation. That is a rollback as far as I'm concerned. We're done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Page: Russo-Georgian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UA Victory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [[2] ]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:The user UA Victory deletes contents without a valid reason other than to defend their own view of the facts.--Antonioptg (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This dispute has a long history. Start reading here. The user that reported me is a possible sock puppet of the Italian IP-hopping editor that was trying to push his POV a week ago. I reverted this registered editor's first two edits because they contained copyvios. He later changed text that violated copyright, but refused to address my concerns on talk page. --UA Victory (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

When I restored the last stable version, he reverted my edit and that was the first time I tagged this user's talk page for disruptive editing and WP:COPYVIO. However, he again continued edit warring without giving valid reasons on the article talk page. When he reverted my edit for the last time, I didn't continue to revert him, but he tagged my talk page for edit warring after 50 minutes. --UA Victory (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at the Russo-Georgian War: Revision history. User:Antonioptg does not use edit summaries in his/her edits to the article. This makes it hard to assess what he/she was doing. I assume that User:Antonioptg does not have roll-back (roll-back has this unfortunate feature). Talk:Russo-Georgian War: Revision history shows that whilst both editors use the talk page, neither has been in the habit of leaving edit summaries there either. Since 3RR has not been broken, and UA Victory clearly is willing to discuss edits, recommend no action at this time.

If UA Victory thinks that User:Antonioptg is a sock he/she should do a WP:SPI.

Please could both of them start doing edit summaries.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually use edit summaries when I edit articles. It's true that I don't use edit summaries for talk pages, because I've always assumed that when users edit talk pages, it's clear that they leave replies. I also believe that this Italian user is "he" since in Italy Antonio is a male name. Although I would like to discuss the changes, he avoids to address my objections. However I don't agree that there were no rules broken, because his very first edit contained text that infringed copyright; you can fact-check his added text against the cited sources. --UA Victory (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked User:Antonioptg for 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

Yworo (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Yworo, who identifies himself as a Wikipedia:Rouge admin, has falsely accused me of edit warring. This is apparently based on two edits I made to Gavin McInnes on August 30, 2014. In the first, I asked via my edit summary that User:greenrd justify his preceding edit by copying an external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlinking it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. He did not do so. Instead, he undid my intervening revision and commented testily in his edit summary, "for the last time, it's still there. the URL is the same. It's hidden by a Javascript banner so there is no other URL." In my next good-faith edit, I politely repeated my edit summary request that User:greenrd copy the external article's direct URL from his browser and hyperlink it to the words "online publication" in the disputed sentence. I also requested that User:greenrd explain to Wikipedia readers how to access a secret "hidden" link not visible to the naked eye. I again concluded my edit summary by saying thank you. And as before, User:greenrd did not comply with my simple, straightforward request to make his edit explicable to ordinary users of Wikipedia. Yet Rouge Admin Yworo nevertheless felt compelled to accuse me of edit warring! Finally, and with great difficulty, I managed to locate the Continue link in question. So I concede the article is not exactly "withdrawn." However, it's all but impossible to find. In any case, I emphatically deny Rouge Admin Yworo's allegation of edit warring. All of my edits were in good faith, meant solely to not mislead the Wikipedia reader. JohnValeron (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User was warned at 3 reverts, reported at 4 reverts per Wikipedia standards. All the required documentation is present. User seems to persist in believing that being "right" (which he isn't) is justification for edit-warring, which he has definitely committed. It isn't. Yworo (talk) 22:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and both users were at 3 reverts and I warned both of them. The other editor has not persisted past 3 reverts. Yworo (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, my 4th revert listed above was made in the heat of anger and was strictly the result of Rouge Admin Yworo baiting me minutes after falsely accusing me of edit warring. So there's that. JohnValeron (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It was not a false accusation, the template is intended to be used after a user has made 3 reverts in 24 hours, before they make their 4th revert. And correcting an article in good faith (as I did after verifying that Greenrd was indeed correct) is not "baiting", that's a personal attack. Really, have you bothered to read the page on edit warring? There is both a clear definition of what precisely edit warring means on Wikipedia, along with a description of how and when to warn and report people. And you shouldn't edit when angry. Yworo (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right. I should not edit when angry. But you did bait me. JohnValeron (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not. I researched the issue, then issued a warning to both edit-warring parties before attempting to correct it. I suggest that you deal with your anger issues rather than projecting "blame" on another editor who has been editing in good-faith for nearly ten years. Yworo (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You made NO attempt to resolve this at Talk:Gavin McInnes before accusing me of edit warring, which naturally angered me. You could have used Talk:Gavin McInnes to patiently explain why I could not see the nearly invisible Continue link that was at the root of the problem. You made no such effort. Instead, you manipulated me to get me blocked, which I suppose is your self-appointed mission as a Wikipedia:Rouge admin. JohnValeron (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You were edit-warring, plain and simple. I followed standard process, as I've been doing for at least the last seven years. Most editors read the related material and definitions, realize that they were indeed edit-warring, and stop. Your untoward reactions are not my fault. This conversation is done. Yworo (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

In what you list above as "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:" you confirm that you made NO attempt to resolve this at Talk:Gavin McInnes before accusing me of edit warring. And yet you insist that you were only following procedure? Rubbish. JohnValeron (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I explained what I was doing in detail in the edit summary. You didn't start a discussion either before you started to edit the article. Stop blaming other editors for your own faults. I am in no way required to discuss in the particular manner that you insist. I wasn't the one edit-warring, you were. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I too explained what I was doing in detail in my edit summaries. The difference between us is that I did not rush to falsely accuse, bait, and report a fellow editor. JohnValeron (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. You were repeatedly baiting User:Greenrd while repeatedly reverting him or her. I followed process, you fucked up. Period. I will not accept your accusations, and you can also be blocked for making personal attacks. You are not psychic, and have no fucking clue what is going on in another editors mind. You are just denying your own responsibility and being a jerk. Bye. Yworo (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! See what I mean? After that vile little tirade, Rouge Admin Yworo accuses me of making personal attacks! What a hoot. JohnValeron (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I see you've been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and harassment before. I've told you I did not intend to bait you. Insisting that I am lying is rude, and continuing to harass me about it is a blockable offence. You just don't seem to get that warnings are intended to help you avoid trouble. Take your passive-agressive bullshit off Wikipedia, please. Yworo (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

How utterly predictable. Rouge Admin Yworo now turns detective, dredging up an offense from three years ago to influence the decision in this case. To what low will Rouge Admin Yworo stoop next? Stay tuned. JohnValeron (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm not an admin. The rouge admin page is Wikipedia humour, a joke, as is the "Rouge non- admin" userbox on my user page. If I were an admin, you'd already be blocked. The only thing that has any bearing on whether or not you will be blocked for edit-warring is your attitude. I'd currently estimate that you have a 99% chance of being blocked. Only by admitting you were edit-warring will you avoid a block. If you continue to blame me, the admin responding will be sure that you don't "get it" and need a block to have a bit of time to think about it rather than blaming others. Cheers! Yworo (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Blame you? My dear fellow, not a bit of it! You've been the perfect gentleman in all of our encounters. You are by no means a rogue. JohnValeron (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, it's rouge (non-)admin, not rogue (non-)admin. That's part of the joke. Yworo (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per this comment JohnValeron has conceded that the pro-transphobia article is not really withdrawn, but can still be found by clicking past a warning screen. EdJohnston (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Page: War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soffredo (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623482315
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623482661
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623509072 "There's no point in going to the talk page about it."
4. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623521078
5. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_in_Donbass&diff=prev&oldid=623521842

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

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

Comments:
User keeps reverting and doesn't want to go to the talk page. He doesn't listen to what others are saying and continues to re-insert his edit. This is not the first time he has been blocked on this same issue. TL565 (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and as I said in one of my reverts, I realized you were trying to push me into 3RR with your unexplained reverts. Let me explain here. The DNR, LNR, and Russia all claim to be sovereign states. They should all be represented at an equal level. Novorossiya is a confederation and does not claim to be a sovereign state, so shouldn't be alongside Russia. There's a common misconception that Donetsk and Luhansk are provinces of Novorossiya [Soffredo] 03:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is how many reverts you make. More than 3 in 24 hours, you will likely be blocked. Yworo (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well it wouldn't have happened if I wasn't tricked into this with unexplained reverts. I was actually explaining my edits. [Soffredo] 03:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And that seems to be a personal attack. What, you're psychic so that you infallibly know what another editor's intent is? Isn't "he made me do it" a little childish? Take some bloody responibility for your own actions and keep track of your own reverts! Who the hell else do you expect to do it for you, your mom? Yworo (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Uh, no? I had justified edits. They did unexplained reverts and ended up reporting me. [Soffredo] 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not your edits are "justified" has no bearing whatsover on the issue. It's a simple count of reverts. That's it. Yworo (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if your prediction is right, I'll be blocked after suffering from a personal attack !! :: )) [Soffredo] 03:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make you do anything. You didn't want to go to the talk page after multiple people reverted you. By saying that i was luring you into 3rr, you admit you broke it and pretty much asked for it. TL565 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, had you read my reasons and done some research yourself, you'd know my edits were justified. As I said There's a common misconception that Donetsk and Luhansk are provinces of Novorossiya. [Soffredo] 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Soffredo, comments about being "tricked" are not very helpful. You've been told repeatedly in the past to take such matters to the talk page, rather than to keep reverting. Instead, despite being blocked multiple times for such nonsense, you continue the same old behaviour: ignoring the talk page and reverting away over the course of days. Please learn that reverting is not the right way to solve a dispute, discussion is. RGloucester — ☎ 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There'd be no revert dispute if the person who reported me didn't cause those last two edits. They were unexplained reverts why I explained why I edited. [Soffredo] 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop making excuses! It doesn't matter if you think you're right, you still broke the rule. TL565 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Well this 3RR post wouldn't even exist if you hadn't done your unexplained reverts. [Soffredo] 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Not counting your reverts is never another editor's "fault". Grow up! Yworo (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All of a sudden you care if it was explained or not? You're the one who said it was pointless to talk about it and were going to revert it anyway. TL565 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

All of a sudden you care if it was explained or not? Are you joking? I noted your unexplained reverts twice. Look at the last two links you initially posted. [Soffredo] 03:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you even get what I said? I said why do you care if they were not explained when you said that it was pointless to discuss the issue? You believe you are right no matter what anyone else says and revert anyway. Stop pointing fingers and just admit it. TL565 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of two weeks.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Page: El color de la pasión (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs between two revisions

1. [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:

Hi! I need an administrator to do something with that person. He only undoes my edits and if I asked him to explain he didn't even answer. Also he is making false accusations on me being sockpuppet of User:Sky0000. But soon tests show that I am not his puppet. He has already been punished 3 times as you see in block log. He undoes others reverts too. I just want that in Cast section will be more information. But he does not let me or others do that. Please, don't let him continue. Xaxi32 (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator observation) (The edit history from 2014 August 31 06:00 UTC and earlier shows two reversions from each of you. This board is generally only for violations of the three-revert rule, but I believe I need some clarification on this.)

Damian did give a reason in revision 623495387, "Unnecessary", and I would agree with that. I can't speak for another user, but I believe it's trivia that doesn't belong in the cast list.

Please defend yourself against the claims of sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 06:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know but I am sure that he undoes my edit again. Please don't decline the case. Also he has undone that revision from other user too 1 time. That means he has performed same undo 3 times. Xaxi32 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is what I say, being a new user, it is rare for me to know me, and know how to do is go here complaint. In the past he was told this user that these edits were wrong, and not wanted to understand. Although Xaxi32 denies being a puppet, his acting clearly betrays.--Damián ^(talk) 07:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The user has already reversed more than 3 times. And still the same. For more messages and explanations to be given still ignoring them. plus it seems to be a puppet of Sky0000. He is now reversing the user Ohnoitsjamie, is possibly using an ip to defend his edition.--Damián ^(talk) 15:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. I indeffed Xaxi32 as a sock puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Page

Akhand Kirtani Jatha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 00:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC) "This article has No Copyright Errors, I will add more references soon! I found alot of books I read about the AKJ."
4. 21:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has been previously warned for edit warring on a different article. So I believe they know about edit waring. I have also told them repeatedly about BRD cycle and requested them not to edit war. Multiple editors have reverted their version, but still they persist with a version, which violates many other policies such as WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:NPOV. The attempts to resolve can be seen at article talk page, and mine and their talk page. Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Plase Tell of any copyright errors in my article, since I don't see any. And My article is neutral. My article had facts that I also have references for. Sarabveer (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you paid attention to WP:NPOV, have you thought why multiple editors are reverting you ? --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Only you and some other guy that did it today. Not that many, And I Fixed More Copyright errors. Now Ill read this and fix it. I'm assuming after i fix it, again, There will be no issues. Sarabveer (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@User:Vigyani Also, since you are the one screaming at me :P, please point out what part of my article is not neutral Sarabveer (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Only if you revert back to the actual version. See WP:BRD. You made changes, I reverted, and then we discuss, that is the rule here on WP. I can explain you all the problems with your version. I had tried it, but you anyhow went ahead to implementing your changes. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You never tried anything, if you did, please list the problems here with my Current article. Sarabveer (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. -"WP:NPOV" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarabveer (talk • contribs) 13:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Page: La viuda negra (telenovela) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Glamorousselenaofficial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Edition of Glamorousselenaofficial

Comments:
The soap opera ended on June 8, 2014, and for some reason the user insists on eliminating the parameter end date. I have asked to add references and does nothing. The second season of the telenovela has not yet been confirmed, in the final chapter just says, "is history will continue." And that the only thing used as arguments to remove a parameter from the template.--Damián / talk 02:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor has been having difficulty with understanding how Wikipedia works for a while now. I have had to put two warning notices on their talk page this month. There does to seem to be a bit of a language barrier in play, and while I know that's not really an excuse, it could be a reason for the lack of understanding. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 04:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I recommend you to block Damián80, because he only undoes others reverts. He has deleted a lot of information of telenovela pages and he has already been punished 4 times for edit-wars. [16] Last time he begged unblock til he got unblocked before deadline. And actually he is the one, who starts edit warring.He thinks that Wikipedia is for him but it is for everyone, because of that he doesn't let others edit. I don't even edit telenovela pages because, I know that Damian undoes it. I hope you'll make right decision. Dasi34 (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Just filed an SPI for Dasi34 as a sock of Glamorousselenaofficial. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 07:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not his sockpuppet. Tests will confirm it. Dasi34 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've asked her to check if Dasi34 is a puppet account Sky0000. Just wait until it is confirmed.--Damián / talk 12:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Glamorousselenaofficial has been Indef blocked as a sock per SPI. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Page: George Waters (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Joefromrandb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I originally posted this at ANI, but was informed that that was not the best venue, as Joe's behaviour was uncivil rather than a personal attack. However, the edit warring issue is clear.

I edited the page George Waters (disambiguation) ([17]) with the edit summaries 'tidy per MOS:D' and '+1'. It was a very small tidy, the kind that I make a dozen of a day without issues, and following the guidelines for disambiguation pages. Joefromrnb then made the following edit undoing mine, with an edit summary ([18]): don't red-link personal names (unless, of course, you're a member of the disambiguation cabal, in which case all rules, up to and including BLP, cease to apply); the level of arrogance is simply staggering. The blp he referred to was actually a long-dead MP. He then undid another part of my edit ([19]) with the edit summary that's quite a misleading redirect and then another part of it with the edit summary WP:LINKSTYLE ([20]). I then thought that if I linked in my edit summaries directly to the policies I was following, Joe would understand, so made this edit [21] with the edit summary Please see MOS:DABPRIMARY; as this isn't an article, the guidelines are different, this [22] with Please see WP:DABREDIR and then this after I had read the comment about how the [my] level of arrogance is staggering ([23]) with edit summary: Instead of leaving rude edit summaries, please read MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. This was Joe's response, undoing all my edits with the edit summary don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't red-link personal names, don't r [24]. I was quite upset and looked at Joe's talk page to see if I should continue a discussion, but User talk:Joefromrandb showed lots of messages about his previous edit warring. I decided to completely leave the page and leave a message at WP: Wikiproject Disambiguation for a third person to look it over. Unfortunately the discussion did not go well: [25]. User:DuncanHill saw the message and restored the deleted entry: [26] with edit summary: legitimate redlink per " there clearly should be a corresponding article AND there is an existing article to link to (e.g., a blue link) elsewhere on the page". BLP does NOT apply as long dead. Joe deleted it with [27] an edit summary: (forum-shopping to the walled garden of a Wikiproject does not in any way override site-wide consensus; rv meatpuppetry). Joe was determined to remove the MP's link, but DuncanHill created George Waters (MP), edit summaries such as [incoming red links removed, this is now not only in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines, but much more importantly, with Wikiproject Disambiguation ([28]) aren't helpful.

The edit warring continued onto Mallow (UK Parliament constituency), where George Waters (MP) was listed [29], going beyond WP:3RR.

It also went onto George Waters, where Joe had seen that I had added a 'sections' and 'morecat' tag. See the page's edit history: [30]. I didn't get involved or respond, but DuncanHill reverted when Joe persistently removed my tags. In Joe's edit summaries, he described my edits as 'trolling' and wrote 'But it doesn't need the same fucking tag twice'.

It doesn't look good for WP when editors behave like this. Personally, I found it really upsetting. Boleyn (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Boleyn has previously reported this issue at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852#User:Joefromrandb and at WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Please help. See also WT:WikiProject Disambiguation#George Waters (disambiguation).EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thanks for giving the exact link, but this was stated at the top of the page. I was informed that ANI wasn't a good venue for it. Boleyn (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Pitch till you win, eh? Joefromrandb (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I don't know what to do with this. In my view, this should have remained at ANI. I don't see sufficient discussion there for Boleyn to believe it should have been transferred here. Of course, at this point, the edit warring is stale, another reason for not bringing it here. I nonetheless came close to blocking Joe for his disruptive edits and particularly for the personal attacks - no, not just incivility, which does not include calling other editors trolls and meat puppets (what is your basis for using those labels, Joe?). Then, I got bogged down in how long the block should be. If you look at the history and the last time he was brought to ANI in December 2013, this is a continuation of the same behavior, so by all rights, he should be blocked for longer than a month. Such a long block for such a good editor gave me real pause, so I'm punting this whole thing back at any other administrator who wants to handle it. It's a shame that such a solid and honest editor can't control his mouth (fingers?), but there are other examples of this, and I was reluctant to sanction him for such a long time. Nor did a warning make any sense as god knows he's had enough of them; another one would be really abdicating my responsibility as an administrator, as opposed to just sort of abdicating it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Bbb23 is entirely correct in that Boleyn received bad advice misunderstood a statement [31] on WT:AN as advice to bring it here, and Bbb23 is somewhat correct in that unilateral civility blocks by an admin on a non-troll / vandal are often controversial / more disruptive than the behavior they're addressing. (I'm saying "somewhat" here because being hesitant to block is not "abdication," it's prudence and good judgement. I certainly don't see any harm in yet another warning). I've requested Joe retract their personal attacks and am awaiting reply. Given the prior Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb was non-admin inactivity closed with no obvious conclusion -- the next steps would either be Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Joefromrandb2 or arbcom. (I don't have enough of a read on Arbcom 2014 to know if they'd consider sufficient dispute resolution as having taken place to accept a case.) NE Ent 15:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC) corrected NE Ent 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Boleyn actually didn't get ANY advice to bring it here. she was advised that they having been around long enough, they know the right places to take things. Their ANI talkpage discussion suggests they postulated 3 separate things: edit-warring, incivility, and bullying. The were reminded that AN/3 takes care of edit-warring (didn't need to say while it's ongoing), long-term incivility is the remit of WP:RFC/U, and that they had not even provided evidence of WP:HARASS or bullying behaviour. Why they brought a stale AN/3 report here is beyond me ... joe's continual attitude towards others is patently obvious (see even his response in this thread) the panda ₯’ 15:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• The ANI was archived quickly without any real discussion actually being had. When I queried why, I was advised that this would have been a better venue for this type of behaviour - apologies if I misunderstood that, but it really shouldn't be so hard to find help/advice. Just because an editor (in this case, myself) has been around a long time, doesn't mean he/she always know the exact venue to get help - I try not to get involved in disputes/edit warring, so it's not exactly my area. This is a real problem with Wikipedia - behaviour like Joe's upsets editors and damages the community, and it isn't easy to get help/advice in these cases, so incivil (nasty) editors continue to put people off editing Wikipedia. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your original ANI didn't contain anything immediately actionable by admins, so it was archived. We're apparently not permitted to block - or unblock - for minor incivility. As per multiple suggestions, a new WP:RFC/U is always open to you, seeing as many issues are being brought forward the panda ₯’ 16:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• The "meatpuppetry" comment was not directed at Boleyn, so I'm not going to discuss it here unless it's specifically requested. "Trolling", I'll admit was an inappropriate overreaction on my part; mea culpa. With that said, this is forum-shopping at its finest. This is not the page to complain that Joefromrandb is an asshole. AN3 is for administrator intervention against vandalism edit-warring. What intervention is being sought for an edit-war that is four days stale? "Punitive sanctions" is the only logical answer. Even more troubling is the fact that Boleyn is "reporting" me for an edit-war in which she was my counterpart. So while I admit to edit-warring and acknowledge that I should have handled the situation differently, Boleyn is playing the victim here. She says: "...the edit warring issue is clear"; indeed it is. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Page: White people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surlyduff50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments: In edit war with AndyTheGrump. Credible arguments on both sides, but edit warring is unacceptable and both should be punished.

31.49.243.63 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See below: but note also from Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users". AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Declined Stale, this happened a day ago, and we don't use blocks as punishments. Acroterion (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Criticism of Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Restored to best version. Revert as usual."
2. 18:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 18:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "You need to revise it. Only added the sources."
4. 18:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "The content was unsourced. This is explained."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Criticism of Hinduism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion on user talk page and User_talk:NeilN#Criticism_of_Hinduism. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am a new editor first of all. Secondly friend User: NeilN you need to understand that I added the sources to the articles as best as possible. Though there can be something wrong in commentary or it is written like an Essay. Thirdly I removed the unsourced content. This is what I did. I have no intention to harm wikipedia at all. And If I unfortunately did then I request for fogiveness. Thanks. Akshatra (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: I realize you are a new editor. That's why I gave you a "soft" warning about WP:3RR and again reiterated the need to use the talk page. However if you agree to use the talk page to discuss instead of just reverting back in your content then I think this report can be closed with "no action". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN I already went to your talk-page for a nice polite discussion before you reprted me. You can come to talkpage of the article. May be we can discuss over there peacefully. with regards, Akshatra (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If User:Akshatra will promise not to revert again until consensus is reached then this report might be closed with no action. His comment above falls short of that goal. If he won't make that agreement, the WP:3RR rule should be enforced. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

okay fine User:EdJohnston I am already discussing on the talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatra (talk • contribs) 19:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nope, still reverting --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN What's your problem? You are removing the sourced content. I will also report you next time if you revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshatra (talk • contribs) 20:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

My "problem" is your broken promise, you reverting three different editors, and your use of unreliable sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I am just reverting the fabricated things on that article. It is you who keep supporting such fabricated things and to push a POV. Bladesmulti is an orthodox hindu. You are making a big mistake buddy by removing edits. Akshatra (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours, since Akshatra did not accept my 19:31 offer but continued to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Probably sock puppet of Siddheart, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

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

Comments: In edit war with SurlyDuff50. Credible arguments on both sides, but edit warring is unacceptable and both should be punished. The fourth edit summary mentioned a weak BLP reason, perhaps because user knew he was breaking 3RR. Note this BLP reason was not mentioned before as a reason for removal. User has a long history of blocks and has not learnt from them: a more serious block might be necessary:

• Indefinite block: Legal threats
• 24 hour block: Edit warring
• 24 hour block: Edit warring
• 72 hour block: Incivility
• 12 hour block: Personal attacks and harrassment
• 24 hour block: Edit warring
• 1 week block: Personal attacks and harrassment
• 2 week block: Personal attacks and harrassment
• 24 hour block: Disruptive editing
• Indefinite block: Personal attacks and harrassment
• 10 day block: Edit warring

31.49.243.63 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I hope Andy is blocked from editing Wikipedia in the future. He is one of the nastiest people on the scene here and I think he is tolerated because partly people think he is funny and partly because of a long history of doing some good things. To me his negative nasty output of slamming people and aggressively doing most anything to get his edits marks him as a really bad apple. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't request that you be blocked for this flagrant violation of WP:NPA? You have made no comment whatsoever on the issue at hand (which has already been closed) but instead have chosen to make an entirely off-topic personal attack. Of course, were you to raise this so-called 'negative nasty output of slamming people and aggressively doing most anything to get his edits' at an appropriate place, I would be obliged to point out your own numerous failings in this regard... AndyTheGrump (talk)

Four points:

(a) The edits were over 24 hours ago.

(b) See Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users".

(c) The anonymous IP has started an RFC (improperly worded, in contravention of the requirement that the 'Statement should be neutral and brief' - it not only lacks neutrality, but brings up this WP:ANEW filing in the statement...) on the images in question - arguing for their inclusion. I would have to suggest that they are clearly involved, and that this filing may be seen as a way to win the debate through questionable means (or possibly as a way to get at me personally)

(d) Most importantly, there is a clear WP:BLP issue involved in unsourced labelling of identifiable minors by ethnicity and nationality. As the talk page indicates, I had made my reservations (which were clearly BLP related) clear to User:Surlyduff50 - the suggestion that I mentioned BLP solely to get around 3RR is self-evidently false.

As for my block record, it isn't good - but neither is it quite as bad as the raw data above might suggest. I would recommend looking at the full block log, and noting the unblocking summaries. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Declined Stale, this happened a day ago, and we don't use blocks as punishments. Acroterion (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52] [53] [54] [55]

Comments:
On the 1st July 2013 User:Thehistorian10 replied to my previous request of 3O stating that he was tempted to agree with my edits, but the suggestion was ignored by Director. I proposed to Director to propose alternative wording or sources, but he declined the offer. The general impression that I receive is that we face an issue of WP:OWN. However I must confess that it astronomically difficult to deal with Director. And it looks I am not the only one (if I am not wrong, I am the third person reporting him in less than 2 weeks).

• Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's take it as a start. However it is ironic that in the end the version protected is the one of the user who performed the violation of 3RR. However, let's see how it goes. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Template:.NET Framework version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Janagewen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [56] (Original contribution)
   • WP:BRD revert by me
2. [57]
3. [58]
4. [59]
   • Reverted by 36.72.25.57
5. [60] (WP:3RR violation)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archives//Archives/#What kinda release of Windows Server 2003 distribute .net framework 2.0?
• Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archives//Archives/#What Does "DISTRIBUTED" Really Mean in This Template?
• Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archives//Archives/#Before reverting or changing...
• User talk:Codename Lisa#Respect to yourself!
• His talk page history (a must see because he keeps blanking it)

Comments:

This editor is NOT a vandal, yet in all the honesty his edits are only slightly better than vandalism and his behavior is miles far from civil. He has already accosted I, Codename Lisa and Jeh and even used the filthy F word. (I mean F***.) He adds all caps sentences like "AS COMPANION OR AS PART OF WINDOWS", disregards WP:BRD and talk page consensus, removes contents that are verifiable against the source (e.g. "SP1" from Template:.NET Framework version history) added footnote that is not verifiable, despite being contested at least twice earlier. Moreover, he maintains a condescending attitude and contends that "the page is a mess" in spite of User:Codename Lisa have undergone a lot of trouble adding sources (see [61]). Please compare with S.Örvarr.S's civil behavior in the same page.

Although it is arguable whether he has violated 3RR or not, I contend that if I had reverted once more, he would have responded once more with a counter-revert without thinking. Fleet Command (talk) 06:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? That's your rationale? I wonder what would you do if Jeh or Codename Lisa later reverted you. After all, contributions without source or against the given source are eventually reverted... the nice way or the other way. Fleet Command (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert him, but I did reply to a bit of speculation he posted to the Windows XP talk page: [62] He then deleted my comment after replying to it, and then deleted the entire section. After being corrected on this per WP:TALK, he copied his material to his own user page (fine so far) and added a new "Not Welcome Buddy List" section, featuring both myself and CodenameLisa. He deleted this list shortly thereafter [63], and admitted it was a mistake [64], but this is not exactly a collaborative attitude.

His talk page entries are frequently... the kindest term I can think of is "difficult to comprehend". Here's another example: [65] I can't for the life of me figure out what he's trying to say with that; the entire mode of expression seems strange.

He also has a problem with learning the ways and rules of Wikipedia by observation. He often, when corrected, is apologetic [66] but often seems to proceed to another "issue."

I'd say the net result is "mostly harmless, but slow learner." As FC said above, J. is most definitely not a vandal; I have every reason to AGF. But I fear we're on a collision course with WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR. Jeh (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you've got issues mate. May I suggest that you calm down and put things in perspective...? That kind of thing is unlikely to boost your sympathy count here. Or anywhere else for that matter. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I'm considering sanctions; while I look, please note that Janagewen has been blanking comments (their own) from this discussion, and that's the reason some other people's posts look inconsequential. User:Janagewen, you're not supposed to blank comments in discussions, not even your own, when they have been answered. Doing so can make the person who answered you look confused or insane. If you regret what you wrote, instead use <s>..</s> to cross it through. Look in edit mode to see how I did this: that's the way. Bishonen | talk 17:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Well, dear Sirs and Madams, I know I am not welcome on Wikipedia.org. I just necessarily removed my improper replies. So do please not revert them, OK? I don't want to bring trouble or confusion. Now at this moment no matter what I do is always wrong! So I beg remove my account to get rid of troubles and confusions! Thank you! I beg you all do not comment anymore, my mental could not endure. I wish you people would leave me a reason in the future to visit Wikipedia.org, no matter what would happen to my account. Janagewen (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't restore your posts, because I understood that you regretted them. But I hope you understand for another time my point about crossing them out instead. You are very welcome to edit Wikipedia after the block (for which see below), just please try to do it more calmly. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Probably not a 3RR breach — it's a little confusing — but certainly edit warring. Also, while self-reverting when one is at risk of breaching 3RR is of course fine, the amount of back-and-forth self-reverting here, [67][68][69][70], raises worrying WP:CIR issues. (Note that the edits are consecutive; it's a monologue.) As do some other things. Anyway, blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Bishonen | talk 17:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Page: Gender of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nomnompuffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [71]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]
6. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79], [80], [81], [82]

Comments:

Edit-warring, personal attacks, vandalism-only account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I've also blocked the IP 190.59.15.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Bishonen | talk 23:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Correction: no, I guess I haven't blocked Nomnompuffs, as they had already been blocked for 48 hours by another admin. But I have blocked the IP. Bishonen | talk 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC).

Page

Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

[83]

[84]

[85]

[86] entire blanking of paragraph

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reverting after repeated warnings. Posts a comment on the article talk page, then reverts to their preferred version. Even after pointing out WP:BRD, they reverted. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The page uses a reference that does not relate to young earth creationism. It uses a reference that refers to young human creationism. Just because the people don't want to believe there is a difference, the difference is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This user does not understand how to contribute collegially. The wiki needs protection from further disruption which appears certain given the expressed attitude. Binksternet (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Confederate States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Texasreb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

On August 28, 2014 Texasreb was blocked for 48 hours; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive254#User:Texasreb reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: 48 hours). Upon his return today he made the exact same revert that he was blocked for:

1. [87]

After I reverted him a 2nd revert was made by Texasreb:

1. [88]

Among his responses to the block on the article's discussion page is the following:

1. [89]

which suggests that further discussion is unlikely to be productive. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a repeat of the same violation for which I issued a block a couple of days ago. It looks like he will keep going indefinitely unless a further block is issued. EdJohnston (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Endurance International Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623533065 by Tutelary (talk) --- Does not apply, because this is a historical fact concerning the worldwide web"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) to 04:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
   1. 04:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623532029 by Tutelary (talk) ------- This is historically accurate. Why the agenda to remove it?"
   2. 04:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623532113 by Tutelary (talk)"
3. 04:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623531572 by Tutelary (talk)"
4. 03:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 613515646 by Tutelary (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "r"
2. 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 04:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring */"
4. 04:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit Warring Follow Up */ r"

Comments:

This editor has previously not edited for over three years (since 2011) but has since taken a vested interest in this exact topic. This is a content dispute; and I will admit that, but they're already at 5RR and I feel that only a block for edit warring will get them to discuss their changes rather than to continuously revert. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment When I saw the last revert this morning, I left the user a message stating that he had violated 3RR and inviting him to self-revert.[90] That message got no response; it's been nine hours since the user's last edit. I've reinstated the tag that was deleted from the article. Personally, I'm inclined to wait until the user's next edit to act. If he engages in discussion, we have no problem. If it's a revert, then he's saying by actions that he intends to continue to edit war, and a block to prevent further disruption is warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

C.Fred

It is true that I have not edited a page since 2011. I don't usually see a need to get involved in WikiPedia. In fact, I'll confess my ignorance in that I don't exactly know how to use it or else I would have reported the user Tutelary from the beginning (something I don't even know how to do). Editing WikiPedia is somewhat complicated and there is so much "shortcode" that I find myself lost.

However my inexperience or lack of activity or even lack of seniority is irrelevant in the quest for obtaining historical factual information, which is what WikiPedia is all about. And someone writing and erasing history is not what an Encyclopedia is for. WikiPedia defines an encyclopaedia as:

An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[2] Encyclopedias are divided into articles or entries, which are usually accessed alphabetically by article name.[3] Encyclopedia entries are longer and more detailed than those in most dictionaries.[3] Generally speaking, unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information to cover the thing or concept for which the article name stands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

The argue made by Tutelary is that when X site goes down its not historical enough to warrant an entry and on the face value principle he would be right, except for the fact that we're not talking about a single website or even a small provider. When a large provider essentially becomes part of the backbone of the internet and its network outage takes offline so much of the internet that CNN, ABC, CBS actually do a report on it... That is something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldschooldsl (talk • contribs) 16:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Oldschooldsl is warned for violating WP:3RR on 31 August. If he continues to revert the article before getting consensus on the talk page he may be blocked without further warning. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: 2014 celebrity pictures hack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Discospinster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]
5. [96]

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

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

Comments:

Removal of external links relevant to the topic. Links in no way violate any Wikipedia policy, clearly this user is just a silly kid getting his kicks by vandalising and edit warring. 101.163.108.17 (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER and WP:ELNO point #3. We don't post links to stolen material. Grow up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Reporter already appropriately blocked by Discospinster. We don't link to stolen personal images per ELNO, BLP and common decency. Acroterion (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: User talk:Matt 20123 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Matt 20123 (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. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]
5. [101]
6. [102]

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

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

Comments:

This user continued to remove sections on his talk page without replying. My section stated that his edits were inappropriate and should leave a summary of his edits. I tried telling the user he can just reply after he removed the section, yet he removed it again. I then gave him a notice that I'm reporting him

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Theironminer (talk • contribs) 06:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

User once again removed section from talk page with no response. - Theironminer (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Atlético Madrid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) to 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Griezmann is a left winger! In European media, including the English, he is known as João Miranda."
3. 23:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/joao-miranda-set-manchester-united-3673176 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2654243/Manchester-United-target-Miranda-reveals-talks-English-Spanish-clubs.html"
4. 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 16:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 11:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Ángel Correa not part of the first team"
7. 11:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
8. 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC) ""
9. 23:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""
10. 23:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC) "Griezmann is a winger; # 23 is known in Spain as João Miranda; # 25 is known by the nickname Bono."
11. 23:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Atlético Madrid. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[103]

Comments:

He has made many hidden reverts (against multiple editors) adding name to player and changing position without any discussion. The source (officiall club webpage) of the squad he makes changes to says one thing and he wants an other thing for the player names. Now he even moved page Miranda (footballer) to João Miranda (footballer) just to be able to add the player name in Athletico article. Has history of edit warring and vandalism (blocked three times in six months). He also went to talk page of one of the other editors User talk:83.84.245.25 and added warning I gave to him (including a diff of his incorrect edit). Does not seem to understand he should not edit war and cant always get his ideas through. QED237 (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to warn/inform on his talkpage had no affect and prevoius history told me he would not listen. QED237 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And now the editor has even moved the article for Miranda again. Wow, does he not know he should not move articles unless they are not controversial and definately not move again. QED237 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello friends. First, it became something personal to you Qed237. Incidentally, it is not true that I did not answer him, just to see his talk page. Look at my edits, I'm not a thug. I try to maintain consistency in my edits. Know much Spanish championship. In several seasons at the Royal Society and in the first game with Atletico Madrid, Antoine Griezmann has been a true winger, listed as MF. Many advanced players are listed as forwards, but really, he's a winger. Regarding Miranda, actually many sources cite him as João Miranda (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/joao-miranda-set-manchester-united-3673176) and (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2654243/Manchester-United-target-Miranda-reveals-talks-English-Spanish-clubs.html), so it is common sense that your full name is listed, after all, Miranda is his last name and not his surname. Greetings User:Gringoladomenegatalk 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You gave one very minor explanation at my talk, I responded, and then nothing. You should discuss and not just leave one message practically saying "I am right" and then never speak again. That is not how a discussion works. Secondly why are you adding links to other sources and not accepting the source used for the squad which is the team official webpage, that list Miranda for the brazilian player and has Griezmann as a forward (yes a winger can be a forward for example in a 4-3-3). Thirdly a page move shouild NEVER be done when a dispute then go and do a requested move to find consensus before moving pages. And even if you believe you are right you are never allowed to do all those reverts anyway. QED237 (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And you say common sense to use last name, that is not true for brazilian players i.e. Robinho, Ronaldinho and so on. QED237 (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Ekk Nayi Pehchaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalise by Philip Trueman (talk) and multipal account of user:theredpenofdoom"
2. 11:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalise by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
3. 11:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalise by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
4. 10:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalise by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"
5. 10:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "removing vandalise by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[104]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP revertwarring to keep totally unsourced fancruft etc (which judging by style, level of English etc most probably are copyright violations) in an article about an Indian TV series. Thomas.W ^talk 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC

Page

IPhone 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624027933 by This lousy T-shirt (talk)"
2. 16:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624027656 by This lousy T-shirt (talk)"
3. 16:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 19:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on IPhone 6. (TW)"
2. 16:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on IPhone 6. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user keeps nominating this redirect page for deletion as a test page! —This lousy T-shirt— (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note IP has not been warned specifically about 3RR/edit warring. Leaving warning now. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please can one of you guys sort out STATicVapor; he has been coming across uncivil; he had reverted my edits on 808's & Heartbreak and has called me a sock, and has caused a bit of fuss with Scorpion0422 as Scorpion wrote on STATicVapor's talk page [your] reverting of this edit was completely wrong. Yes, the IP was a little harsh but he was completely in the right and using language does not necessarily mean he is a vandal. If you had done even the smallest amount of research (ie. Just looking at the wrestler's Wikipedia page) you would see that The Ultimate Warrior's birth name is indeed James Hellwig and not Warrior (or, you could have just used common sense). I suggest that in the future you exercise some restraint with your itchy revert finger and make sure you aren't re-adding factual inaccuracies. -- Scorpion0422 20:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC) and accused Scorpion0422 of being uncivil when that editor is being uncivil; when I asked them why did they revert my edits they reverted my edit again, in a nutshell they are a continue page edit warrior/genre warrior/vandal Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And also made a personal attack to BlaccCrab Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI Is thataway Amortias (T)(C) 20:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• No violation As Amortias said, this is not the venue for your concerns. —C.Fred (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The reporter is at 4RR. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The reporter has been blocked as a sock by User:Diannaa. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[105]

Page

Ekk Nayi Pehchaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.62.21.133 (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

what the action do user TheRedPenofDoom is also involed in edit war more than 10 times he reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ekk_Nayi_Pehchaan&action=history so take the action also him 178.62.59.70 (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, he was removing your sock's vandalism. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected by User:Yunshui. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: original

Diffs of the user's reverts (last ones only):

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [107]

Comments:

This edit war started today (first against other user). It looked like to be over, but seems not. The question seems to be using the historical or the comercial designation of a trophy. User:SLBedit don't looks like on a mood to expose his arguments on the talk page, just reverting the editions to prove his POV. After the 3rr warning, he copied it onto my own talk page [108]Rpo.castro (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:SLBedit is warned. They may be blocked without further notice if they continue to revert at List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won without getting consensus on Talk for their change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Gwen Stefani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 623663915 by IPadPerson (talk) Reverting without proper reason. Vandalism."
2. 11:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624073680 by IPadPerson (talk) Are u blind? Why are u reverting stuff? They are sourcered!"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC) to 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624157161 by IPadPerson (talk)"
   2. 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624166451 by 91.154.96.7 (talk) Why are you removing info, which is sourcered. What is your reason?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gwen Stefani. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is fraudalently adding the same disruptive material while ignoring my request for IP to knock it off. I suggest that he/she be blocked so that person can leave me alone and stop with these threats. IPadPerson (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Edit warring by IPs who don't use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Historicity of Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Bill the Cat 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Link to revision history [110]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111][112]

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

Comments:

• Result: Article protected one day by User:Samsara. Please include diffs in your reports. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: The Weight of Chains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: The disputed text identifies the film as "Canadian". The edit war over this particular text is many years old, and even the most recent battle has been raging for months. I don't have time to go all the way back in the page history to find the original version reverted to. The diffs below cover only the last month.

Reverts by Pincrete (in the last month alone):

Collapse long list of reverts to save space here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
18:19, 7 August 2014 14:38, 14 August 2014 15:34, 14 August 2014 17:36, 14 August 2014 23:31, 15 August 2014 21:07, 26 August 2014 01:35, 28 August 2014 19:56, 28 August 2014 20:53, 28 August 2014 00:08, 30 August 2014 18:40, 30 August 2014 22:25, 1 September 2014 12:18, 2 September 2014 14:41, 3 September 2014 15:26, 3 September 2014 15:54, 3 September 2014 18:16, 3 September 2014 19:19, 3 September 2014 19:34, 3 September 2014 21:05, 3 September 2014 16:09, 4 September 2014 Reverts by UrbanVillager (in the last month alone): 18:29, 8 August 2014 13:27, 13 August 2014 13:06, 14 August 2014 15:18, 14 August 2014 17:09, 14 August 2014 16:26, 15 August 2014 21:18, 15 August 2014 21:22, 15 August 2014 13:04, 27 August 2014 00:51, 28 August 2014 19:21, 28 August 2014 20:26, 28 August 2014 22:52, 29 August 2014 17:47, 30 August 2014 20:59, 1 September 2014 21:25, 1 September 2014 11:20, 2 September 2014 00:19, 3 September 2014 13:41, 3 September 2014 15:03, 3 September 2014 15:44, 3 September 2014 18:11, 3 September 2014 18:24, 3 September 2014 19:32, 3 September 2014 19:54, 3 September 2014 23:19, 3 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The two users have already warned each other about "edit warring" and "vandalism" multiple times via edit summaries (see above diffs) and on the article talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113] [114] … … Additional attempts at resolution (added by Pincrete) Here :-[115] and Here:-[116]

Comments:

Preliminary response from Pincrete, I hope that I am editing in the right place, if not please move this post. I am glad that this matter has come to a noticeboard and intended myself to initiate admin. action. As a preliminary response I wish 1). to draw attention to my many attempts on talk to resolve this, prior to, and in spite of 'vandalistic' reverts (I characterise these reverts thus as they include restoring ungrammatical English, removing text which has been in the article for more than two years unreferenced (some of it covered by BLP) , seemingly, for no better reason than that I had added long overdue references) … … 2) to draw attention to the fact that I ALREADY called a 'truce' prior to this matter coming to this noticeboard, my reasons for calling this 'truce' were that UrbanVillager, had extended his vandalism into removing whole sections of the article (criticism section), then - grudgingly - restoring his 'modified' versions, which again actually factually contravened BLP. These 'revisions' were written prejudicially and there had been long term consensus regarding reliability of sources for the whole section. (I called a 'truce' only, and explicitly because I saw the need for admin intervention, not because of any valid arguments) … … 3) I also draw attention to the 'edit reasons' given by UrbanVillager, which are frequently abusive, blame people who are not responsible for content and which - on at least one occasion - have been overtly racist. … … 4) I acknowledge engaging in an 'edit war', but did so ONLY when every possible avenue of resolution was exhausted, and when the clear wish of the majority of editors was being over-ruled and every conceivable compromise was simply ignored. 5) I have NEVER sought to impose a prejudicial claim as to the nationality of this film, merely to assert that we either give weight to ALL RSs, or, - even simpler - omit mention of nationality. 6) I am unsure whether User:Bobrayner has been notified, however since he has been a party to this dispute, I intend to notify him. … …Lastly, I draw attention to my own edit record, which - prior to this event - amounts to almost NEVER having used the 'undo' button. I will post more fully when there is time.Pincrete (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to dispute anything, the evidence is there, though I would've appreciated a warning before this was reported here. The main reason why I reverted was because Pincrete kept removing the word "Canadian" before "documentary film", even though The Weight of Chains was produced by a Canadian production company, the film credits themselves point out that "This is a Canadian film" and there are credible sources (I listed around 7, some were removed by Pincrete) that testify that the film is Canadian. Considering the fact that Pincrete has, more than once, pushed his or her POV in regards to Boris Malagurski-related articles, I simply lost my patience and kept reverting as I saw the removal of reliably sourced content as vandalism. However, I did remove sourced content myself - the "Criticism" section - but the sources listed there were blogs (yes, blogs), so I thought that was unacceptable for Wikipedia. If I made a mistake, I deeply apologize and await Wikipedia's punishment with respect. Regards, --UrbanVillager (talk) 12:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both Pincrete and UrbanVillager are warned that they may be blocked without notice if either of them they reverts again before consensus is reached on Talk. Consider asking for assistance at WP:3O or WP:DRN. More advice is at WP:Dispute resolution. The topic of this film is covered by WP:ARBMAC. That decision allows giving article bans if it is found that an editor is unable to work in a neutral manner. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

War in Donbass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624301631 by 91.134.65.79 (talk) Unexplained"
2. 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624301189 by NeilN (talk) Maybe read the source? "The Ukrainian government and pro-Russian rebels have signed a truce deal to END almost five months of fighting.""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user was recently placed under WP:1RR. He had previously edit-warred at War in Donbass, despite being aware that his edits were subject to discretionary sanctions there, and hence was blocked for two weeks. As a condition of his unblocking, he submitted to being under WP:1RR. Today, he has already broken this restriction. He clearly has not learned any lessons at all from his recent experience. Perhaps a topic ban under discretionary sanctions is in order. RGloucester — ☎ 15:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I already brought this to the talk page, so I don't get why Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page is blank. I don't understand how this goes against WP:1RR was I reverted two separate edits. [Soffredo] 15:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should've read the guideline cited by the unblocking administrator, DangerousPanda, which he told you to read carefully. As it says at WP:3RR, linked at that guideline, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period". It doesn't matter who's edit it was. You can only revert one edit, in total, for 24 hours. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 days I have taken the original 2 week block, subtracted 2 days previously served before accepting editing restrictions. Next block escalates to 1 month the panda ₯’ 20:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Vaccine controversies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "/* MMR vaccine */ MEDRS has no bearing on news stories. Removed the Blaze and inserted CNN in its place and added additional information"
2. 16:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624171393 by Yobol (talk) undoing whitewashing. See talk page on THIS article"
3. 16:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624175067 by Dawn Bard (talk)consensus? I'm not part of your consensus."
4. 16:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624177448 by Yobol (talk) Count zero editors willing to respond on this article's talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See here

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I'm trying.[117] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• Result: Article protected one week. Use the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Is there any particular reason why DonEladio didn't receive a block? Their refusal to listen to advice and continue to repeat contested edits constitutes very aggressive edit warring. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DonEliado was only one of the three editors who broke 3RR, and his reverts were stale. If he resumes you can file a new report. Protection is sometimes better than multiple blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Battle of Borodino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

ZinedineZidane98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 622032889 by Charlesdrakew (talk) see Talk, stop deleting sources, your opinion is neither "consensus" nor a source"
2. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624436808 by Charlesdrakew (talk) no, it isn't stop lying"
3. 17:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624437638 by Alexandru.demian (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Battle of Borodino. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Resumption of previous edit war over this issue. Talk page consensus is very clearly against the change being made. Charles (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours for long-term warring. The editor has reverted the outcome of the battle six times since mid-August, and shows no inclination to listen to anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Sailor Moon Super S: The Movie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.16.64.8 (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]

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

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

Comments:
This user is the same one who cause disruption to the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article (which was merged) by using an IP (both IPs are located in Indiana and Fireball24fire (talk · contribs) ([125]) and it was protected for a week as a result. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. If these IPs are causing trouble elsewhere, consider an SPI. The geolocation is distinctive. Are you sure that User:Fireball24fire is the same person? Their edits seem better. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: La impostora (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
En otra piel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Damián80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs between 2 revisions [126] [127] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dswq78 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

Hello! I need an administrator. Damián80 is taking information from page and when someone is trying to stop him then he undoes edits. Also he is warring in page En otra piel for same information too. Please stop him. I am just witness there. But please help! Dswq78 (talk)

I also add here a page, where you can see how much that user eliminates information, section:Elimination of information [128]

Aug 14, 16:19. A vida da gente. -3,948

Aug 14, 00:35. Quererte así. -1,059

Aug 14, 00:01, Libre para amarte. -10,061

Aug 13, 23:56, La impostora. -1,531

Aug 12, 23:21, Los rey. -15,955

Aug 12, 22:51. Vivir a destiempo. -20,955

Aug 12, 18:52. La que no podía amar. -3,875

Aug 12, 14:00. Lo que la vida me robó. -7,223

Aug 12, 01:07. Santa diabla. -3,672 and much more.Dswq78 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I have nothing to say, obviously it is Sky0000 again. Who created a new puppet. I ordered a verification of accounts. I recommend you read what it says here.--Damián ^(talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That person's behavior is incredible. Sky0000 account creation was blocked, how he could do a new account?. And in En otra piel there is a section about United States Broadcast. That broadcast is allowed and other countrys' are not? Also what that sockpuppet investigation matters here? I was not warring there. That person has to see a psychiatrist immediately. Dswq78 (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved non-admin) Just to let you know, the personal attack is inappropriate. Do not cast aspersions about another editor's mental health. LazyBastardGuy 00:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Edit warring by IP socks. The submitter of this report, Dswq78, has been reported by User:Damián80 at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky0000, which seems logical. Whoever closes the SPI can decide if Dswq78 is part of the gang. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Template:New Orleans Saints roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 20:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 00:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Template:New Orleans Saints roster. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has reverted two editors (twice each), no edit summaries or explanations. Arxiloxos (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts; warned prior. Kuru (talk) 12:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Well, no. We don't use POV terms unchallenged. Find a way to write it so it's not in Wikipedia's voice."
2. 16:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC) ""Social justice warrior" is not NPOV."
3. 15:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "We don't republish claims that someone is a "social justice warrior." It's a pejorative label."
4. 15:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ This is entirely separate from the Quinn issue. Also, you realize that "social representation and cultural meaning" *are part of the content of games*? Cultural meaning is not a "social issue.""
5. 15:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Um, no, First of all, we cannot describe someone as a "social justice warrior" - that is a pejorative, non-self-applied term. Second of all, the accusations have been laid by many others than just feminists."
6. 15:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Responses */ Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person. Doesn't matter that Al Jazeera put his tweet in a list."
7. 15:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ Add sourced statement from Kain."
8. Consecutive edits made from 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) to 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "There's nothing in the source about "left-wing ideology." Include Kotaku's refutation of this claim."
   2. 15:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Background */ write to source."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on GamerGate. (TW)"
2. 16:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ r"
3. 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ add"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user seems bent on restoring his own preferred version and doesn't see fit that he follow the WP:3RR. Even after I warned him, he went ahead and reverted anyways, and has been reverting more than 3RR for the entire day. Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The removal of material sourced to Breitbart which makes derogatory claims about a living person is self-explanatory - that source blatantly violates BLP as an unreliable source.

We cannot describe people as "a social justice warrior." That is a pejorative, non-self-applied epithet, and Tutelary has been repeatedly attempting to revert into the article the uncontested statement that people are "social justice warriors" without qualifying the statement as an derogatory, pejorative epithet.

The fact is, nobody else wants to try and maintain this horrifyingly-BLP-issue-filled article that involves multiple ill-founded and outright-disproved claims about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing was -not- cited to breitbart, it was cited to The Guardian. Also, that does not give you cause to revert more than 3 times in a single day. Tutelary (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"Nothing in Breitbart can be used to support any claim about a living person." That revert is self-explanatory in the edit summary. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't explain any of your other reverts and it wasn't sourced to Breitbart, it was sourced to Aljezera, who is a RS. Tutelary (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it wasn't "sourced" to Al-Jazeera - it was nothing more than a tweet linked in an unsigned aggregation. There was no obvious attempt at fact-checking nor was there a byline to demonstrate accountability. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and how do you know that? Because it doesn't fit the viewpoint that you have on the subject? Did you actually ask them, or are you just assuming? Tutelary (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are free to read the thing for yourself. There is no byline and we don't whitewash sources. Al-Jazeera isn't reporting it; they're reporting that some other obviously-unreliable source said it. That doesn't convert it into a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

When an un RS source is picked up by a RS, that means we can attribute the RS since they did fact checking and sorts on the un RS. To add, There was no obvious attempt at fact-checking nor was there a byline to demonstrate accountability., please tell me how you know this is not the case. Tutelary (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, we can't attribute anything from Breitbart, and the RS has not "picked it up" at all - that is, Al-Jazeera is not reporting in its own words that something is the case. Instead, what we have is a game of telephone, in which Al-Jazeera is simply uncritically repeating that "some Breitbart writer has said X." That doesn't make X reliable or acceptable, because all we have is the fact that some Breitbart writer said something. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The reporting user is ignoring the "social justice warrior" issue, in which he has repeatedly attempted to reinsert unchallenged claims that certain people are "social justice warriors," which we simply may not do. That's how he became involved - trying to enforce in Wikipedia the use of a term which is clearly unacceptable unless noted that it is someone's opinion and that it is a pejorative epithet. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not my saying, the editor before me was adding in the content from The Guardian, which you too are basing your own content, but are conveniently omitting the negative bits. Also, a single source saying some word is bad does not make the word bad. Tutelary (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're claiming that the phrase is not pejorative? Please provide any reliable source which states that the term is not pejorative.

You and the other editor literally ignored the key wording in your own quote - "writers they refer to as social justice warriors." The Guardian writer is stating that some people think that those people are "social justice warriors," not that someone is a "social justice warrior."

We can make the statement that some people are pejoratively referred to as social justice warriors - we cannot, as you attempted to enforce through reverting [129] make the unchallenged statement that supporters of left-wing ideology (are) called "Social Justice Warriors". NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this 'pejoratively referred to as social justice warriors ' that you like to phrase a lot? I'm not seeing it in -any- sources at all. It seems you like to claim the word is offensive without any sourcing, and a Magazine is not sufficient enough as a source. If it was offensive, The Guardian would have stated such. And do take note of WP:PRESERVE, where you're to fix problems, not outright remove content. Do not remove information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage. You say it's poorly presented, and make no effort to fix it even though that's what you're obligated to do per WP:PRESERVE. In any case, you are grossly over 3RR. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"A magazine is not sufficient enough as a source" - are you kidding? But hey, how about an academic blog supported by the National Science Foundation?

I did rewrite the passage, once given space to adequately describe the claim and counterclaim. The current version is acceptable as it describes the term as pejorative and counters the use of the word with reliably-sourced criticism of the phrase.

Your claim that the phrase is not pejorative is disingenuous and self-evidently ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary reliable source for the use of "pejoratively" and you were clearly edit warring to remove the Guardian cite. They you know a word is pejorative is not, alas, a defence here. Nor is the term applied AFAICT to specific living persons as opposed to a large set of game developers -- thus I suggest involving WP:BLP for such a large set of people may not work. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is pretty clear that it's a pejorative. This article is even clearer. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result:

I've protected the page for one week due to the edit warring and possible BLP issues. All parties should work out the issues on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's a shame you didn't just block the edit-warring editors, I was going to add to the article this evening to include Jenn Frank's response and her subsequent disengagement with video game writing. The bulk of GamerGate is already past tense, I'm not sure freezing the article for a week is of any real benefit. - hahnchen 18:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You're seriously going to claim that I was edit warring, when North is about 9 reverts? The only reason he isn't blocked yet is because this is a touchy topic. Tutelary (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know and I don't care about the article history. I just know the actions here mean I can't edit the article. The article needs editing. - hahnchen 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You - and others - tried to insert the "social justice warriors" stuff sourced to an opinion piece in the Guardian (the paragraph even begins "For me..."). Now that the Zoe Quinn article has been pretty much purged of the inappropriate material, moving to this article really isn't a good idea. And that's why he hasn't been blocked. (and also because the article is at AfD, let's get that out of the way first). Black Kite (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think that The Guardian isn't reliable, then don't use it, but purge the entire page of it, you can't like one instance of 'The Guardian' and not another. The blogs are under their distinct editorial control as well, like any content that goes on the site. Tutelary (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardian journalism is completely reliable; opinion pieces in it are not (or, at least, they need to be prefaced with "X, writing in the Guardian, expressed the opinion that..."). That's fairly standard for all RS newspapers. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocking everyone wasn't really a feasible preventative solution here, not least because North's reverts were motivated by a concern to remove possible BLP violations. Hahnchen, I sympathize, but everyone can still hammer out wording and make suggested improvements on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Sabazius01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624648155 by Dougweller (talk) Reverting possible vandalism by (talk) This section is historically relevant"
2. 09:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624648009 by Dougweller (talk) according to the published citation Plutarch asserted that Zoroaster lived prior to 6000 BCE"
3. 01:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624604601 by PhilKnight (talk) Improper use of source material: does not correlate with the discourse that precedes the citation."
4. 12:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624532361 by PhilKnight (talk) Reverting possible vandalism by PhilKnight"
5. 12:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624531069 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
6. 12:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624530471 by JaconaFrere (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warned at [130] 12:35, 7 September 2014‎. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

POV SPA, and some of the changes contradict the sources. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And yet another revert.[131]. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Vsmith (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Eyewitness44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 15:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624679244 by DeCausa (talk)"
4. 15:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624680057 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 15:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* The article is generally biased against Muslims and to a large extent unreliable. */ new section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warnings: [132] NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User has been reverted by four editors, asked repeatedly to discuss issues instead of editors. Almost nothing useful contributed to the site, the initial attack and edit warring to restore the attack make up half their edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That plus the "Do not disturb" sign put on the talk page immediately on creation of the account suggests a trolling/disruption-only account and WP:NOTHERE. Probably shouldn't be here. DeCausa (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Eyewitness44 (talk · contribs) 60 hours for the combination of disruptive editing and edit warring. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 16:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Kirkland Lake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624673824 by Dusti (talk) Feel that Nadine Atoniazzi is indeed noteworthy, due her untimely death and its relation to the shares of her husband's company Opawica Explorations."
2. 12:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624624162 by Magnolia677 (talk) I disagree. I feel she is the most notable person in Kirkland Lake in the past ten years."
3. 02:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable people */ I am attempting to add this entry using reliable sources. Have done so. Three independent sources included, unreliable source removed. Apologies, it is not my intent to self-promote."
4. 00:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Notable people */ Added entry Nadine Antoniazzi with references."
5. 22:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC) "Nadine Antoniazzi died of a reported suicide in 2008. Some feel her death is suspicious and may be connected to the IPO of her husband's company, Opawica Expl., shortly after her death. The shares have lost more than 95% of their value since the IPO."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on [[133]]. (TW)"
2. 15:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Kirkland Lake. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Granted some of the communication was taking place in edit summaries - he was warned by @Magnolia677: and myself - and continued to try and push the individual in. I gave a soft warning on his talk page, and he's continued to try push the content in. I'm not going any further than my two reverts to avoid hitting 3RR like he has Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this report. The user has responded to my talk page and I think with a little more effort I can help him understand a little more about our policies. I've never seen a case withdrawn here before, so I don't know if I can do so, hence this comment. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 16:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked per Dusti's request. Wifione ^Message 17:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Taylor DuPriest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.53.37.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Just look at the history[134], they reverted many times. I just did it again. They replace content with something totally unrelated to the article. Just a vandalism only account, they having no other edits. Two people posted warnings on their talk page, but they still keep edit warring.

Warnings on talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:50.53.37.13

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

Comments:

• Already blocked by Alexf. Wifione ^Message 17:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

He's breaching WP:Consensus and edit-warring at the article Scientific Development Concept. He's removing useful content and replacing it with WP:FRINGE content. Also, he's pressing on the view that the CPC is non-ideological, a view which is not in the majority. What China is, and is not, ideologically is still debated (for instance, around the Mao's birth anniversary people wrote about Mao's influence on Xi Jinping, and on the anniversary of Deng's birth, writers wrote about Deng's influence on Xi). At last, there are some who claim the party is non-ideological, pragmatist or simply capitalists. These views should all be allowed in the article, properly sourced. For some reason for supporting such a position Dark Liberty claims I have a conflict of interest in the article, which I don't understand. My point is; he is edit-warring and adding (and removing) information which is deemed controversial, which is in breach of consensus. While I don't want him blocked, he should at least get a warning. --TIAYN (talk) 07:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Scientific Development Theory is non-ideological? What are you talking about? Dark Liberty (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What are you talking about? You seem to have given a wrong article link here. Please provide diffs if you want us to act on any edit warring issue. Else, this report will be closed soon. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• Declined. I understand the article that you're referring to is Scientific Outlook on Development. I also see that you both have just about started to discuss the issues on the talk page. Please continue the talk page discussions. Invite Dark Liberty congenially to come to the article's talk page to discuss. I notice that you're getting too uptight about the editor's comments. Try not to do that. You both are accusing each other of CoI; try not to do that. Like I said, continue discussion calmly on the talk page. If the situation doesn't improve, try dispute resolution. Come back if the edit warring worsens. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:25, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624619637 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the phrase "The...was the direct impetus for the raids organized by the Germans" previously found in revision 624619408)

2. 00:04, 8 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624600103 by 50.184.178.162 (Drmies restored the word "direct" previously found in revision 624569523)

3. 03:06, 7 September 2014‎

   Drmies undid revision 624493355 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "German camps" previously found in revision 624492613)

4. 02:55, 7 September 2014

   Drmies undid revision 624491979 by Viriditas (Drmies restored the term "combined with his apparently non-Jewish appearance" previously found in revision 624488041)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 03:08, 7 September 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135], [136], [137]

Comments:

• Note, edits by 50.184.178.162 (talk · contribs) were made in response to comments/recommendations I made about the content on ANI and on the article talk page. Drmies' reversion of the IP is particularly actionable considering that I had previously warned him about edit warring at 03:08, 7 September (see link above) and he chose to continue. Please note that Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week for simply reverting an IP.[138] For the record, I have not engaged in any reverts or any edit warring on this page. Although there have been subsequent reverts by Drmies, they were part of the post-03:25 revert spree, so I have not included them as they count as a single revert. Additionally, there is a related ANI. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is already an AN/I discussion about this - and it appears to be a big'un - then this is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Let'em deal with it there. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's also up at WP:RSN, Marek. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• The RSN is discussing problematic sources, and the ANI discussion is discussing problematic editing concerning NPOV, not the edit warring in particular. Further, the most recent edit warring listed in this report occurred a day after the ANI report was filed, so this is an ongoing case independent of the ANI concerns and focuses on continuing edit warring. The ANI case is focusing on other behavior issues. In other words, there is no forum shopping here. And to quote administrator PhilKnight (talk · contribs) in regards to the Görlitz case listed above, "the same rules apply to me as everyone else." It doesn't matter if you're an admin or an IP, the same rules apply. As far as I can tell, Drmies believes that he is free to edit war against anyone, whether they are an IP or an editor. I filed this report in response. Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You really should just drop it, as this tenacious pursuit of yours does not reflect well on you. Sooner or later someone will get annoyed enough to slap a block on. WP:DEADHORSE, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:BATTLEGROUND... all them things. Volunteer Marek  05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. And this grudge you've been harboring against me from 2009 due to my participation in the WP:EEML case against you, and the resulting arbcom decision against you, makes you look very petty and stalkerish. Perhaps you should stop following me around? This has been going on for years now. Stop it. I testified against you in the EEML case and you were appropriately sanctioned. You did your time, and now it's time for you to get over it. Viriditas (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ay ay ay. The fact that you bring up some long forgotten nonsense from five+ years ago (and have the chutzpah to accuse *me* of being petty!) just illustrates the level of your vindictive tenacity. I guess if you haven't been able to drop five year old stuff, you're unlikely to drop five day old stuff. Volunteer Marek  05:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009, trying to take your revenge on every noticeboard where I show up. I haven't followed you anywhere, and I barely notice your existence. You need to check yourself, my friend. It's pretty obvious what you're doing. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been stalking me everywhere since 2009 - diffs or you're full of shit. Volunteer Marek  05:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop trying to hijack this thread. I do not want to have anything to do with you. Yet, since 2009, you've been following me around, trying to get my attention. Enough already. All the diffs you need are in the arbcom case. It's already been established that you target users and stalk them. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you're full of shit. Or to be more precise, you think it's okay for you to make false and insulting accusations with no evidence to back them up, and when you get called on the fact that you're behaving dishonestly and abhorrently you whine about "don't hijack the thread, I get to slander you, you don't get to to defend yourself". Par for the course. Why are you not indefinitely blocked?

(and FFS, how can diffs from a 2009 arbcom case prove that I've been supposedly stalking you *since* that case. You're not even trying to make your lies coherent)  Volunteer Marek  06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was mentioned, I am responding. I was initially blocked for two days for the edit warring and the block was extended for a month with conflicting explanations. I don't support edit warring, but I don't want to misrepresent my block. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. You were edit warring against an IP just like Drmies. However, let's see if the same rules apply when it's an admin who is the subject of the report. It is my experience that admins are officially exempt from all rules. Hopefully this report will show otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see what Walter's case has to do with anything. I'm not edit warring against an IP--my last revert was a correction of an obvious misreading of the source, at the very least (explained on talk page). Besides, Viriditas is not an IP: Viriditas is someone who has devoted all but two of their last 82 edits on me--one might consider that hounding, on my talk page, on the article talk page, on ANI, on RSN, and now here. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Walter was recently blocked for edit warring against an IP. You recently edit warred against an IP.[139] Your denial of this fact is troubling, and your reasoning is questionable. It doesn't matter if you think the IP or anyone else misread the source (they didn't, IMO). What matter is that you were given a warning about edit warring before you decided to revert the IP.[03:08, 7 September 2014] And you continued to revert again after that.[140] Do you think you are exempt from our policy on edit warring because you are an admin? Admin PhilKnight recently addressed this in Walter's case: "the same rules apply to me [an admin] as everyone else." Admins are not exempt from edit warring. Please note, I made a sincere effort to communicate with you on the aritcle talk page and on your user talk page, and instead of communicating with me, you threatened me and made accusations. Please also note, that I specifically addressed the contributions and stayed away from addressing contributors. But that wasn't good enough for you, and you continued to revert me without any discussion. Meanwhile, I did not revert, and I did not edit war. What should be done? My one demand is that the rules should be applied fairly and equitably. I maintain that they are not; because you are an admin, you believe you are above the rules, which are intended for the "little people". If it is true that the rules don't apply to admins like yourself, then we should change the policies to say that. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Since when is reverting one single IP edit "edit warring"? The IP was wrong: it wasn't the "claimed impetus", it was the impetus. The IP seems to have thought that "impetus" means "valid and fully justified reason" or something like that. Drmies (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• What happened to good old BRD here: Drmies put down a text, Viriditas started a discussion and Boldly changed the text. That got Reverted. Now we should be at that Discussion about the perceived problems on the talkpage of the page. Not an edit-war pushing the edit without getting to a consensus first (and if that fails, escalate it through the normal processes). Also, there is no urgency, we are not talking a BLP here. Maybe it is time for some cool-down block for those who fail to discuss before the change is implemented (or even chose to escalate before that discussion has come to consensus). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

* No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. John (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• • John is deeply involved in the related WP:ANI thread where he is defending Drmies and calling for my sanctions, so this is a bad closure. I request that this report be re-opened and re-evaluated by an uninvolved admin. As such an uninvolved admin would know, according to the policy, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". That is what this report is about. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• 8I have blocked Viriditas for 72 hours for disruption. The final straw was the striking of John's post. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Spartaz's block. Thanks for (hopefully) putting this to bed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not to pile on here, as I don't think Dmries deserved this, but Viridatias makes a fair point. Above John states that there must be at least four reverts to cross 3RR. Every time I've seen someone elaborate on 3RR they mention a "bright line", but 4 reverts isn't required. Surely John knows this. It does speak to Viridatias argument that admins get different treatment than non admins.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• I protest this block and agree with the last post that this speaks to Viriditas' argument that admins get different treatment than non admins. V. should not have been blocked - or Drmies should have been blocked as well. Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
• I may be considered an "enemy" of Viriditas, but "John"s "involvement" consists seems to consist only of administrative actions (not restricted to actions which require the mop). I think the strike would be grounds for a block, even if John were "involved". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Marc Ouellet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.47.192.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 81.47.192.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 81.47.192.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

Previous version reverted to: [141]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [142]
2. [143]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [144]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [145]

Comments:
IP user claiming he will continue to revert "as long as [he] ha[s] leisure time" : [146]

It dates back from March 2013 (assuming both IP users are the same): [147]

Amqui (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months due to an IP-hopping revert warrior. EdJohnston (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks, Amqui (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(Just to get it out of the way I don't have a fixed IP and I wont be getting a logged in account.) Maybe I should have asked for review elsewhere and maybe I'm the one in violation of 3RR but I've been trying to change the article in a way that seems entirely reasonable to me but changes have been reverted in a way that makes it seem necessary to get someone else to review.

My most recent change/restore to article primarily changes Charts table for the article on the song Whatever by Oasis modifying a table to use more specific dates when the sources allowed it. The change also included minor spacing and indentation changes. Versions of this change have been repeatedly removed with minmal explanation. I have added a note on the talk page of the article.

The most recent revert had only the single word explanation useless. I think I'm being reasonable, and my changes to the article are an improvement but any more reverting would make me the bad guy so I'm asking for review. -- 109.79.167.107 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: This is not the place to request for reviews of edits. Please read dispute resolution to understand how to resolve editing disputes. You've only just an hour back started discussing changes on the talk page of the article. Continue that and come back only after you've tried out dispute resolution or there is edit warring. If you've read this, I'll remove this report. Wifione ^Message 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been several reverts. If the situation continues where is the appropriate place to report? -- 109.79.167.107 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Forget it. The facts of the edit had finally been accepted. I don't know why I even try to edit anymore, when properly sourced information gets reverted or deleted, with barely an explanation, over what seems to have been a formatting objection. -- 109.79.167.107 (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything "properly sourced" in this edit by the IP editor contributing from Ireland. Instead, I'm seeing the restoration of a challenged statement, with a "citation needed" template placed on it. The various versions of the published media are not referenced at all. These appear to be the main point of the edit. Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Robin Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AH999 (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Robin Williams#3RR and edit warring

Comments:
User has ignored multiple warnings and doesn't provide any explanation for their edits. (Note it is my bedtime now so I will be going offline shortly.) HelenOnline 21:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours the panda ₯’ 21:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Angry Birds Seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frmorrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [155]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [156]
2. [157]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [159]

Comments:
Edit warring of the article was confused or tired by the user. The article has damaged through repairing sections. Bryancyriel (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to impersonate ([160], last section) other users, supposedly to make your report seem more credible. It is clear from this diff ([161]) that you were the one who reported User:Frmorrison, not User:Drmies. I've changed the title above to properly show who the reporter was. Thanks. Darylgolden^(talk) 13:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above report was apparently not made by User:Drmies, nor has the reported user been blocked for 72 hours, so in both respects the section heading of this report was incorrect. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Guys, you forgot the "result" of 72 hours that Bryancyriel wrote in together with their initial report. I've removed it. Assuming good faith, the user must be really confused. Bishonen | talk 13:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

While we're at it, the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" given in the report is not. The OP has made 3 reverts while having reported the other user for 2, so a reading of WP:Boomerang may be in order. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. You're right, David. The report has no merit. If I wasn't extending a lot of newbie toleration here I'd block Bryancyriel. But as for trying to impersonate an admin to look more credible, I don't think they were doing that. Probably copied an extant report and changed the specifics (I always do that, it tends to be simpler than trying to follow the "instructions"). Except they left several unfortunate specifics in… Bishonen | talk 14:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

The reporting user has a history of pushing his edits by edit-warring, and then creating spurious "warnings" and noticeboard reports to attempt to have his "opponents" "punished". See his talk page history for further details. I was inclined towards AGF at first, but the behaviour continues, despite requests to stop and attempts to help. There was a final warning from Drmies here. Begoon ^talk 14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with that. However, Bishonen has already taken an administrative action in adjudging this as no violation. I'll go with Bishonen's decision on this. If this behaviour of misrepresenting reoccurs even once more, the editor would be blocked for sure. Wifione ^Message 16:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wifione. I wasn't advocating a block, I'm still not sure if what this user does is due to language difficulties, WP:CIR, or...? It's sure annoying though, to those of us subjected to the bogus warnings and noticeboard reports. I was just filling in some context, and I neglected to notice that the section was kinda closed - my error. Bishonen's action is perfectly correct, I hope she didn't mind my comment after her "close". Thanks for your response. Begoon ^talk 16:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep a watch on the user. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 16:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, Begoon. As for language, note that the user is per the babelbox on their userpage a native English speaker. But there are competence concerns, certainly. I wrote a definitely final warning on his page, reinforcing Drmies's "final warning of sorts". I suppose we're both soft; I do understand how irritating it must be to be subject to Bryancyriel's spurious warnings and reports. Several admins are watching now, though (thank you, Wifione). Bishonen | talk 00:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Page

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

User being reported

Gjirokastra15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624851382 by Dr.K. (talk)WP:NINJA matter already forwarded to wiki noticeboard , for wpRemoval , and wpNinja ."
2. 19:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624848034 by Alexikoua (talk) You like it or not , you think it is a poor statement or not it is MULTI sourced WP:REMOVAL ."
3. 19:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624845445 by Alexikoua (talk) That is a sourced sentence and in fact it happens to be true ."
4. 19:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Demographics */ Cia does not claim that, so that source was removed"
5. 18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624811964 by Dr.K. (talk) Instead of removing the citation needed tag ,why dont you cite the sources ?WP:IDONTLIKEIT"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Albania. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Poorly explained revert */ comment"

Comments:

Edit-warring without appropriate explanations on talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

They are 5 reverts . 3 of them for the same matter which constitute a 3RR , but the other 2 for completely irrelevant matter . I just added a citation needed tag for a different part of the paragraph .

So we are left with 3 reverts which yes they are a 3RR , but the 3rd revert was after i had opened a wiki noticeboard case for ninca tactics and WPremoval ( and bullying) here

If i am at fault please give me the deserved punishment . However do not let them remove multi sourced essential content because of WPidontlikeit and WPremoval , by using WPninja tactics and bullying . Thank you

P.S Explanation was given on the talk page

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjirokastra15 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverts are measured per the article, not per the item/topic within the article. So, you have reverted the article five times today.

Blocks are not punitive; they are preventative. The block doesn't relate so much to how many reverts you've already done as to make sure that you won't commit any further reverts. If you're willing to discuss the text in a civil manner, then there's no need for a block. If there are further reverts or uncivil remarks, then a block is necessary. Please make sure to assume good faith in your fellow editors; I suggest against using terms like "bullying", which you did at AN/I. —C.Fred (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand , no further edit will be made regarding that article in order to respect the 3RR rule . Thank you for letting me know Fred , and thank you for not blocking me . Regards , Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: Since you understand now, perhaps you can self-revert to show that you understand fully that you went over the limit. Let's see if you will self-revert. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K that does not mean that i agree . Because it is a multi sourced sentence , which i did not write but i fully support , being true . We have the right to disagree in wikipedia and thats how objective , and useful content is being written , and thats why millions of people trust wiki . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: By refusing to self-revert you show that you expect your edit-warring to bring the article to the "correct" version. That does not show me that you understand that doing five reverts on the article is bad, against policy and disruptive. I think you should be blocked because you do not understand this simple fact. Unless of course you self-revert. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I will again provide User:Gjirokastra15 a chance to self-revert. Their obviously tremendously bad understanding of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:3RR and WP:EW led to their actions, and their poorly-planned ANI filing. At this point, not only a self-revert, but a promise to not attempt to return the article to their "preferred} state unless they gain consensus on the article talkpage are key to avoiding an immediate block the panda ₯’ 21:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr.K am i reading correctly ? Are you saying that me not agreeing with you removing a sourced sentence should have me blocked ? Wow , talk about democracy here ... The correct version up until today was the one i WAS trying to restore . Many people might have the same thing in front of their eyes but will make totally different conclusions about it , thats why not removing sourced sentences is usually a good thing . Let me know exactly , what is the problem with that sentence ? Is it not sourced ? Is it incorrect ? Or are the sources not working ? Which one of these 3 is it , i am really trying to understand here , i swear i do try . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The panda , i agree with you . Excuse my behavior , i do truly try to understand , and i will self reflect . I promise however not to ever break the 3RR rule again and to always go after consensus ( and to avoid editing or reverting sensitive subjects such as demographics or minority issues , that can explode quickly lol ) . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gjirokastra15: DangerousPanda didn't tell you to "self-reflect". He told you to self-revert. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if Dangerous Panda said so , i will do so . I thought i could get away with it lol . And yes i will NOT try to change again that particular sentence.Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Gjirokastra. This matter is resolved then. I don't think a block is necessary any longer. My thanks also go to C.Fred and Dangerous Panda for their advice. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean that i can also remove all those ugly warning messages on my talk page ? lol (joke) . Thank you too Dr.K for being patient with me, be sure that next time if a matter of such nature arrives ( which i doubt that will ) i will be a lot more collaborating and understanding than this time . And many thanks to C.Fred and Dangerous Panda as well for being patient and lenient with me , i really appreciate that . Gjirokastra15 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked This has been a learning experience, and will hopefully be the only such lesson the panda ₯’ 08:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Scottish independence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624805265 by NebY (talk)"
2. 14:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624807576 by 50.73.22.177 (talk)"
3. 14:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624808684 by NebY (talk)"
4. 13:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624849343 by NebY (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Scottish independence. (TW)"
2. 14:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Scottish independence. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warned for unconstructive and unsourced editing. IP 82.9.88.143 may be connected. Article is getting busier as the independence referendum is next Thursday. NebY (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and Page protected to prevent further vandalism during the referendum period. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.133.205.35 (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. [162]
2. [163]
3. [164]
4. [165]

The article has been a target for IP vandals many times and because of it the article has been locked 9 times. It's not the first time that similar IPs to 213.133.205.35 and others started edit wars.

I have put a lot of work into the article, more than most users, certainly more than IP 213.133.205.35. Comments:

I have reported the IP and requested a block. I have requested page protection (for the second or third time). IP is trying to get me blocked so it can later edit the article with new IP. SLBedit (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how getting you block would editing my ability to edit an article using a different IP..... that doesn't make sense. At any rate I haven't been changing my IP, I wouldn't even know how to do that. we just seem to have a disagreement as to what counts a contribution. At any rate I have not a vandal or anything like that, I'm a Benfica fan just like you who wants to contribute to the improvement of this page. Lets end this stupid back-and-forth accusations which don't lead to anything. Like i said, neither one of us are vandals, just a disarrangement that could clearly out of hand. Later I will make an account so I won't edit using my IP if that helps. Lets end this? :) 213.133.205.35 (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Several of these IPs are most likely the same person, which makes this a case of edit warring as an IP-hopper. That violates WP:SOCK. User:SLBedit is warned that if they continue to break 3RR on this article they may be blocked. Enough is enough. The person operating the IPs should try to get consensus on the talk page or follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Page:' S.L. Benfica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SLBedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] - don't know what this means

Diffs of the user's reverts:- This list includes other users that User:SLBedit has harassed.

1. [166]
2. [167]
3. [168]
4. [169]
5. [170]
6. [171]
7. [172]
8. [173]
9. [174]
10. [175]
11. [176]
12. [177]
13. [178]
14. [179]
15. [180]
16. [181]
17. [182]
18. [183]
19. [184]

He is trying to control the S.L. Benfica page, he is undoing all my edits, he acts like he owns the page, It doesn't seem fair how he can do this. He claims that most of my edits were useless which isn't the case because edits are clear improvements based on other higher-rated football club pages, the Benfica page needed alot of work to get it to a higher standard of quality. I have put alot of work into the page. I only reverted edits when he undid mine without a just reason. I have not done that to a user before.

He has previous edits warning from other incidents so I'm not the only one with an issue with him. Look at this talk page he has alot of other warning, he even deleted mine. [[185]]

I have also reported this user on the [noticeboard/Incidents] page hoping for someone to do something about it. 213.133.205.35 (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Action was taken per a report below. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: England and Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.175.161.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [186]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [187]
2. [188]
3. [189]
4. [190]
5. [191]
6. [192]
7. [193]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

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

Comments:
IP has repeatedly sought to impose wording, and refuses to discusses issues on article talk page as requested by several editors and on their own talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. It appears that the same person has been reverting the article under a variety of IPs since 21 August. They have posted nothing on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Young Earth creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DevonSprings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [195]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [196]
2. [197]
3. [198]
4. [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [200]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201]

Comments: User DevonSprings was not able to reach a consensus on the talk page. Despite that, he kept removing the poll he wanted to. User then wanted to add a new poll. Talk users appeared to agree. After that, user removed old poll he couldn't get consensus of. User was blocked from editing for this same subject for 24 hours a while ago.

User also reverted my edits on the talk page. [202] S806 (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You've left him a note about this report. He's not edited after that. Let's see what he has to say, if he chooses to comment here. No fear of disruption as of right now. So I'm letting this float right now, but not closing it. Wifione ^Message 17:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(I) DevonSprings accidentally reverted his comments on the talk page

A few users including S806 keeps putting it back even though several other users disagreed with the facts. No consensus has been reached but the front page how has 4 different survey items on it all conflicting. The section I removed again, doesn't match the topic. The whole subject area is written as if "people that believe this are many and wrong" (different problem)

A few users who know how to game the Wikipedia system keep putting back the wrong data. They reported me for 3RR before I even knew there was a 3RR.

The issue now is there are 4 surveys being quoted as to the different results and numbers. Two of the survey's have nothing to do with the issue at all. S806 for example said he would not "enter no further in the debate" and instead just keeps reverting back wrong data. As S806 -- "This will be my last post on this subject." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, you bit about users putting it back, wrong data, different surveys, aren't relevant here. What is relevant is reverts, not reasons. Secondly, I'm confused as to why you say you were reported for 3RR before you knew there was a 3RR. You've already had one 3RR block on the 1st.[203] You don't seem to have learned from that. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, are you an admin ruling on this. I have about 1 1/2 weeks of editing experience any contentious article on wikipedia. There is an error in the article I fixed it, and I put it back. I am not currently being reported for 3RR. The previous 3RR rule (on the first was the one I am talking about) I was reported before I even knew it was a rule. A bunch of wikipedia bullies started saying things like WP:<fill in the blank> and I had no clue on what it means or meant. Something about some kind of bold rule, don't know how to do it. Looked for some kind of meaningful guide couldn't find it. Then I decided, lets just find better data. Did that, people keep putting the old worse data back.

Have no idea how to fix an obviously errant article, as people don't enter the discussion they just say, You're wrong, and put it back.

Then this other guy S806 said I removed his talk comments when we both editing the same talk page. Just hit save -- didn't intentionally touch his comments on the talk page.

And he keeps putting back the WRONG DATA. So I have no idea about what any of this is about at all. Or why it all goes on, or how to rectify the fact that the page is now awful.

After being bullied by the people of Wikipedia my thought is, "experience admins" get their way, and run roughshod over the newbies. Its wrong, the page is wrong and I don't care enough to try and fix it anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to get consensus on the talk page for removing a poll after you were blocked the first time for removing the poll. After you failed to get consensus for removing the poll, you kept removing the poll. Wikipedia works on consensus. If you think something is wrong, you convince editors of your position. If you have a consensus to change something, it gets changed. If you fail to get consensus, it doesn't get changed. S806 (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Like I said one of the Wikibullies along to make a comment on the process I didn't understand. He S806 was one of the people just ignoring anything and reverting pages as S806 made this report 3 minutes after even notifying me of a change. Wow that 3 minutes to respond. And S806 has that famous line... "I am done discussing this" that is a monty python argument.

My only goal is to fix an obviously errant page but hey all the Wiki Bullies have beaten that goal out of me... and so you win, as that was your result to be RIGHT instead of being Accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 22:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DevonSprings, to your credit, you've stopped the reverts. To your credit, you were discussing issues on the talk page. To your discredit, you're confusing consensus with bullying. Please read consensus if you've not done that already. There's a reason we use BRD, and that's to make editing a collaborative experience. Do not presuppose that anyone who reverts you or opposes your edits is out to entrap you. Continue your discussions on the talk page of the article in a civil manner. In case you feel you've been slighted, discuss the same with the editor in question without working yourself up. Read dispute resolution for procedures to follow in case of editing disputes. I'm sure you'll understand how consensus works. I'm closing this thread now hoping you understand the issue. Wifione ^Message 14:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked Wifione ^Message 14:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wifione - User:DevonSprings has gone back to edit warring on that page. He is back to reverting... S806 (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunate... Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Wifione ^Message 10:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Tulsa race riot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [204]

Diffs of the user's latest reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208] gaming the system by editing 22 minutes outside of the 24 hour window, and with an IP rather than the named account (but has previously admitted the IP is his [here]).

earlier reverts in the previous 2 days include:

1. [209]
2. [210]
3. [211]
4. [212]
5. [213]
6. [214]
7. [215]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [216] and again [217]

Diff Thread of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tulsa race riot#Domestic Terror Attack. Threads on this are also on my talk page and on Cquest's talk page.

Comments:
Note that this was originally raised as a socking issue at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cquest since the edits were not all made by the named user. There has been no response so far at SPI, and Cquest has since admitted here to also making the edits as user:104.32.113.205. So on this article he or she is at 11RR in the last 3 days(12RR if this revert by user:172.56.30.195 is also Cquest. It seems likely since it was made less than 10 minutes after the first edit warring warning to Cquest.) A similar pattern with the same user and IPs happened on the related edit war on Domestic terrorism in the United States. Meters (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

blah blah blah. I told you sometimes it logs me out and I dont see that and just edit. yes, its my ip and I don't hide that. Stop attacking and harassing me dude. Clearly you can't handle actually discussing the article at hand and you are trying to look for any way to bully me into not editing anymore. Unless there are racist mods reading this, don't think any of your bullying tactics are going to work. I hope whoever is reading this looks over everything, obviously Meters has nothing better to do but try and catch me in a gotcha moment. He will even consider me saying this as a "personal attack". I got under his skin by telling him the truth, that he has no idea about the article I was editing and now he has a personal vendetta out for me. It is what it is! 104.32.113.205 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I confirm thats my IP, I have nothing to hide. And what is gaming the system here? So what, it logs me out. Quit harassing me, Meters. Obviously you have nothing better to do here, you refuse to actually discuss the article and this is an attempt to silence me. I hope people are watching and see how this came into fruition. Just follow the trail, everyone. Cquest (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment It is a very bad idea to start a comment off with something thats not very civil, also accusing anyone who responds towards his request (premeptivley) as racist is getting very close to reeching the no personal attacks. It looks like gaming the system as per the comment in the big red box on this page. Amortias (T)(C) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Wifione ^Message 10:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Reeva Steenkamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "haters really dislike the verdict!!"
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC) to 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "edited lead to show main job"
   2. 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "changed lead so wiki doesnt get sued!! Thats it for today"
   3. 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "removed liable statement"
3. 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625093941 by Rrburke (talk)"
4. 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625093797 by Rrburke (talk)"
5. 14:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 14:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Reeva Steenkamp. (TW)"
2. 15:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Trial of Oscar Pistorius. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[218], [219]

Comments:

I see now that the article was semi-protected around the same time I posted this, so maybe a block isn't necessary. The user has been attacking other users on talk pages,[220][221] but that isn't an AN3 issue. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected by Dougweller. No need to take any other action right now. Wifione ^Message 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours...I had already blocked 2 minutes before Wifione posted.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Battle of Bint Jbeil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Parsa1993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625050425 by Shrike (talk)"
2. 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 624991309 by Jokkmokks-Goran (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Battle of Bint Jbeil . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is under 1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA.I as the user to self revert. Shrike (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Wifione ^Message 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page

Shooting of Michael Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kevin Murray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "This is silly. It is irresponsible to continue to represent inaccurate statements"
2. 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Nonsense the RfC is closed your just taking advantage of wrongly perceived process to continue POV"
3. 15:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "You are taking advantage of people's kindness to push your POV. This is really sad."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. [222]
2. [223]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC Results */ Let the RfC run its course"
2. 15:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC Results */ Let's follow the process"

Comments:

This user was warned to stop edit warring by Drmies after being reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive254#User:Kevin_Murray_reported_by_User:MrX_.28Result:_.29 - MrX 16:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Murray is at 3RR but has not exceeded it. I have advised him to back off and he has acknowledged my "sage advice" [224]. I note that it takes two to tango, and that MrX and CWobeel are tag teaming to WP:STONEWALL a 2:1 consensus RFC that says the information should be removed. As this article is twice under the auspices of ArbCom DS (WP:NEWBLPBAN and WP:ARBAPDS) the next step is to take it to WP:AE which is a more appropriate venue than dealing with this as normal 3RR/EW imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't under WP:ARBAPDS. That remedy authorizes the ArbCom, by motion, to impose DS on any article that becomes contentious. That hasn't been done. However, it is true that DS does apply because the article involves living persons (e.g., the officer) and a recently deceased person whose death is controversial. Arbitration enforcement is still a valid remedy, but WP:ARBAPDS is commonly misunderstood. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Woohoo! you used my shortcut, I just created it today! I realize that ARBAPDS does not actually put all of AP under DS without a motion, but what it does do is enough to make the issue discussed here go before WP:ARCA and WP:AE, so I was just meaning to say there is increased scrutiny from ArbCom on the article. However as you said full DS is in play due to BLP in any case. I was just trying to indicate that there were multiple prongs of scrutiny for this topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

WTF Gaijin42? Please retract the accusation of tag teaming; I'm getting really fucking tired of that accusation being thrown around, especially since I just scolded Cwobeel for making a similar disputed edit while the RfC is running it's course. As I've already expressed on the talk page, there is no WP:SNOW consensus in the RfC, and users are still commenting. The RfC is mere three days old.- MrX 16:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The content is disputed. The content is covered by BLP. BLP says disputed content should be removed until there is consensus. Leave the RFC open if you want, but its currently 2:1 against keeping it. Until such time as there is clear consensus for keeping it, policy requires its removal. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Retraction of your accusation please? I think I may have mistaken Kevin Murray's removal as a addition, because the highlight color in diffs have changed multiple times over the past few days, and I find it a bit confusing. Edit warring is still unacceptable, and this is in no way a BLP-defensible removal.- MrX 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Guys, please take this content dispute to BLPN. This thread is closed. X, come back if there's any further edit warring. Wifione ^Message 17:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I invite the Admin reviewing this complaint to visit the talk page of the article to see that the changes which I have made are consistent with the proper closing of a non-contentious RfC, where the only contention has become how to close the RfC. Several editors are using disreputable tactics to prolong the inclusion of a statement which no longer meets WP:V. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that any perceived edit war is over. And I have no intention of continuing it. If I am reverted, I would at that point post the neutrality tag and leave it at that. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's what you said last time you were reported for edit warring, and yet here you are again. I'm sure you're also aware that the article is under discretionary sanctions. You have ignored several pleas on the talk page to let the three day old RfC run its course, but your edits suggests that you think your view carries significantly more authority than everyone else's. Your repeated edit warring in this article very disruptive.- MrX 16:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I follow the logic here Mr. X. I technically crossed the line weeks ago, but was not blocked and have learned from that experience not to cross the 3RR. Today I drew the line at three. To assume bad faith that I was going to cross the line is wrong. In some contexts 3 of the same edits is warring. This however was not. It would have to be a special case for me to be punished for working within the rules. The intent is/was only to get the article into compliance with (A) clear consensus, (B) WP policy, and (C) consistency with reliable sources. What is astounding is that your RfC "vote" is for removal of the item. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

--Kevin Murray Upon the advice of the Admin who evaluates this complaint, I would voluntarily stand down from editing at the MB article for 24 hours. In fact, I'll just do that anyway to avoid any perception of edit warring. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not blocked. Kevin has backed off. While discretionary sanctions can be applied by any uninvolved administrator here, to apply it in this case would be disproportionate. Kevin, try to keep to a 2RR or something like that in a 24 hour period. Your repeated 3RR bumps could be seen negatively in future reports, as your concept of I drew the line at three could be viewed simply as an attempt to game the system. Again, this is just a suggestion and not a warning. Wifione ^Message 16:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your understanding! Yes, and I went to the limit of 3 with some trepidation. Ironically, the editor whom I reverted has now proposed a compromise positing which I have supported. Thanks for all of your hard work in keeping WP on track. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
User being reported: Gtrbolivar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [225]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226]
2. [227]
3. [228]
4. [229]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [230]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [231]

Comments:

The discussion at Macedonia (ancient kingdom) revolved around establishing a consensus for the initial lead sentence of the article. After much discussion, the main proponent of the other point of view, User:Stevepeterson, and myself accepted a compromise that Stevepeterson implemented in the article (link above). User:Gtrbolivar, however, refused to accept the consensus, which was actually suggested by two other neutral editors. He posted this battleground comment on Stevepeterson's Talk Page: [232]. Note his particular quote: "I'm going to fight this to the end". --Taivo (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The following is documentation of the compromise consensus that was reached, but which Gtrbolivar does not want to acknowledge:

• [233] Elmmapleoakpine offers a suggestion of neutral wording.
• [234] An anonymous IP offers a simpler suggestion.
• [235] I offer my concurrence with the compromise wording.
• [236] Stevepeterson implements the compromise wording, then places this note on my Talk Page: [237]
• [238] I place this note on Stevepeterson's Talk Page
• [239] I revert an edit by a pro-Slavicist back to the new consensus.

At this point, all parties to the dispute except Gtrbolivar (who represents the extreme "Greek" position) and Macedoniarulez (who represents the extreme "Slavic" position) have either proposed the compromise or accepted the compromise. Macedoniarulez has posted extremely inflammatory posts on Stevepeterson's Talk Page and on the article Talk Page. He reverted the compromise wording once (which I restored). Gtrbolivar has also posted inflammatory posts on the article Talk Page as well as on Stevepeterson's Talk Page including overt WP:BATTLEGROUND comments, personal attacks, and false claims against me specifically. He has also definitively violated WP:3RR. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

All his text is a complete falsehood, he is a liar and I'm gonna prove it to you in short notice. Give me a couple of hours and I'll respond to these lies in detail. Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one month by User:Ronhjones. EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Macedonia (ancient kingdom)
User being reported: Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [241]
2. [242]
3. [243]
4. [244]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [245]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [246]

Comments:

Taivo vandalizes the article, removes reliable sources and historical evidence without any justification, and tries to impose his POV, pseudo-historic and subjective personal opinions in wikipedia. He doesn't respond to arguments, he has an unacceptable behaviour full of arrogance like he owns wikipedia, and used slander, lying and insults against User:Stevepeterson and myself. He is in complete violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and he is trying to impose an alleged consensus (which is against every reliable source in the academic world), created by himself, in order to justify his authoritarian attitude and to sneak his POV agenda into the project. There are many users who are against him as you can see in the talk page. He created a battlefield with his behaviour and his remarks, and he was backed-up by an ultranationalist who insulted and harassed both me and Stevepeterson. You can find my detailed point of view, my historical arguments and my complaints against his vandalistic frenzy and his disregard for the reliable sources here: Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Vandalism, unjustified removal of reliable sources, POV editing and here Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)#Request for Comment 2. Many thanks for considering my fair request.-- Gtrbolivar (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

My edits do not constitute a violation of WP:3RR. As far as the rest of his accusations, they are either entirely false or gross exaggerations. As far as Gtrbolivar's editing practice is concerned it consists entirely of "No quarter given. I will fight to the end for my point of view without compromise." --Taivo (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

He is a specialist in slander and lying, he is adding words that I haven't written, he is putting my words out of context and distorts their meaning in the most despicable way. I'll answer in detail in the next hours. Gtrbolivar (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one month by User:Ronhjones. EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)