Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Redmen44 reported by User:Flat Out (Result:Not blocked )

Page

Josh Gasser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Redmen44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601796007 by Flat Out (talk) Page is cited and there are multiple links that prove without a doubt that this is a living person. Please discuss further on talk page"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC) to 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Still working"
   2. 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Happy now?"
3. 11:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Work in progress"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "/* WP:BLP */ new section"
2. 12:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Josh Gasser. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Create discussion due to edit warring"

Comments:

This is an editor with a history of edit warring, and an unblock in the last 48 hours that refuses to work cooperatively with other editors. Has not exceeded 3RR but blanks talk page and refuses to engage around improving articles. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No disrespect was intended here I guess I am just confused on why the page that I created has a BLP tage yet I have shown with cited articles and links. Again, I am not trying to start an edit war I want to discuss why I have not done enough for this page. Thanks Redmen44 (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted to discuss it you would have started a conversation on the articles talk page or joined the one I started, or not blanked my attempt to start one on your talk page. The tag was "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification." and it does need additional sources. All claims must be supported with references. Waiting until a report is lodged to start talking is not good enough for someone who just came off a block for edit-warring. 13:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I am truly sorry and I did not mean to start an edit war. I admit I went about it the wrong way as I should have gone to the talk pages first but I thought that I could delete the tag because I thought I added enough sources and links. If the page is still not up to par, then I understand the BLP tag being put back on the page and I will work towards making the page more complete. Once again my sincere apologies. Redmen44 (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have reinstated the BLP tag - this is a horribly-referenced BLP, and the only possible sign of notability (the extremely minor "accomplishment" of a triple-double) is only sourced to the university page, which is utterly unacceptable. I don't believe this article would even survive an AFD DP 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not blocked I'm convinced per statements above that such behaviour will never be repeated on Wikipedia DP 13:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Jtrevor99 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Protected)

Page: Syngenta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jtrevor99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2] 03:47, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
2. [3] 03:52, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
3. [4] 04:46, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 restores text cited to http://www.atrazine.com/ScienceSafety/atrazine_science_safety.aspx.
4. [5] 16:56, March 29, 2014. Jtrevor99 removes text recently added by others.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] 04:55, March 29, 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] 05:04, March 29

Comments:

Jtrevor99 has violated the brightline rule of four reverts in a 24-hour period, despite being warned against doing so after three reverts. In general, he has been using primary sources to defend and promote the agribusiness chemical company Syngenta. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Page protected – Article protected one week. Two editors seem to have broken WP:3RR. It is doubtful that any of the reverts, by either side, are justified under the exceptions to 3RR. Jtrevor99's use of primary sources is on thin ice regarding WP policy. Wikipedia attempts to summarize what independent third parties have written. We don't achieve balance by giving equal time to the combatants. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article. There was only one editor who broke 3RR or I would have reported the other one. Binksternet (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Tonga2010 reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: Warning, Semi)

Page

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

User being reported

Tonga2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I am reporting both this user and the IP 98.216.213.118, who have over the past few days repeatedly reverted the page Unix to show this operating system's first release date from 1973 to 1969, without discussing at Talk:Unix#First Release Date. I realize that this is drastic in the case of a new user, but I stand at risk of violating WP:3RR, and I request that the admin who checks this case consider the possibility that the IP and the account are the same user (without wanting to make the accusation of sockpuppetry, since the account was too recently created and no other registered user is involved). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Tonga2010 warned, article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Jtrevor99 (Result: See earlier report)

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

I apologize; this is the first report that I have filled out, and I know that this is not the correct syntax. It was unclear to me what information was needed, even after following the other examples on this page.

If it is helpful, I have opened a dialog on my own talk page regarding this topic, and Binksternet and I have been discussing it. In my opinion, the primary issue is around our differing views on what constitutes an "unbiased" article, and Binksternet's objection to my use of a primary (but publicly available) source to record Syngenta's public response (within the article) to the Hayes accusations. In essence, we are seeing a conflict between WP:BALANCE and WP:BALASPS. I am hopeful that through further discussion we can settle this without remediation; in fact, I am satisfied with the current version of the article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

As for my accusation: I know that Binksternet is a far more historied user than I, and thus, admins might tend to side with him if they do not examine the facts or recorded history. However, for evidence of the edit warring and Binksternet's impropriety, I would simply point you to the Syngenta article history. Binksternet repeatedly attempted to expand Tyrone Hayes' statements of accusation (regarding verbal/physical threats supposedly lobbied against him by Syngenta, damaging effects of the chemical atrazine, etc.) while attempting to block all efforts by myself or Jytdog to post a Syngenta response. He even went so far as to claim that a Syngenta quote does not belong in the Syngenta article due to it being a "primary source" - despite his repeated use of primary sources in favor of his viewpoint, and the fact that the Tyrone Hayes article itself makes repeated use of primary sources. I finally eliminated all but one reference to atrazine that Binksternet had posted, as that was distracting from the subsection's main point of "Alleged threats made by scientist against Syngenta"; I left both Hayes' accusations (posted by Binksternet) and the Syngenta response (posted by me). It was after this, the fourth compromise I attempted, that Binksternet reported me for edit warring.

As for my defense: Note that practically all reversions I committed were, in fact, reversions of Binksternet's reversions, which in turn were deletions of additions I tried to make. I must credit Binksternet: I was not aware of the "4 reversion rule" like he, so he knew to stop after the third time. Instead, he technically avoided the "4 reversion rule" by simply deleting my comments the fourth time. Study of the article's history will reveal that, in all cases, I was attempting to strike a balance. I never once tried to delete Binksternet's comments; on the other hand, he repeatedly deleted mine for flimsy reasons. Tellingly, his reason for deleting the Syngenta response was my use of a "primary source"...but he kept giving different reasons why a primary source should not be used in a subject's article. Each time I countered, he gave a different reason - 5 in all - and then finally pointed me to WP:SECONDARY, which per my reading does not support him.

In short, I believe I was ethically and morally in the right with my behavior, and even though I triggered the "edit war" warning, I steadfastly believe it was necessary in order to present unbiased and neutral language in the Syngenta article. If I am wrong, I apologize and ask for direction on what I could have done differently; I await the admins' decision. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected one week due to a report above. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am writing a response to thank you for the protection status, and to further explain my use of the primary source despite it being "on thin ice". This final post is made because I'd like the admins to weigh in on what I should have done here. (We all learn from our mistakes.)

As noted on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I believe this issue was sparked by a conflict between WP:BALANCE, WP:BALASPS, and possibly WP:WEIGHT. Quite simply, Syngenta was not given the opportunity to respond to Hayes in The New Yorker, Democracy Now, or all but two media outlets (that I could find). And Binksternet challenged those two as possible COI or unreliable. The primary source thus seemed my only option for WP:BALASPS, despite it apparently violating WP:BALANCE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I've learned this isn't the right place to have this discussion; it would fit better on the Neutral POV Talk page instead. I added a section for it so now consider this matter closed. Thanks again. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:USchick (Result: Warned both)

Page: Jews and Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (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. [8] 21:38, 29 March 2014‎
2. [9] 20:59, 29 March 2014‎
3. [10] 09:25, 29 March 2014
4. User has refused to engage in talk page discussion [11] No response.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12] Warnings are disregarded as "silly templates" and reverted as "nonsense." [13] [14]

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

Comments: Edit warring sometimes with no explanation and other times hostile remarks on talk page.
USchick (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Director admits to edit warring even though he has no intention of looking at the information in the article. He's waiting for someone else to show up, so in the meantime, he's edit warring. [16] USchick (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) -->

• Warned. I see edit warring by both USchick and DIREKTOR. I see contentious comments on the talk page by both of you. Indeed, the discussion on the talk page is a perfect model of how not to resolve content disputes. Neither of you has violated WP:3RR. However, if further edit warring occurs, you risk being blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Apparently I'm doing something wrong. I would like to use this opportunity improve. Bbb23, would you please be so kind and point out where on the talk page you think I should have handled it differently? I reverted in two different sections of the article (one time each) and outlined my concerns on the talk page. My edits were reverted and my concerns have not been addressed. Other people's concerns on the talk page also remain unaddressed. There's a lot of talking in circles, but concerns are not being addressed. Other editors attempting to contribute to the article have been either run off in frustration and/or blocked. Two editors in particular seem to be working as a tag team to the point that one is unable to edit without the other one and even admits to holding back any further editing until the other half of the tag team shows up. What do you recommend? USchick (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't see where a warning has been issued to either one of us. Can someone point it out please? What am I not seeing? Thank you. USchick (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Some of your comments on the talk page: (1) I will ignore your POV comment about Kiev being part of the "original Russia."; (2) "The silly templates you disregard are mandatory warnings."; and (3) So you're saying that you can't be bothered to determine if my edits are acceptable, you prefer to edit war while you wait for Producer. Thank you for clarifying that. Now I understand. Of course, Director's comments are not constructive, either, but I'm addressing only your question. The warning wasn't given before. It was the action I took based on this report. Finally, I recommend you use one of the mechanisms in dispute resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the warning. USchick (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ugh.. USchick was pushing new edits, edit-warring to blank and rewrite sourced content on an extremely controversial article. I requested that she wait a bit for the user that posted the sources to respond, as he can best answer her concerns that the sources have been misquoted. This is in light of USchick's previous content blanking over there on grounds such as "Marxism is different than Communism" [17] (no, I'm not kidding [18]), and the fact that Producer has thus far satisfactorily explained virtually every issue re sourcing. I wish I could say I'm surprised she reported herself, and that while misunderstanding 3RR. Not that 3RR is a binding rule, but if anyone needs any sanctions its the reporting user, I'm just gonna say it: USchick lacks basic knowledge of the article's topic, and basically just disrupts the talkpage. Its WP:CHEESE over there. -- Director (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Zvonko reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Protected, Warned)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zvonko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments: The material the user is reverting was reviously reverted by IPs. The user showed up when the article was semi-protected (the IPs did not want to discuss anything). The user responded at the talk page (though sadly they do not seem to care about policies or consensus - they have been reverted by three different users) but continues reverting.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for 1 week. I also left a warning on Zvonko's talk page that further misbehaviour will lead to a block. → Call me Hahc21 06:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Protected)

Page: Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

• Page was just released from edit protection.  It turns out that the editor displays a different name on the talk page. 
• The re-reverts took place quickly: six minutes, seven minutes, 2 minutes, and 11 minutes.  After I pointed out that the D follows the first R in BRD, I made it to Talk:Ken Ham thinking the 3RR would kick in and discussion would finally be required, but as soon as I was done posting my first talk page comment, I saw the notification of the fourth revert.  It is therefore not possible to keep the Article stable to allow for discussion.  The editor has 100,000 edits, so I have to assume that this is some kind of Wiki-tactic.  You will see in the edit histories and talk page diff that there is a second editor trying to stop the changes to the article, as well as also involved on the talk page.

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

Comments:

First of all, there are only two reverts listed here (the first two). Neither this nor this is a revert, as both were good faith attempts to get to compromise on the basis of good faith efforts on the talkpage to try to reach a compromise with User:AzureCitizen. He and I came to what I thought was a good compromise and then I tried to implement it in article space. The user here reporting is not involved on the talkpage and reverted three times (compared to my two). I also note that these diffs only include three reverts here: I am trying to edit in good faith to reach a compromise, but the user reporting here seems unwilling to discuss on the talkpage and oddly went here rather than discussing there. Well, color me confused. jps (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to endorse jps comments. The editor reporting this came out of nowhere (no talk page involvement) and reverted three times in little more than an hour: [33][34][35] whereas jps only did so two times. If anybody here should be sanctioned for edit warring it's Unscintillating, the editor who opened the report. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Note that jps is the editor reported.  As the editors have commented, I am not an involved editor in this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. Doesn't matter which editor is being reported, you are accountable for your actions either way and the simple fact is that you breached WP:3RR, not jps. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 03:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

AzureCitizen removed the word "incorrect" to find out if anyone objected.  Nine edits occurred to the article without objection.  Yet you restored the word on the grounds that you were restoring the article to a "consensus" version.  Was it a mistake your intention to restore the word "incorrect", or was this simply a matter of not being aware that you were making a quiet change?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff for clarifiction.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I reverted back to the version that was agreed 6 to 1 in the talk page not two weeks ago. My intention was to restore the WP:CONSENSUS version. Do you dispute that was the one? Then please point me to the correct consensus version. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 13:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, let's cease discussing the issue here on this noticeboard and take it up on the article's talk page. Sound good? Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, User:Unscintillating didn't breach 3RR because he only made three reverts. It's only a fourth revert in 24 hours that is a violation. On the other hand, it is also true that discussions on these noticeboards are intended to cast a wide net. jps (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected for a week. Discussing at the talk page and reverting is *not* good practice. → Call me Hahc21 06:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Foggas and User:Septate reported by User:Toddy1 (Result:Protected )

Page: Criticism of Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foggas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Septate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Septate 11:00, 23 March 2014
   
2. Foggas 11:36, 23 March 2014
   
3. Septate 16:40, 25 March 2014
   
4. Foggas 17:18, 25 March 2014
   
5. Septate 14:11, 26 March 2014
   
6. Foggas 18:40, 26 March 2014
   
7. Septate 15:52, 28 March 2014
   
8. Foggas 05:27, 29 March 2014
   
9. Septate 16:13, 29 March 2014
   

• Warning given to both editors at this point.
  

1. Foggas 15:07, 30 March 2014
   
2. Septate 15:53, 30 March 2014
   
3. Foggas 16:21, 30 March 2014
   

Diff of request that they use the article talk page to discuss what is a content dispute and not vandalism (as Foggas had claimed on Septate's talk page).Septate, Foggas

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Foggas, Septate

Link to discussion on the article talk page: Talk:Criticism of Islam#Edits by Froggas

Since they have continued to revert each other, I am reporting them here. I am certain that both of them are well-meaning editors who are acting in good faith.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• They're obviously editwarring, although neither has stepped over three rr. I could block them anyway, but have gone the route of just slapping a week of protection on the page to force them to work out their disagreements on talk. I'll put a note over there shortly to that effect. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:173.79.251.253 reported by User:Collect (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jason Russell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.79.251.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37] 04:34 30 March
2. [38] 15:40 30 March
3. [39] 16:55 30 March
4. [40] 19:03 30 March
5. [41] 19:47 30 March
6. [42] 20:36 30 March

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43] warned about deleting comments on talk page, [44] warned about WP:EW, [45] warned and notified of this post [46] notice of this post

See Talk:Jason Russell, the IP's accusations of everyone else of "vandalism" and his position that if he can "verify' something that he is the arbiter that it passes WP:V. There is substantial discussion, and the IP is, at this point,tendentiously accusing everyone else of "vandalism" while making 6 clear reverts in well under a day. Collect (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 reported by User:Lvivske (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1, rev me
2. 2, rev me
3. 3, rev Paavo273
4. 4, rev Paavo273
5. 5, rev Darkness Shines

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning; revert #5 came after I posted warning of this 3RR dispute.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page - about 50% of the talk page is an argument on this topic to which he is the prime advocate of his POV.

Comments:

I attempted to intervene in this ongoing edit war with Solntsa90 as a neutral party (I did not edit the Yatsenyuk article until the other day, when I saw the talk page dispute). I was reverted, and as the diffs show, we're at 4 reverts now. My first edit was not a revert, but verifying the sources and re-editing on my own. He reverted, so I reverted back per WP:BLPREMOVE ("Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source"). The issue is that Yatsenyuk has been smeared as "Jewish" by political opponents, even though he does not self identify as such and there are no actual sources proving he is. Solntsa is trying to prove he is, which may qualify as WP:LIBEL in this context. I issued a warning, and other editors have tried to intervene, but he keeps reverting. Further, he has been incredibly uncivil (calling me "Lvovskiy") and has been engaged in person attacks. He has also has stated he will not engage in talk page discussion and that I don't "have a place in this debate", which is not assuming good faith.--Львівське (говорити) 22:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have provided numerous sources on Yatsenyuk's Jewishness, most notably from the Consulting firm Oxford Analytica HERE with the direct quote: "Born in chernivtsi in 1974 to Jewish-Ukrainian Parents, Arseniy Yatsenyuk was affiliated with a local legal firm for most of the 1990s

You however have not only failed to provide any evidence refuting that the sources I provided stating he is Jewish (The Guardian UK, Oxford Analytica, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) are "slander" or that these companies are publishing slander, rather, you have taken it upon yourself to declare unilaterlly that this constitutes "libel", despite the fact you have been been sanctioned from editing on Crimea's referendum and have been repeatedly warned in the past from making edits regarding Ukrainians and their Jewish origins, when applicable.

I think I'm in the right on this one, and my sources vindicate me. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This noticeboard is not for content dispute resolution, but rather user conduct. --Львівське (говорити) 22:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have engaged in personal attacks? like "This attack" attack for instance? also, "Lvovskiy" isn't being uncivil, Russian is my first language and it's simply another way of saying "Lvivskie". In closing to your 'libel' comment, Yatsenyuk doesn't identify as Jewish, but that doesn't change the fact that his parents are from a Jewish family, and that's all I'm reporting, as per the Guardian, as per Oxford Analytica, as per all my other sources. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

But the warning given by Lvivske according to his/her diff related to content-sourcing issues. Nobody gave Solntsa90 an edit-warring or 3RR warning.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We're speaking English here, not Russian. That you're essentially attempting a nationalist slur by warping my username is telling, especially that you've kept it up after I asked you to stop being uncivil. --Львівське (говорити) 22:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not only has he accused me of both being responsible for "about 50% of the talk page is an argument on this topic to which he is the prime advocate of his POV" and yet in the same breath accuses me of stating that I "will not engage in talk page discussion", but this Lvovskiy guy has also accused me ironically of libel directly HERE, putting doubt into how much faith he actually has in his own claim, and making me assume he is trying to silence me (and my sources, which do not violate WP:BLPREMOVE btw as they're all credible) via arbitration. You refuse to discuss the issue with me on the talk page, because you know that my sources are correct and to do so would be to concede that I am correct. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

SOME HISTORY

A serious problem is that from day one involvement in this article, Solntsa90 has been bent on "outing" AY as Jewish and has insisted only his verbatim edit with the sources he alone chooses with the wording he alone chooses may be allowed in the article. When I suggested other wording to characterize the Harriet Salem Guradian piece, when I added sources including one of the chief rabbis of Ukraine to rebut the Jewish ethnicity claim (the other source Solntsa90 just blanked numerous times without ever even responding to), when I added unrelated sourced info to the birth section, etcetera, etcetera, Solntsa90 always just blanked back to his verbatim wording, excluding all sources that disagreed with Solntsa90. See HERE for diffs.

INCVILITY: Intentionally calling a user by a deliberately offensive nickname based on his real username is not the first example, and like the others when asked to desist, he still will not stop. Before I got involved on this page, Solntsa 90 had accused another user of racism because the user did not think a source offered was valid. Solntsa90 during my entire involvement in this article so far has peppered his edits and talk contributions with uncivil remarks, just for examples: A and "I'll edit your edits any time I see something wrong with them, and you'll see that my patience is rather infinite, if you want to go that far." Solntsa90 (talk) 21:25, 28 March 2014

Actually, Solntsa 90 WAS warned on his talk page prior to the 3RR. He then proceeded to make multiple additional reverts.

I've never seen anything approaching this in my slightly more than four years on Wikipedia. Paavo273 (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I notice you used the word "outing" Yatsenyuk in quotations. Can you please provide this qutation where I said it was my intention to "out" Yatsenyuk as Jewish?

I have repeatedly and over and over again said that Yatsenyuk is not Jewish, that his parents were Jewish, and that this is what the sources supported, not Yatsenyuk being Jewish. Once again, don't shoot the messenger.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I deleted Dov Bleich because it's been already mentioned in the other sources I provided. You took the same source and drew a different conclusion with it. Finally, You have called me an anti-semite repeatedly (a quick review of the talk page can confirm this) and just now have said I want to "Out" Yatsenyuk, so there goes your credibility in that stance.

P.S: I was given no 3RR warning whatsoever.

P.S.S: hyperbole such as I've never seen anything approaching this in my slightly more than four years on Wikipedia. just reinforces the notion that you have an agenda to push by trying to claim extra facts in order to send me off into censorship. I'm quite perceptive to things like this. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We're speaking English here, not Russian. That you're essentially attempting a nationalist slur by warping my username is telling, especially that you've kept it up after I asked you to stop being uncivil

1.) If we're speaking English here, then why is your username in Cyrillic?

2.) It's not a "nationalist slur" and the fact you think the transliteration of Lvivskie into Russian is such betrays a deep-seated hatred of Russians, and possibly Jews (given your previous older edits).

3.) You don't get to decide what words in my language are "slurs" or not. Do you even speak a word of Ukrainian or Russian? I assume you do not, or else you wouldn't have made this erroneous assumption. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I've been putting up with while trying to get Solntsa90 to engage on the merits of the content. Just a couple minutes ago, I pointed out another baseless instance of Solntsa90 charging racism. The ink is still wet on my edit pointing out the prior baseless racism charge and here comes another one. The fellow editor is racist because he asks to be called by his user name? Who would ever want to edit any page under these conditions and this logic? Paavo273 (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you've ever been to Lviv, it IS a nationalist slur. I've been there a number of times. But the real issue is even in arguing on the edit-warring noticeboard, Solntsa909 continues to show gross disrespect. The point is Lvivske asked him to stop but he just continues baiting. Paavo273 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Did he just accuse me of having a 'deep seated hatred' of Jews? wow --Львівське (говорити) 23:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The "fellow editor" just minutes ago accused of me launching a 'nationalist slur' for transliterating his username into Russian (while not correct and thus I'll cease doing so, it is NOT a slur) and I noticed you had little problem with that accusation of racism (Your accusation of me calling another "racist" is simply me warning another user not to discredit sources simply for being Russian; to do so would be--yes, that's right, racist).

And speaking of accusations of racism, do you mind showing me where I said I want to "out" (since you used quotations) Yatsenyuk as being Jewish? Or are you hoping such a slanderous accusation is conveniently swept underneath the rug?

@Lvivskie, You yourself said on your talk page you do not speak any Ukrainian. Would you even know the difference between someone calling you "Lvovskiy" and someone calling you "Lvivskie"? Because seeing as your ears aren't tuned for it, I highly, highly doubt it.

P.S: you and Paavo have both accused me of various things from antisemitism to libel. Why is my accusation so unprecedented? I've been accused of being an antisemite, of wanting to "Out" Yatsenyuk (a very slanderous accusation from Paavo), etc. with no comment on me insofar as much as you didn't comment on mine. I'm guessing the Guardian and Oxford Analytica want to "out" Yatsenyuk too. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Lvovskie is not a "nationalist" slur, it is merely a transliteration of Lvivskie, even the wikipedia page on Lvov can tell you this. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

TECHNIQUE TO DISTRACT FROM DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS:

Solntsa90: Please 1. provide a DIFF for any accusation or even implication I made about you being anti-semitic, 2. of your using Dov Bleich before I did (I first used him HERE after which you blanked it many times. As far as I can tell, the first time Solntsa90 referred to the rabbi was HERE (the second "EDIT"), at that point apparently unaware 'cuz hadn't bothered to read my addition of RSd info--just blanked it over and over instead.

Call other people racist. Accuse others of calling you racist. Anything to distract and bully, even if not factually correct. A rather revolutionary technique, I'd say, not democratic, not consistent with civility, respect, or collaboration, just as multiple blanking of others' and verbatim restoration of one's own edits isPaavo273 (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Heheh, and you accuse me of being uncivil (also in regards to your claim of me being "undemocratic": Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY ). Solntsa90 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps brush up on WP:OWN. To Paavo: "How can I take anything you say seriously" Or to me: "Upon further review, you don't really have a place in this debate, Lvovskiy." You've shown your unwillingness to collaborate or engage in any form of consensus building. It's not a democracy but it's also not a dictatorship. --Львівське (говорити) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If both you two are going to gang up on me and provide soundbites, why not post them in the full context they were given so as to show why they were even said in the first place? My claim that "you don't have a place in this debate" was in response to admins having warned you not to take part for possible anti-semitism and ethnicity issues re: Ukraine. You said that the admin was found "to be wrong" later on, but you posted that after I posted this, so if you're going to try and get me on a "smoking gun", at least make sure your facts and context are correct to your own position.

Also, given that he has baselessly accused me of multiple things in the past few days, how can I AGF with Paavo? Solntsa90 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? DIFFS and specific references add meaning. Vague and general assertions are pretty impossible to respond to or evaluate. Paavo273 (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Just above, you accuse me of being "bent on 'outing' Yatsenyuk as Jewish", heavily inferring that it's his heritage (and not the accuracy of facts and the correctness of researched sources) that I care about. I assume you're going to have some excuse for this slander? Solntsa90 (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how it's slander; how are you defamed? In any case it's true. Your first main comment I saw on AY talk was HERE: "To ask the obverse of that question, why do some Wikipedia users take it on themselves to obfuscate Jewish identities on politicians or other famous people all the time, and in this case given that there are sources from think-tanks, journals and foreign policy advisories saying Jewish?" Solntsa90 (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2014 More importantly your entire course of conduct in squelching all dissent, simply blanking all sources and all references that suggest AY is not of Jewish ethnicity. The link to the talk section showing DIFFS is linked twice twice above and HERE.

Any others? Paavo273 (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment, far from proving my obsession with Yatsenyuk's alleged Judaism, moreso implicates your own desire to obfuscate the facts of his Jewish Parentage; It's crass to call you "antisemitic" for it, but I don't know what your motives in this regard are. Maybe you really do believe that Oxford Analytica and The Guardian are trying to spread anti-semitic slurs in an attempt to undermine his presidency, I have no idea anymore. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At least on this point you' ARE consistent: "[W]hy do some Wikipedia users take it on themselves to obfuscate Jewish identities on politicians or other famous people all the time...?" (to a prior 'nother user who like others melted away after that and the assertion that his own post was "racist") AND "implicates your own desire to obfuscate the facts." Paavo273 (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The user who attempted to put admin sanctions on me didn't even disclose that he Isn't supposed to be here in the first place:

"Lvivske (talk · contribs)) . . . placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole attempt at silencing me is superfluous, and beyond hypocritical. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, where am I 'not supposed to be'? I guess this ties more into the whole WP:OWN thing. --Львівське (говорити) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Anything at all, no matter WHAT, to avoid talking about the topic of THIS NOTICE, Solntsa90's bright-line misconduct: edit-warring--up to 5Rs, gross incivility incl. lots of accusations against anyone who tried to participate on the AY article page never backed up by any DIFFS, blanking RSd text of other editors the most recent several of which came AFTER my section with diffs of at least five examples on the talk page, etc. Paavo273 (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Solntsa90 is blocked 24 hours for 3RR violation. If another admin thinks Lvivske should also be sanctioned (for 1RR/48 hours in his case) they can use their judgment. Since this is a dispute concerning ethnic matters (Jewish heritage) and it's about an Eastern European politician I'm notifying Solntsa90 under WP:ARBEE. EdJohnston (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:173.177.14.25 reported by User:NeilN (Result:Blocked )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Removed the Feminism sidebar, as sexism isn't part of feminism and includes all genre."
2. 22:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602024772 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk)"
3. 23:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Someone removed the discrimination sidebar. Oh, and removed the feminism's."
4. 23:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602027538 by Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) Watch that bad mouth of yours."
5. 23:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Removed feminism sidebar."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[49]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Took out feminism sidebar */"

Comments:

• See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itsbenja.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• 6th revert --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Up to 7 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Not sure about the sock puppetry thing, which may certainly result in a longer block. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:27.99.111.84 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result: )

Page

Eustace Mullins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 23:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 23:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Eustace Mullins */ new section"
2. 23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Eustace Mullins. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

No interest in engaging on talk page despite invitation and ongoing discussion sections already open, and have been for weeks. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Stephen J Sharpe (Result: )

Page: Crimean referendum, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [51] 21:16, 10 March 2014
2. [52] 10:16, 11 March 2014
3. [53] 11:13, 11 March 2014
4. [54] 11:16, 11 March 2014
5. [55] 19:57, 11 March 2014
6. [56] 00:28, 12 March 2014
7. [57] 12:25, 12 March 2014
8. [58] 12:27, 12 March 2014
9. [59] 12:33, 12 March 2014
10. [60] 15:59, 12 March 2014

1. [61] 15:04, 13 March 2014

1. [62] 10:41, 14 March 2014

1. [63] 20:57, 15 March 2014

1. [64] 13:35, 18 March 2014
2. [65] 13:36, 18 March 2014
3. [66] 17:49, 18 March 2014
4. [67] 20:47, 18 March 2014

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014/Archive 2#"Potentially Declare Independence"

Comments: Lvivske is currently under the following sanctions:

"Lvivske (talk · contribs)) . . . placed under an indefinite revert limitation on all Ukraine-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before they make any content revert (obvious vandalism excepted as usual), they are required to first open a discussion on talk, provide an explanation of their intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske was reminded that these sanctions still apply on March 5 by Alex Bakharev. The bolded reverts specifically refer to edit warring over the text of the referendum question where Lvivske replaced "status within Ukraine" to "declare independence" despite there being an ongoing conversation where the emerging consensus supported the original text. Beyond this article Lvivske has shown a pattern of disregarding his sanctions and I can provide further examples if requested. I attempted to bring this matter to the attention of User:Alex Bakharev with this discussion but received limited response. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Myself and the users on the talk page came to a mutual compromise on the wording and worked together rather well on the talk page. This was just WP:CYCLE in action. Sure, it looks rough if you stick to the diffs out of context. Not sure why you're head hunting me weeks after the fact to try to get me blocked. This is the second time in a week you've tried to throw these sanctions at me erroneously, when you canvassed multiple admins. Give it a rest. To other admins reading this, I would like to point out that the user in question made a rather bizarre attack on me on his user page, some personal vendetta is going on here. --Львівське (говорити) 00:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If I was "headhunting" you then surely I would have reported these 3RR violations when they occurred. As it is I only came across them after reporting you for a different set of violations. Lvivske's constant claims of headhunting, libel, and calling me "a nut" are evidence of uncivil behaviour. Just to clarify - "multiple admins" means two which I only requested as I was unsure who I was supposed to be requesting help from as I am a new editor. There was, in fact, no "mutual compromise" but rather the text of the referendum question was returned to the original wording after Lvivske eventually got tired of single-handingly reverting multiple editors. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC) Lvivske cites WP:CYCLE but the essay states: "The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D". Discussion and a move toward consensus must occur before starting the cycle again." In contrast, Lvivske decided to make the same reverts again and again before consensus could be reached. The same essay goes on to state, "If you have reached three reverts within a 24 hour period (3RR bright-line rule), do not edit that content in any manner that reverts any content, in whole or in part, even as little as a single word, for over 24 hours." Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to point out at the very least that the series of diffs aren't 3RR material in particular but seemingly a list of every edit or rev I've made on that article (ie. #10 is just me adding a source). It would appear at first glance that I went on some amazing reverting streak but this is a collection of everything, and I did slow down after the 11-12th dispute. I was also engaged on the talk page for everything listed. --Львівське (говорити) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No. Every diff listed is a revert. Per Help:Reverting, "Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page being restored to a previous version." which means, for instance, when you replace "remain within Ukraine" with "declare independence" that is considered a revert. It was indeed an "amazing reverting streak" especially considering that you are currently on 1RR restriction. The #10 diff includes you adding a source but also includes you changing "potentially declare independence" to "declare independence" which constitutes a revert and continued edit warring. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

In support of Stephen J Sharpe's claim, I would like to point out that Lvivske has made multiple and numerous contribution's to Ukraine Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk's talk page HERE, in clear violation of the 1 edit per 48 hour rule that he agreed to abide by ( and even had the audacity to report me for what he saw as an offense of mine). Solntsa90 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no "1 edit per 48 hours on a talk page" rule. Sorry for the confusion. --Львівське (говорити) 00:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Multiple edits to Ukraine-related articles HERE and HERE shows you fail to understand the rules of your arbitration. That is more than 1 edit per Ukraine article in a 48 hour period, made worse by the fact that rather than accept this and apologize, you are now attacking others. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Who did I attack? I don't think you understand the terms of the sanctions you're referring to. --Львівське (говорити) 00:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's not change the subject so hastedly (and I was referring to your response to Stephen J Sharpe above): You do realize you made multiple Ukraine-related edits within a 48 hour period, correct? The evidence that you failed to abide by your arbitration is provided by me right above. Solntsa90 (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely made edits. Lots of edits. I'm an editor. On Wikipedia. --Львівське (говорити) 01:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but you're not permitted to make multiple edits on Ukraine-related subjects more than once within a 48 hour period, and not without talkpage notification first, so why then do we have This and This? Solntsa90 (talk) 01:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* You're misreading the terms quoted above. --Львівське (говорити) 01:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Note This is being discussed at WP:Arbitration enforcement as Lvivske is appealing the restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 21:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 22:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "Sexism shouldn't be a part of the series feminism. It makes it seem like women are the only victims of sexism"
4. 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Sexism shouldn't be a part of the series feminism. It makes it seem like women are the only victims of sexism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

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

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC) "/* Took out feminism sidebar */"

Comments:

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:173.177.14.25_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:Blocked_.29 --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

User:X.equilibrium.x reported by User:BethNaught (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page

Parliament of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

X.equilibrium.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602098318 by BethNaught (talk)"
2. 11:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602095187 by Argovian (talk)"
4. 11:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "If what you believe is true, then what exactly is a legislative body and what is is responsible for? I would advise against wasting any more of your time perusing illegitimate claims"
5. 10:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 600474465 by Argovian (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Parliament of the United Kingdom. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has reverted several times on a contested edit he made. Has also added invalid CSD templates at Civil law (common law) [71], also edit warring there. BethNaught (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, someone got lucky there. RHaworth just blocked for 24 hours; I was pondering a block for a week to indefinite. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen someone get blocked for, and I think the next block, should it happen, should be for incompetence. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Capmo reported by User:Srtª PiriLimPomPom (Result: nada)

Page: Brazilian Sign Language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Capmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=601917675&oldid=601912603

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=next&oldid=602092582
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brazilian_Sign_Language&diff=next&oldid=602098033
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

I edited the IPA for Portuguese page afterwards to make sure it was understood why I was marking it that way. A sound file in the dark ell section of the alveolar lateral approximant article shows a standard Brazilian pronunciation of /li/.

It has sourced content that Brazilian Portuguese uses to make very doubly articulated phones for this context of /l/ in particular, what is unusual for about every other language. (in English, for example, you will have clearer - less doubly articulated - ells before /i/, /ɪ/ and other front vowels, and darker ells before /u/, /ʊ/ and other back vowels, reflecting their "palatal" and "velar" mouth positions respectively.) Since these guidelines are supposed to help English speakers (or Anglophones) get how Brazilian Portuguese pronunciation works, I guess it's a very significant detail to be added.

Previously, I had already to revert a change by a user not respecting that the sole guideline for Brazilian Portuguese adopts the /ti/ → [tʃʲi] palatalization as standard, given how – alike the velarized ell issue – people who speak largely substandard registers of Brazilian Portuguese (a few spots of rural folk in Southern Brazil, rural and a tad lot of urban in Northeastern Brazil) do not have these phonological features. Still, people who have my palatalization of /S/ (speakers of dialects such as these of coastal/urban Rio de Janeiro state, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, and Belém, Pará) represent an equally large fraction of Brazilian Portuguese speakers, do speak registers much closer to the Brazilian standard (hell, Rio de Janeiro is the state capital after Vitória, Espírito Santo to have a dialect closest to it) but still we do not push for all IPA for Portuguese transcriptions in each sinle article have double pronunciation guidelines just because we have our "s" at the end of syllables getting a "x" sound and we feel bad for being an underrepresented minority or something of that sort.

As such, I regard it as pointless to have such kind of discussion. It's a long-established guideline. If people want Northeastern pronunciations be represented – it is more likely that they would end up getting something even closer to Rio de Janeiro's pronunciation if the status quo is changed anyway, given how Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese recommends one to use the Brazilian pronunciation closest to that used in the European nation of Portugal for linguistic unity and ease of Anglophone comprehension issues –, they should go to the talk page of WP:IPA-for-PT and get a new consensus before.

I am not considering neither user here as having bad faith in intent, given how Capmo showed signals they didn't see my newer edit on Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese. Still, we can't keep reverting each other, for everybody knows it is regarded as disruptive. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I'm expected to reply to this; as I see it, Srtª PiriLimPomPom is trying to push her own opinion on the subject in these articles. Her changes to Help:IPA for Portuguese and Galician look like WP:OR and should also be reverted unless she's able to back them with undoubtedly reliable sources; the standard Brazilian Portuguese does not have the ɫ or the β sounds at all (nor does any local BP dialect as far as I'm concerned). —capmo (talk) 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol nope. Are you really versed in phonology? It's sourced in the dark ell section of the /alveolar lateral/ article. If you can't hear the difference between the Spanish/nordestino li and the paulistano/carioca one, you're not supposed to give opinion on this stuff.

The fricatives were not a change done first by me (it's the consensus accepted for months) and the top of the article Wikipedia:IPA for Portuguese and Galician explain why they are there, it's supposed to help Anglophones learn Portuguese as a whole rather than being too specific about local Brazilian phonology (that'd be BTW hugely biased because I have [ɣ] for most positions of /g/ myself, as most of anyone from Rio de Janeiro and AFAICT São Paulo). Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The changes made by Srtª PiriLimPomPom are original resources, and he acuses capmo not be "versed in phonology" to justify himself instead of using sources.

There is also a problem of sock-puppetry here, Srtª PiriLimPomPom creates its account when he stopped to edit as Lguipontes because he made several edit wars against other editor in Portuguese related articles. PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it's a music, and the user PiriLimPomPom does absolutely the same things that Guilherme (Lguipontes) has did.--Luizdl (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

PiriLimPomPom is not a name, it is an inside joke I have with friends from other part of the internet. I don't put my real name on the internet. Regardless, oh, wow... This is a fairly serious accusation, you will need evidence for that. What I doubt anyway, because Wikipedia got my email and I am fairly sure that I am the first person to use it so that it can be associated with my Wikipedia account.

Just because I generally agree with that guy that is no longer active here on various phonological details about my dialect and Brazilian Portuguese as a whole, that doesn't mean I have to be him. Are you seriously being that close-minded?

Furthermore, you are implying things about a person no longer active here. I browsed his talk page and found only a single instance of edit warring (it involved sockpuppetry, but with an IP and it seemingly wasn't malicious in intent). Just because you had some problems with his assertion that Brazilian Portuguese has Catalan-like lamino-alveolo-palatal sibilants (here), what both Canepari and a Brazilian source seemed to confirm (and I believe it since, well, I can hear the difference, and @Lfdder seemed to confirm they hear it as well), it doesn't mean he crossed the line with you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the term "music" isn't used in English AFAICT. It's song. And my English skills also contrast with Lguipontes' (not that I see an issue in that).

Investigating further... I saw that you have very little contributions here for the whole of 2014. It is weird how suddenly a user that is no longer active here would turn and say something about an issue with such pride in your own instincts. So I went to your Portuguese Wikipedia account and you are not very active much more there as well... Seeing your talk page, you seemed to have quite of a cordial discussion in Portuguese in your Lusophone Wikipedia talkpage with him, where he asked for your help with an issue concerning the very phonology that we are discussing now (the fourth last one, and it took place in early 2013). O.o Do you guys know each other in real life or anything? I am seriously curious what would be behind the reason of all this drama now.

"(O pós-palatal do inglês (como em Sean, Russia etc) é labializado? Como se eles ocorrem normalmente em sequencias de sibilantes com a vogal anterior fechada não arredondada? De onde você tirou isso?)" There are sources for that... http://www.martinetoda.org/publis/icphs2003toda.pdf just searching "labialized postalveolar english" in Google... BTW it could have been cited here. Seemingly you went to discuss what is and what isn't [ʃ] in that discussion about Brazilian Portuguese categorically lacking alveolo-palatals without a lot of background in it with information that Wikipedia itself lists (I've read it in forums that didn't even deal with linguistics). That is half as bad as OR and even so you wanted to accuse others of doing it just as wrong as you did. What the flying fish is happening here?! If there's anyone who looks like a puppet (and I'm not accusing anyone else), it's you. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why has this been brought here? 3rr hasn't been breached and there's been no attempt at discussing it on the article's talk page. — lfdder 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I explained it already. The guideline is clear, it's a consensus, and form the small fraction of information I did put there, it was sourced. It isn't something to be discussed. Furthermore, I didn't want nobody to reach 3RR because I don't want other people to be blocked. If they are reverting, it means that they are attempting to build something in their vision of correct. I'm new here and I thought it'd be a decent and okay thing to be done. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean there isn't something to be discussed? Your change has been reverted; there's obviously something to discuss -- even if that is to reiterate the consensus (if there is one). See wp:BRD -- when your 'bold' change has been reverted, it's generally expected that you don't revert the revert. It is expected that you talk it over on the article's talk page. — lfdder 18:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

A new section has been created, thanks. :) Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Good point, Lfdder: thanks. I'm going to close this--after a. leaving a templated warning for both editors along with b. a hearty 'what the fuck?' (Pardon my Portuguese.) Is that what you two are fighting over? And Prilimpompom, do you need THIS many words for a simple edit warring charge--even before 3R is breached? And surely there should be more evidence than "someone's name is music" and a hint or two for a charge of socking. Let's close this and hope that this two can whistle their dixie on the article talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, they're now discussing it over at Help talk:IPA for Portuguese and Galician (after I suggested it here). It seems to be often that people can't agree on transcriptions of Portuguese. — lfdder 02:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:JohnGoodName reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: )

Page

Linux Mint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601765388 by Aoidh (talk) thanks for finally joining us again on the talk page, it seems that consensus is against you though"
2. 13:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 601882037 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your edit summary threats"
3. 03:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 602182230 by Aoidh (talk) reverting you despite your specious arguments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There more reverts going back at least 3 days by this user so the pattern of edit war is clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (This comment was in response to this comment which was then removed) The previous consensus was against this edit, the edit is unsourced, misleading, and WP:UNDUE. Persistently inserting an edit is not the way to push changes on Wikipedia, especially persistent edit-warring by a SPA who has ceased even attempting to discuss the edit on the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

However, looking at the edit history I didn't realize how much I had reverted that; thinking that I'm "right" is no excuse. I think I should step away from that article for a few days and see if any additional discussion pops up, which I'll do (additional discussion will hopefully happen per the WP:DRN discussion I've opened). - Aoidh (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Khimaris reported by Zad68 (Result: )

Page: Lipoic acid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

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

1. 06:42, 31 March 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ Qualifiers are very important. Alexbrn's previous attempts at "simplifying" were biasing the article towards unjustifiable negative conclusions. A lack of studies does not mean ineffective...")
2. 20:46, 31 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 602164554 by Alexbrn (talk) Nope, a negative bias is still a POV. Please use the talk page before you revert any further edits.")
3. 20:58, 31 March 2014 (edit summary: "Undid revision 602166005 by Yobol (talk) Then say that there were no available trials of lipoic acid on dementia patients if you want to "closely match" the article. This is insane!")
4. 03:45, 1 April 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */")
5. 04:25, 1 April 2014 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ per WP:ASF inline citation removed.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Zad68 04:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course Zad reporst me but not Yobol nor Alexbrn for my good faith additions. We had a discussion going on the talk page. Yolbol accepted the addition of the review not finding any any randomized clinical trails as a reasonable. I added this information. Yolbol then reverted my post using WP:ASF as his reason. I accepted this and removed the inline citation. I'm afraid this report is unwarranted.

Further more, I would suggest that Zad68, being an administrator, should reacquaint himself with WP:BRD. I await further comments.Khimaris (talk) 04:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)