Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive213

User:Inhakito and User:Johnnytwet reported by User:Kodosbs (Result: Too complicated; taking to a different board)

Page: White Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Good day, I am aware that wikipedia is a place to post information referenced neutral, what happens in this product is that the numbers of white people in Colombia are continually modified without reason. In the country there are many studies on these estimates made by the Congress of the United States where as I said "estimated" the total percentage of white ancestry in 20% in the country, which are referenced in the website of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA )https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/co.html and a study of the Library of Congress of the United States of the 80's, again by an estimated 25% http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+co0050) This last issue is the previous users constantly create and publish relevant in deleting my reference page study again by the Library of Congress of the United States but in the year 2010, in which he cites:

The 2005 census reported that the “nonethnic population,” consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry, including almost all of the urban business and political elite), constituted 86 percent of the national population. The 86 percent figure is subdivided into 49 percent mestizo and 37 percent white.

— Colombia: A Country Study, Colombia: A Country Study; pp. 86-87

Where the population is analyzed in terms of 86% is divided into 49% mestizo and 37% white, which makes an allusion to the general census conducted in 2005 in the country conducted by DANE, clearly an allusion to a census and a study of 2010 is more relevant than the above references, the user User:Johnnytwetchange my edits without reference, I first told my talk page in English that was Colombian, who had lived here and it was the correct figure, however on their website claims to be Venezuelan discucion a discucion with another user, similarly the user User:Inhakito the user User:Johnnytwet constantly reverses the data of 37% to 25% of the old estimated for no reason, he have evidence on their website in both Spanish discucion http://Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Inhakito Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Inhakito as its English page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inhakito constantly vandalizing ethnographic data on all nations as Chile and Colombia where inserts and deletes data without explaining why. I first wrote them as they should be on their website discucion no response from them. What I was unworthy becouse User:Johnnytwet accused me of vandalism usuuario what led me to settle my case determination to be saying here and I must do to continue to make an encyclopedia Wikipedia neutral data as far as possible the most reliable as possible. thank you very much --Kodosbs (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:

The diffs show that there's no 3RR violation, since they were done by multiple users over several days. We can block for edit-warring when 3RR hasn't been violated, but that wouldn't be appropriate here: the situation is much more complicated than this board is set up to handle. I'm therefore going to copy everything to WP:ANI; please don't leave any more comments here. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:81.101.27.98 reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Car classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 81.101.27.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 16:53, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552610392 by Nasty
2. Revision as of 17:17, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552622459 by CZmarlin
3. Revision as of 12:09, April 29, 2013 Undid revision 552629211 by CZmarlin (talk) Can you stop goddamn trolling!
4. Latest revision as of 13:46, April 29, 2013 Undid revision 552750395 by CZmarlin

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notice

Attempts to resolve dispute on the summary edit comments seem to be ignored by this contributor. Moreover, the identical changes were previously done under a different account: User:82.1.231.59 as noted below:

1. Revision as of 14:24, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552587975 by Nasty (talk) Stop trolling

2. Revision as of 15:18, April 28, 2013 Undid revision 552605494 by Nasty (talk) YOU CHEEKY SHIT!!!!!!! THE REASON I AM EDITING IS BECAUSE MOST MODELS ARE OUT OF PRODUCTION/NOT RECOGNIZED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you - CZmarlin (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• As the edit-warring seems to be coming from a dynamic IP, I've semi-protected the page for 2 weeks in lieu of a block. If the problems resume when the semi-protection expires, please let me know and I'll extend it. I apologize on behalf of the admin corps for the delay in reviewing your filing. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:TheVirginiaHistorian reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [5] 15:51, 20 April 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [6] 06:39, 29 April 2013 (no consensus to remove territories. see Talk)
2. [7] 14:31, 29 April 2013 (→‎Political divisions: add sourced encyclopedic style, expansion, clarification)
3. [8] 15:12, 29 April 2013 (include territories as geographic places and native-born persons in places, sourced)
4. [9] 17:09, 29 April 2013 (Reverted 1 edit by Golbez (talk): The description of the US is sourced per discussion page. There is no backdoor. There is modern era counter source. (TW))
5. [10] 21:12, 29 April 2013 (Undid revision 552761139 by Golbez (talk). No discussion at edit thread, no sources, reneging on previously agreed including "territories" a part of US per of dispute resolution page.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] 18:51, 29 April 2013‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

Comments:

4 differences as reverts adding back "and territories". Another is the revision of a section about U.S. territories. TFD (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian reply. As a newbie, I haven't figured out how to make the hot links to (diff) yet. Below are the 28 elements of the MISREPRESENTED edit war on the United States page between A - include territories and B - exclude territories. A = TVH, Gwillhickers, Collect and others. B = Golbez and TFD and others. Every source requirement demanded to "include territories" has been met: government, history, political science and law, primary executive, legislative and judicial, specific acts of legislation and Members of Congress for each territory. "Just quote one president". Okay, John F. Kennedy San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… in America this afternoon. “ Barak Obama San Juan PR, 2011. “I include Puerto Rico… [Puerto Ricans] help write the American story... in our country’s uniform...” But reasonable editors say Obama cannot mean ‘our country’ is a part of the US. And so it goes.

Since 28 October 2012, I have attempted to place a sourced description of the US geographically, nationally, politically and constitutionally in the introduction of the United States article, reverted. --- Wikipedia approaches sequence by TVH --- community talks for geography and political science, third party and mediation --- As the discussion wore into March 2013, at dispute resolution, an accommodation was reached -- eight finding consensus language, TFD, who placed this edit war complaint, refused to admit US territories, regardless of the accommodating language. Gwhillickers brought the DRN language to the article by March 19, Golbez placed the final wording.

On April 3, Golbez determined he had made the article, he could unmake it, "I should not have implemented it." On April 20, Golbez found an unsourced revelation to exclude US territories from the US, and so he did. I reverted it because he has no sources, has found no comparable group of eight (Buzity for including, is inactive). It may be as simple as refusing to acknowledge the US is not 'we the states' but 'we the people' -- he says below, the US as a nation has no sovereignty, "the country IS the states". But that is a peculiarly arcane take on "Tucker's Blackstone" used to justify the Civil War by Jefferson Davis, not common usage in the modern era for an online encyclopedia. It is impossible to tell for sure, because there are no sources to say, "modern US territories are not a part of the US." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

1. A. 12:57, 28 October 2012‎ TheVirginiaHistorian‎ . . (Intro: copy edit detail to note per Talk page.)
2. B. 15:21, 28 October 2012‎ Golbez . . (rv introduction of error (the territories being part of the us) and overemphasis on citizenship from intro, explained further on talk page)
3. 'A. 20:46, 29 October 2012‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Intro. restore sentence adjacent to first sentence -- at previous position in paragraph, per Talk.)
4. B. 04:12, 30 October 2012‎ Golbez‎ . . (undo; it actually looks better this way, sorry i suggested this :( it seems odd to say where the territories are before we even say where the country itself is. maybe it can be rewritten? we should do so on the talk page before making a decision?)
5. A. 09:01, 30 October 2012‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . .(copy edit per talk page agreement and edit page notes agreement - see talk page)
6. B. 13:30, 30 October 2012‎ Golbez . . (rv, i absolutely never agreed to say it's made up of territories)
7. A. 13:51, 12 November 2012‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . . (copy-edit for conciseness, comprehensiveness, over-linked intro 'blue out', western puffery -- see Talk) 14:01, 12 November 2012‎ TheVirginiaHistorian ‎ . . (footnote for territory and possession count likely to be challenged)
8. B. 14:34, 13 November 2012‎ Golbez . . (rv non-consensus change; you don't say "i propose" on the talk page and then immediately implement it. you wait for discussion. at the very least it doesn't even say what Alaska and Hawaii ARE. Are they states? other countries? Don't assume reader knows.) 14:51, 13 November 2012‎ Golbez . . (ugh wikipedia, stop sucking)

1. A. 18:25, 13 November 2012‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Reverted 3 edits by Golbez (talk): The consensus is to drop wp:puffery, add "The state of Alaska … " per the talk page.
2. B. 19:03, 13 November 2012‎ Golbez . . (rv - please tell me where this consensus was gained, because it was not on talk:united states. you proposed and edit and you made it without gaining any comment from others; that is unilateral, not consensus.)
3. A. 17:10, 19 March 2013‎ Gwillhickers . . (added 'with differing degrees of autonomy.' per DRN vote)
4. A (B?). 18:26, 19 March 2013‎ Golbez . . (this is how its done. if you have a problem with this then you admit the "D"RN cares only about wording and not actually resolving the dispute, and fucking take me to arbcom, no one rational can possibly dispute this.)
5. B. 02:09, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (i made this, i can unmake this. i do not recognize the authority or veracity of that edit and should not have implemented it.) 14:02, 3 April 2013‎ Golbez‎ . . (silly me, i reverted to the wrong, incorrect, poorly discussed, no-consensus version, when i meant to return to the status quo. thanks for pointing out my error, collect)
6. A. 14:13, 3 April 2013‎ Collect‎ . . (talk pages shows this as having the most support overall - the status quo had much less support)
7. B. 03:59, 4 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces . . (consensus changes and facts need to be supported)
8. A.' 11:59, 4 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian ‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by The Four Deuces (talk) to last revision by VictorD7.
9. B. 17:38, 20 April 2013‎ Golbez . . ('correcting per my revelation on the talk page)
10. A.' 06:39, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian ‎ . .(no consensus to remove territories. see Talk)

1. B. 12:15, 29 April 2013‎ The Four Deuces . . (The recent proposal did not say territories were included)
2. A. 12:52, 29 April 2013‎ Collect‎ . . (no one can conceivably dispute the sovereignty claim I trust)
3. B. 14:44, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (undo collect; sure i can. the country is not "sovereign over" the states, it IS the states. please stop trying to flog the language more than it deserves.)
4. A. 15:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . . (include territories as geographic places and native-born persons in places, sourced)
5. B. 16:16, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (rv; insufficient sourcing per talk page, going to need a large consensus to get that in. 'in a geographic sense' in a definitions clause in an EO is not annexation, it's backdoor, we need an affirmation rather than a description. you know better than this)
6. A. 17:09, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Reverted 1 edit by Golbez (talk): The description of the US is sourced per discussion page. There is no backdoor. There is modern era counter source.
7. B. 18:02, 29 April 2013‎ Golbez . . (rv; you were bold, i reverted, we now discuss. you do not have consensus on the talk page to make this change.)
8. A. 21:12, 29 April 2013‎ TheVirginiaHistorian . . (Undid revision 552761139 by Golbez (talk). No discussion at edit thread, no sources, reneging on previously agreed including "territories" a part of US per of dispute resolution page.)

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

All I see above is you admitting that you shirked the bold, revert, discuss cycle, then hypocritically warned me of an edit war that you yourself were engaging in. We've broken DRN, what dispute resolution will we break next? However, thank you for documenting that your (and yes, I do say your, since it's often you implementing non-consensus measures, and me reverting them) edit war has stretched back six months. Surely we could find a better use for our time. I know I did, that's why I've stopped generally talking to you. I'm fine with defending my actions in an appropriate forum, this is not it. --Golbez (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 17:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Rangoon11 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: 1 month)

Page: BP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rangoon11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14] 20:26, 29 April 29 2013. "rv - crude attempts to turn this article into (even more of) an attack piece"
2. [15] 20:30, 29 April 2013. "rv - this series of edits do not have consensus and drastically change the article"
3. [16] 20:58, 29 April 2013. "Undid revision 552785956- attempt to force controversial large scale changes through edit warring - editing of the most cynical nature"
4. [17] 21:25, 29 April 2013. "Undid revision 552788585 by Petrarchan47"
5. [18] 21:40, 29 April 2013. "Undid revision 552790823 - complete contempt for very extensive talk page discussions, tag teaming, cynicism of the highest order"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:BP#Reversion_of_edits_of_past_two_days

Comments:

Rangoon11 edit warred with Coretheapple on 27 April [20][21] but then was away from the article and talk page for two days, during which time she was making many edits to other articles. Rangoon11 returned to BP today and immediately reverted five times, two of them being joined as one revert to make four total reverts. Rangoon11 could have participated in talk page discussion about building the article but chose not to do so. Ironically, Rangoon11 accuses other editors of edit warring and contempt for the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Was going to report this, Rangoon11 looks like he has done this before see block log here. YarisLife (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is unusual, not to say unlikely, that the first edit (except to put their name at the user page) by a new editor, just nine minutes after account creation, is a reporting of other editor at the ANI for edit warring. [22] It seems to be a SPI case. Beagel (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that YarisLife looks suspiciously like a sockpuppet. Let's not allow this side issue to lead us astray from the proper examination of Rangoon11's editing behavior. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• User:Rangoon11 has been vandalising Scottish company articles and categories for years, in blatant breach of official policy like WP:VERIFY. His aim seems to be to remove all and any references to Scotland or England / Scottish or English from every single company article (despite companies being legal entities, defined by their registration under Scots respectively English law), and to empty (out of process) Scottish company categories, circumventing WP:CFD. A total menace of an editor, made worse by an endless propensity for rude and abusive edit summaries. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• A recent flurry of edits is turning BP article into an attack site. Please compare it with the only FA on a large multinational company, Microsoft. The two articles a vastly different. Rangoon has bravely stuck his neck out in a attempt move the page towards being a good quality encyclopedia article rather than a list of 'everything bad we can find in a source anywhere to say about BP'. No administrative action is required. Maybe an RfC or a peer review or something else that focusses on encyclopedic quality is though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the edits by Rangoon11, the battleground atmosphere around this article has been a long-time issue. The recent last three days massive edits have caused new tensions. The harsh comments and baseless accusations at the talk page does not help to improve the overall atmosphere. Therefore, the BP article needs more close 24/7 surveillance by admins.

In addition, [serious accusations about paid editing] have been posted by user:Binksternet to the article's talk page and been echoed by some other editors at different user talk pages. This should be investigated very seriously as, if true, this is a violation of the Wikipedia's core principles. Otherwise, these accusations should be removed as non-constructive. Beagel (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm wondering how the report of a violation of 3RR, when those edits reverted corrections, agreed-upon changes and edits on behalf of the BP PR dept, has attracted comments about the editor reporting the issue and false claims about the overall dynamics of the page. FYI, the BP page has a good degree of content written word for word by BP, and the editors were asked to comb through all of this and work towards balance. We are now persecuted for it with labels of "battleground" and "attack site". As for the subject of this investigation, her edits were reckless and were made with no regard for the activity on the talk page or to the article itself. That is the issue at hand. petrarchan47tc 18:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I personally am not out for blood, nor do I think anyone else who has had difficulties with this editor feels that way either, although I do note that apparently BP is not the only article where he has edit-warred, judging from the comment about the Scottish articles. What does concern me is that he was asked to self-revert, he did not, and now is back in the article talk page and shows no indication of a change of heart. Also, Petrarchan's point is correct. I could go on and on about how I don't like the atmosphere of that article and a number of other articles on Wikipedia. There was one particular edit yesterday that I found especially tendentious. So what? That's not why we're here. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Without comment on any of the underlying content or meta issues, I've blocked Rangoon11 (talk · contribs) for 1 month for a clear violation of the policy on edit-warring. The block length is based on his previous record here, which includes multiple blocks for issues including edit-warring and abusive sockpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:HomoByzantinus reported by User:RJFF (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Attack (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HomoByzantinus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [24]
2. [25]
3. [26]
4. [27]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:
Since his/her registration, User:HomoByzantinus has almost only edited articles related to this Attack party or its leader, deleting content that disagreed with the party's POV (even if it is backed by sources) and adding content that promotes the POV of the party (even though it is not supported by reliable sources). HomoByzantinus never explains or discusses his/her edits. I have tried to explain our policies (verifiabilty, NPOV) to this editor since February 2012, without any success. HomoByzantinus has continued edit warring even after Snowded warned him/her and expressly invited him/her to discussion. --RJFF (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• While this is technically "slow" edit-warring, it's edit-warring nonetheless, aggravated by unexplained removal of sourced content. Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IranitGreenberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33] Here's at least one revert in yet another whole set of edits by this editor done a couple hours ago, within the 24 hour period and since this report made; doubtless more in that set. (Added by: CarolMooreDC🗽 03:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC))
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Comments:

Article is in the IP topic area and subject to 1rr restrictions. User has been warned multiple times for violating 1rr regulations in several articles. He could have been reported on a number of previous occasions. I have brought this here because it seems clear the editor has no intention of following the rules in the topic area or using the talk page to resolve content disputes. Dlv999 (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally when we are reaching a kind of agreement, you report me. It is very dishonest. I didn't violate 1RR rule in this article and I didn't even remove the controversial content this time, I just added a few more references and recovered some three images. For more information see here and the talk page.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The images you "recovered" were previously removed by other editors, so that's a revert, the second one you have made today. 1rr rules are not optional. Dlv999 (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't revert anything. In fact, I leaved the controversial content since you recognized images are a different topic of discussion (you said: Kept all images, which is the only explanation for the deletion on talk). 1RR doesn't say I can't edit twice an article, only that I can't revert more than once per day.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

CarolmooreDC deleted the image, then you restored it - that is a revert, because you are undoing the actions of another editor. Dlv999 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

comment - iranit - you are right but also wrong. an edit and a revert might be the same thing and might not. dlv will gladly explain and show you which of your edits are reverts, and which are not. and once you understand that, i suggest following the rules. Soosim (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg was informed and then warned several times. There is not reason not to block him even more given he doesn't seem to be here to develop wikipedia but for other reasons. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, in any case RabeaMalah is not here to develop Wikipedia, but for other reasons (you didn't say nothing to him though). See this reversion and this one (breaking the 1RR rule, not for the first time) despite the issue was already discussed and agreed on the talk page a few days ago. See also this message and this blank.--IranitGreenberg (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:GDallimore reported by User:Damonthesis (Result: Damonthesis blocked)

Page: Psychotronics and Psychotronic weapons
User being reported: User:GDallimore

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychotronic_weapons&oldid=552942761

User:GDallimore has spent the entire morning removing historically significant information, sourced from US MIlitary, Government, and Russian government sources from the Psychotronics page, which purports to be about a single scientist, his "discovery" and the apparent lack of interest in it. Quite the contrary, there is a significant interest in the Russian Psychotronic weapons program, which has recently been re-ignited by Vladimir Putins 2012 comments about its funding. This is a 50 year old program, with zero presence on Wikipedia, yet this user has repeatedly censored it from the original article, and then completely erased the new Psychotronic weapons program on numerous occasions. He appears to be intentionally censoring this historically accurate and important information.

I am baffled as to why someone would attempt to remove these sources, which again, have come directly from U.S. Military publications, regarding the Russian program.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GDallimore&diff=552946850&oldid=552942349

Comment Damonthesis appears to be a POV warrior who has an agenda that mind control devices are real. They've been trying to add similar material at Stalking as an IP and under this account, and have argued tendentiously on the talkpage there. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I count four reverts on one topic at Psychotronics [36] [37] [38] [39] and now tag-warring. Much the same thing is happening at Psychotronic weapons. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The weapons are real as is expressed in a number of properly cited Military and Government sources on Psychotronic weapons. Your viewpoint that they are not is exactly what the problem is. You have routinely violated WP:RS on Stalking in order to suppress the viewpoint in the already cited sources that the weapons are possibly real. Further research shows that they are most definitely real, and have been investigated by both the USSR, as well as the NSA and US Army.Damonthesis (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from involved editor): yup - Having failed to spin the original article, Damonthesis has just created a POV-fork of Psychotronics at Psychotronic weapons, and seems determined to spin as many questionable sources as possible to back up dubious claims regarding 'mind-control weapons', while omitting the salient fact that much of this is pure tinfoil-hattery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, psychotronic weapons is a POV fork founded on sources Damonthesis was abusing at Stalking. As I've reverted his original IP and have (fruitlessly) engaged them there, I'm involved. I'd further note that this report appears to be aimed atGDallimore in retribution for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic weapons. Acroterion (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This opinion, presented by Andy and Acroterion is contrary to all of the sources cited. The existence of the technology and research projects is unquestionable. It is supported in literature from the U.S. Army, and from the NSA. Were these users not attempting to remove these sources from the articles in question, that would be obvious. Instead, they insist on continually describing the possibility of the existence of well documented programs as delusional, contrary to any source cited.Damonthesis (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The AfD request was made after numerous edit reversions, removing properly cited sources that simply did not agree with his, and your, personal opinion. It is in essence just another edit-reversion. The only thing being accomplished here is providing a biased and untruthful personal opinion in lieu of the source materials unbiased approach.Damonthesis (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I feel no need to comment. Thanks to everyone else. GDallimore (Talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to chime in, GDallimore has now stalked my edits, reverting them for no reason on other unrelated pages. Damonthesis (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bible_code&oldid=552960442&diff=prev for his attempts to continue to start edit wars on completely unrelated pages, this user is malicious.Damonthesis (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I'm inclined to say that both sides have been pushing the boundaries a bit, Damonthesis appears to be POV pushing from their recent edits on the respectively reported pages. However, GDallimore also appears to be harassing Damonthesis on pages which they would not normally edit. I concur with Acroterion that it appears to be aimed in retribution for the AfD. Perhaps a short break for both editors from the articles they've engaged with each other on for a good day or so? If you both agreed to prohibit yourself from engaging with each other and actively warring, I'm sure this can be resolved and closed (Although I'm not an admin so my say holds no backing). + Crashdoom ^Talk 23:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from an involved editor) I don't agree that GDallimore's actions are harassing. When you come across an editor who consistently abuses sources it's natural to try and clean up the mess they have left at other articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a personal attack. I am not abusing sources, the information under question is properly cited, from reputable sources. You have continually accused me of "original research" yet everything being presented is truly in the source material. Meanwhile, the action in question is clearly not a "mess" it was an analysts published contribution to a discussion about Bible Code.Damonthesis (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. Per WP:HARASSMENT: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There was no error, and no violation of wikipedia policy, the multiple warned revisions were nothing short of malicious. Damonthesis (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, guess I will have to chip in. This "harrassment" was exactly as LuckyLouie said - here we have an editor who has shown a clear inability to use sources properly. Three different editors have been telling him he is making improper syntheses from the sources and I am not the only person who has been undoing his edits - I was just the first to take a stand and say enough is enough, you are damaging the integrity of the articles and this will not be accepted. Nevertheless, every single one of my edits has been carefully considered and I have salvaged good sources that have been brought forward and attempted to use them in a neutral way without adding my own original research.

And yes, I went back over his edit history. This is something that MUST be done when you have an editor who is working on fringe articles because there is often insufficient editor coverage on those articles to double check the edits. If that is harrasssment or hounding then block me now because I will not stop trying to protect fringe articles from blatant POV-pushers. And what did I find in my background checks: A lengthy discussion and edit war at Stalking where Damonthesis (initally under an IP) was trying to push exactly the same POV based on the same set of sources and accusing anyone who reverted him of being malicious.

And then I found an edit he made to Bible code which proves my point entirely. It's a rarely edited article, so it needs a few extra people on hand. Damonthesis had made two edits, one which seemed OK and introduced a new source to support a previously cn'd claim - great. The other, however, shows this editor's inability to use source properly since the information he added to the article says the opposite to what the source actually says. I had to do some research since he hadn't provided a live link to the book he was quoting, but fortunately it was previewable on google docs.

You are wrong. The quote was not misrepresented, and this is not the final reason you used after your third revert of this line. Your reasoning was incorrect, and as such it appeared to be a malicious edit. After your third time reverting, you now bring up that the author I cited was "quoting" an already quoted work. I'm honestly not even sure if that's correct, however the source was cited to clarify the discussion, in which the author explained his opinion of why the Bible Code is not "as profound as it appears." I still stand by the edit, it brings a plain english explanation to an otherwise bland and difficult to follow discussion. Regardless, I will check what source he was quoting now. Damonthesis (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

In all, this is an editor who makes changes based on hidden or difficult to find sources which he twists to fit his own POV. With an editor like this, the only thing to do is to salvage the sources, wipe the slate clean on his contributions and start again from scratch with the article itself. I can understand that Damonthesis has a problem with that, but I tried to be polite by reverting him and salvaging what I could over the course of 18 edits (starting here, explaining my actions carefully and in a considered way and I would be surprised if any reasonable person could say I was out of line in any edit I made.

You salvaged nothing, reverted everything I added over a 6 hour period. After deciding that your page must be about a separate topic, and creating a page to properly cover a program which is in no way difficult to find references to you started merging information nearly 12 hours after completely erasing all of my sources. Still, to this very second, you have misrepresented those sources, and the "psychotronics" page makes almost zero reference to KGB or USSR involvement in the program, when in fact they were the source of the research and development. You may or may not have a biased viewpoint, but the page is completely inaccurate and deceptive. I, on the other hand, have provided a number of references which define the program, using US military and Russian governmental sources... these sources still do not appear anywhere in your "defining" section, making a cursory reader have no idea what the topic is about. The Psychotronics article as it is, appears to be a dictionary entry for a Czech doctors coining of a term, with a half sentence saying "since then its been used elsewhere." It is, in fact, the subsequent use (which by the way started before 1967, that defines the scope of the term, not this single doctor. Damonthesis (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

But when Damonthesis' response is to POV-fork the article, accuse people of censorship, suggest we're commie spies, say we're acting maliciously, bringing up other user's history of mental illness, and reporting me to ANI, then the time for being polite is over. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The morning before I created a new article, you personally removed a significant amount of information sourced from the Army, Marines, and an NSA textbook which defined "psychotronics" much more broadly than your current page did. After doing so, you told me that my sources were "not related to psychotronics," which made it appear as if you have no idea what the "psychotronic" program actually is. Upon creating another page, to refer to the Soviet weapons program, you attempted to delete that page, and then submitted it for AfD, all the while your page did not at one time mention Soviet military involvement in "psychotronics" but rather attributed the term and its history to a Czech scientist. Either the page was factually inaccurate, or it was referring to a different subject. Either way, rather than argue and edit war with you, I attempted to create a page about the "Soviet psychotronics program." Since the AfD, a number of editors have now incorporated much of the information from that page into the original, however the original still purports to center around the invention and work of one pseudoscientist studying parapsychology, and makes it appear as if the Russian government had no interest or knowledge of the program until 2012. This is factually inaccurate, the program has been "in the hands of Russian military" for nearly all of the Cold War, and their research has been documented in Russian Universities. I didn't suggest you were commie spies, it was obviously a joke "if we were in the cold war"--regardless, you are essentially working to remove information about USSR weapons programs, which is public, and documented in US military research, from Wikipedia. Damonthesis (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrative action required

After receiving a WP:HARASS warning, this user continues to send harassing and badgering messages to me, in retaliation for filing this complaint. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=553067989&oldid=553025994 Damonthesis (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After deleting that comment. this user has posted, again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Damonthesis&diff=553070258&oldid=553068955 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I blocked Damonthesis for one week for edit warring, canvassing, and personal attacks. Please make any further comments at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Gaijin42 reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: No violation)

Page: Gun control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gaijin42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] [40] Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Gaijin42 removed a tag questioning reliability of a source that is the subject of an ongoing RfC [47] Gaijin42 response to 3RR warning and notice: [48] Gaijin42 contentious denigrations of editors' concerns about RS and the tag Gaijin42 removed in one of the reverts cited above [49] Gaijin has also denied my good faith and engaged in a personal attack on me here: [50]

Comments:
User Gaijin42 was blocked for a previous 3RR violation at this same article on April 25: [51]

In light of user Gaijin42's continued hostile editing, denial of his actions even in the face of admin decisions, and personal attack on me at the article talk page, I suggest a more serious penalty be considered in this case. SPECIFICO talk 03:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO made a specific suggestion on my talk page as part of his warning notice. I have attempted to get clarification on that suggestion, and he has not done so. There is no edit war going on, and contrary to his assertion, none of the edits are the topic of an RFC. (The RFC is to delete the entire section, and it is clear there is no consensus in any direction regarding the RFC. ) AGF works both ways. The "Personal attack" was that I said Specificos repeated analogy saying "Why would I care about Hitler's gun policies? Again, it's no more significant than his preference for mayo rather than the more conventional mustard on his sausage" was trolling, which is not a personal attack, and a statement that I stand by. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Further, SPECIFICO is attempting to wikilawer via techicalities. "revert" #2 is a statement which was left over from a previous version of the section, and is no longer applicable to the new organization. (The section previously was a combined "gun control and authoritarian governments" section. the statement now was in a "Nazi germany" section, so mentioning Italy was off topic. this was a copyedit, not a revert. The remaining portion of that sentence was removed by SPECIFICO shortly after that edit, so it is not even feasible to self-revert that "revert"Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a 3RR violation. Please understand 3RR is a revert rule, not an edit rule. Just because some editor does 3 edits that you disagree with doesn't mean he's violated 3RR. Anyone can look at the article history at Gun control and see that there were no revisions by anyone else between Gaijan's four "reverts" listed above. That's not edit warring. This is nothing more than wikilawyering on the part of SPECIFICO, and it's very poor. The case listed below (another report by SPECIFICO) appears to be a similar story. SPECIFICO, you can't just ANI everyone for every little thing they do. ROG5728 (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3RR "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Please review. SPECIFICO talk 04:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well sure SPECIFICO, if you want to get really technical, any edit could be considered a "revert" because technically any edit on Wikipedia undoes other editor's actions. But that's not how 3RR works. Looking at the article history at Gun control makes it very obvious that 3RR was not violated or even approached in this case. ROG5728 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No violation King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:kvaiting reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: No violation)

Page: Hanns Martin Schleyer Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: kvaiting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[52]

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] The edit-warred text in this article was recently merged from another article. Link is unavailable. User Kvaiting is reverting to an earlier version he wrote.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [53]
2. [54]
3. [55]
4. [56]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58] [59]
Comments:
This user appears to be almost single-purpose promoting this prize and its winners. The user has reacted with hostility to other editors' suggestions and edits. The user has falsely accused me of vandalism and harassment, and does not seem to respond to advice or warnings from others. SPECIFICO talk 03:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO is jumping the gun. There is no back-and-forth editing going on. Please close without action. – S. Rich (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No violation There is simply no edit warring going on. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The supposed edit warring was probably elsewhere, such as in this edit (where Kvaitling's is infinitely preferable). Specifico seems to have an interest here, as indicated in this edit, and placed a bunch of warnings on Kvaitling's talk page, one of which I'm about to respond to. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Antiochus COI, three times revert

i asked here for advise on how to best handle the Dokeos article, and it was proposed to bring it up here. Antiochus reverted with a comment "advertisement for Chamilo" or similar three times. afaik it was first added by Acuna007, and removed here, here, here, here. i had a talk with thomas de praetere, the author of dokeos and also editor of the article, about it as well. there were former reverts stating there is too much advertising in the dokeos article, which was my impression as well. i do not feel comfortable to touch this again - i did make my point (even more often then i should do) and somebody else did not like it, which is fair enough. if you could pls advise who should proceed how in such a case? or it is best to just leave it alone? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Bluerules reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: Declined)

Page: The Dark Knight (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bluerules (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [60]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [61]
2. [62]
3. [63]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This section on the page on Talk:The Dark Knight (film)

Comments:
Bluerules has been commenting a series of edit wars and disruptive editing on film articles on how the cast should be ordered in various films, including The Dark Knight. There is no consensus on how the cast should be ordered in cast section in film articles. Eaglestorm reverted one of Bluerule's edits on The Dark Knight and I reverted two of them, which means he committed 3RR violation. He will probably says things at us that we did some violations too. But regardless of that, how he's been editing on film articles has been disruptive at best. We need to do something with him. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I made two reverts. The attempt to resolve the dispute was made after my second revert. I haven't touched the article since then. Bluerules (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Technically, Bluerules did make three reverts (the first edit is a revert), which, although edit warring, is not a violation of WP:3RR. That said, I'm going to take their statement here as a promise to leave the article alone.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Look, I understand there are edit warring issues going on lately. It just that Bluerules has a history of edit warring and disruptive editing regarding how the cast list should be ordered in various film articles and has been blocked at least three times as the result of it. It's causing some problems in some film articles and some users caught in it. I just thought I should give you a heads up Bbb23. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hawaiifive0 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: Normandy landings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawaiifive0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]

New editor, with repeated edit warring reverted by a number of different editors. This is a fairly minor issue of UK/US primacy during the D Day landings. This has been agreed per consensus a long time ago, per the the article talk page. This editor seems uninterested in discussing substantive issues or in using the article talk, although they have made some comments on their user talk – in between making the same edit over again. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Could I just add my support to Andy Dingley's comments above. David J Johnson (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I had been asked to look as an uninvolved observer before this was filed, but yes, there does seem to be a problem with a POV and the editor has been reverted by a number of editors, showing there is an established consensus that this editor doesn't seem to care about. They appear to have been unresponsive to most, and combative to other attempts to discuss. What bothers me most is a comment they made on their talk page: "Consensus is never a replacement for fact." which clearly shows that they have an agenda that they deem greater than the community view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeremy Duns reported by User:SonOfThornhill (Result: Warned)

Page: Ian Fleming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeremy Duns (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]
7. [78]
8. [79]
9. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Jeremy Duns#April 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:
This editor has engaged in a pattern of reverts of several other editors. He has been warned about edit warring numerous times on both his own user's talk page and on the article's talk page but has persisted with his reverts. When other editors tried to reach consensus with him on the article's talk page, he responses have been very hostile claiming he knows more about the subject than anyone else in the world, insisting on using his own blog as a source and accusing of being "Orwellian". The reverts listed above are only those in the last 24 hours. There are many more going back several days. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you missed out that every single edit I made has since been replaced in the article. Because I was, in fact, right on every edit, and none of you had done your research but just kneejerk removed every tiny edit without checking. But well done, you've driven me away with this officiouss, lazy, shoddy nonsense and arguing black is white for hours on end. Very very well done. Jeremy Duns (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned Jeremy on his talk page about future edit warring and about his attitude in discussions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:64.134.229.15 and User:64.134.239.43 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

Page: P-adic exponential function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported:

1. 64.134.229.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 64.134.239.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: All edits (including revert 0)

1. add Double exponential function
2. add an external link to [82] (which is now added, potentially correctly, to the main p-adic number article)
3. add non-existant categories, and/or
4. remove the section naming Strassmann's theorem.

The last might be reasonable, as unsourced.

Diffs of the user's reverts:
0. 04:41, April 29, 2013 editor 1, properties 1,2,3

1. 19:15, April 30, 2013 editor 1, properties 1,2,3
2. 19:45, May 1, 2013 editor 1, properties 1,2,3 + PA in edit comment
3. 22:05, May 1, 2013 editor 2, properties 1,2,3,4 + personal remark, unrelated to editing, in invisible comment
4. 22:29, May 1, 2013 editor 2, properties 1,2,3,4 + personal remark, unrelated to editing, in invisible comment + insult in edit comment.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:00, April 25, 2013
2. 22:20, May 1, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Both IPs have a history of making random-looking edits on a number of pages, but....

1. 21:31, May 1, 2013 informed editor 1 of (a) proper way of adding new categories on his talk page, to address point 3.
2. 21:23, May 1, 2013‎ & 22:21, May 1, 2013 attempted to reply to ‎edit comments explaining why point 1 might be reasonable, noting that they are wrong.

Comments:

Not a 3RR violation, but clearly edit warring. I admit to reverting about the same number of times, also 4 times in 29 hours, but I've attempted to explain why some of the edits are inappropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:96.241.165.157 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )

Page: Mike Baker (CIA officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.241.165.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 216.246.49.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [83]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [84]
2. [85]
3. [86]

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

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

Comments:
I don't know if I'm doing this right, so please correct as necessary. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 17:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:207.161.233.201 reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - Vianello (Talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC))

Page: Rape culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.161.233.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [88]
2. [89]
3. [90]
4. [91]
5. [92]
6. [93]
7. [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a, pretty obvious POV vandalism.

Comments:
User is also involved in a heavy revert war to blank this section on this page.

User now blocked. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've protected the one page since that isn't the only IP that has vandalized lately. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The block was laid down for the revert vandalism on this page, but would still have gone through for the edit warring regardless. - Vianello (Talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Polarscribe reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Blocked)

Page: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Polarscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [97] 3;40, April 30
2. [98] 8:31
3. [99] 18:58
4. [100] 21;54 (see edit summary)
5. [101] 11:57 May 1

Not all reverts are reverts of the same text. Last, 5th revert fall outside the 24 hour period, but it shows that user intends to edit war despite the ungoing discussion. This is my argument to include information [102]. This is his response. This material is well sourced and does not fall under BLP exemption because people described in the removed segment are dead.

This user was previously blocked for 3RR violation. He knows what he is doing. User was notified [103].

Comments:

• [See reply to Wished below.] No action. No 3R, technically, and while there is discussion on the talk page I don't see a clear consensus on whether the material should be included. BLP does apply since living people are involved (in the article as a whole--and inferences are suggested in the removed material) in the US (unless I missed an obit for Dzhokhar) and elsewhere, and should be read to prompt us to edit conservatively. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Edit warring, "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material". Which of these four reverts was not a revert? However, if you believe that no action is needed, this is obviously at your discretion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Tell you what, my mind was still working with an older (and less clear) version of the 3R policy. I still don't think this should be acted upon (and I don't like the "whether" phrase), but I invite another admin to look at this and make their own judgment and have removed my "nothing" in the heading. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've reviewed the history. Polarscribe has indeed violated WP:3RR, but only in the most technical sense. What disturbs me more is the last revert that fell outside the 24-hour window. Thus, I have asked Polarscribe not to edit the article at all for five days. If they accept that restriction, there will be no block.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Per WP:BLP, the removal of contentious material relating to living persons is not subject to the 3RR and I removed the material in the good-faith belief that the removal was to such ends. I have ceased reverting the material as it would be WP:POINT edit-warring at this point but it is clear that there is not consensus that the material is related to the person in question. I do not agree to a page ban, quite obviously. polarscribe (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, yes, I "was previously blocked for 3RR violation" - eight years ago. polarscribe (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I don't see any significant BLP violations in the material. Interestingly, Polarscribe didn't claim the BLP exemption until after the fact. His last edit summary: "again, this is not a biography of two other people or a discussion of their alleged actions. Stop attaching guilt by association". In another edit summary: " Irrelevant". Another: "The details of how they died are not relevant to the biography of this person". In another: "This article isn't a biography of Nidal or Plotnikov. Tangential." Just so it's clear, the block had absolutely nothing to do with any previous blocks. I don't care about a block that occurred 8 years ago, particularly when reviewing a long-standing editor with many contributions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This is not a BLP issue at all. Since Nidal and Plotnikov are dead, the living person is apparently Tsarnaev. Polarscribe probably means that association of Tsarnaen with Nudal and Plotnikov implies the guilt of Tsarnayev [in the bombing] by association. But Tsarnaev is guilty in the bombing according to practically all sources and therefore must be described as a guilty party per WP:NPOV (we should not count any fringe views here). If he was actually convicted by a court is not really important, since we must describe everything per sources, not per court decisions. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I am not sure he learned the lesson: edit warring in another article immediately after coming back from the block [104]. He also should be warned that such edits fall under Armenia-Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions by Arbcom. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Polarscribe has been warned about possible discretionary sanctions. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

User:BBB76 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)

Page: United Bates of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BBB76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]
5. [109]
6. [110]
7. [111]
8. [112]
9. [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor's talk page is full of them.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see editor's talk page, Orlady's talk page, article talk page, especially the RfC which BBB76 does not wish to participate in.

Comments: What's happening is that BBB does not like the term "singleton" and wants readers to look at the table containing all kinds of information for nineteen children and generate from that there were no triplets etc. "Singleton", they said, was too complicated a word for them. Orlady started an RfC, and BBB reverted me again without participating in it. We're dealing with an editor with a bad case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT whose contributions to these TV show articles we can do without. This is a long-term irritation and it needs to stop, with a block and a fat trout or so, of the non-humorous kind. Also, I hope that I'm not rubbing Orlady the wrong way by filing this in addition to the RfC, but it seems to me that BBB has no intention to participate or live with its result--we sound, apparently, like a broken record. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I started that RfC on the article talk page because I hoped to prevent BBB76 from becoming one of those users who asserts that they are being pushed around by the Wikipedia power structure. I figured that comments from other users might have a positive effect. The user's latest revert, after the RfC was started, indicates that I was foolish to be so optimistic. Over at the related article List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, I've been pleased to see signs that this user is catching on to the knack of avoiding WP:Close paraphrasing and other forms of copyvio, but we've been sparring over things like the word "midwifery" and the user's apparent allergy to including anything other than bare urls in reference citations. Sigh! --Orlady (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably the first editor to encounter problems with this user (unless they had a different name before) as you can see by looking at the history of 19 Kids and Counting. I should have reported long ago, but I guess I didn't really know how to go about that. And I thought the behavior would change, but obviously not. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked the editor for edit warring on United Bates of America and List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes. The editor knows how to talk (whether they know how to hear is dubious) but, with two exceptions, prefers to "discuss" issues on user talk pages rather than on the article talk pages (preferred). I resisted blocking them for their unfortunate choice of user names.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Polarscribe (again) reported by User:De728631 (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: [114]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Polarscribe has just returned from an edit warring block about BLP material (see above) and is now again involved in a BLP-related edit war about what he thinks are unreliable sources. I've notified them about possible discretionary sanctions about topics regarding Armenia/Azerbaijan as set out at WP:ARBAA2. While the topic is being discussed with little outcome at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Hamid Algar and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Periodical of Armenian Students suitable for WP:BLP, Polarscribe keeps removing content from the article without waiting for consensus. I have therefore restored one previous version of the article but Polarscribe promptly reverted me. De728631 (talk) 18:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The material is highly derogatory toward a living person - making accusations of offensive speech and behavior - and is currently sourced only to an unbylined press release in a clearly-slanted Web site and a student-written journal that is now defunct. Neither of these sources meets WP:RS and if WP:BLP is to have any meaning at all whatsoever, the material should be removed until discussed and reliable sources are provided. A fruitful talk page discussion had been going on about a sourced rewrite, until the above editor and another began blindly reverting the disputed contentious material back into the article. polarscribe (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you cannot insist that the sources cited are outright unreliable. The university agrees that the comments were made, which negates the BLP aspect of this dispute. Even if it is a BLP violation, why have you chosen to edit war? Rather than discuss your concerns, you have made four reverts in a single day, which is more indicative of a crusade of a single editor than good-faith concern for the biography of a living person. This section of this article has already been subject to blanket reverts by editors for a couple years now so the current onslaught appears to be no different.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is your source for the assertion that "the university agrees that the comments were made?" And no, that does not "negate" BLP, because the sourcing and presentation is slanted and suspect. The university is not a court of law and their statements may or may not be valid. We don't know to what extent the article subject disputes the issue, because no reliable sources have been provided - the two sources existing in the removed text are slanted, biased and thoroughly POV accounts promoting one side of the dispute. They do nothing but attack the article subject and are not objective reports.

Regardless, this is a discussion that belongs on the article talk page, with the disputed material removed. That is literally what BLP policy requires. polarscribe (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Asbarez article quotes from the report issued by the university and school organizations; while the university did not begin any disciplinary action against Algar and said his words were protected by free speech, nowhere is it indicated that the confrontation with the students did not take place. The official school newspaper, The Daily Californian, has a similar piece, mirrored here. Another article in the paper discussing the matter can be found here here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as the content business goes I am inclined to agree with Polarscribe, but they're the last one to get involved in another edit war and I have blocked them accordingly, for a week. If anyone feels this should be logged as an ArbCom sanction that's fine, I have no opinion on that--for me, it's run-of-the-mill edit warring from someone with too much experience in the matter. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems that Polarscribe now has decided to quit completely over this issue. [118] De728631 (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, WP:EW provides an exemption for contentious, poorly sourced material. Since you said the material in question is "a horribly sourced non-notable incident and it should be removed", I'm not sure why you wouldn't apply that exemption here. The way Polarscribe has responded to this is unfortunate, but I urge you to reconsider your block.

De728631, as far as arbitration cases go, I would cite Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff: "[contentious BLP] material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." —Emufarmers^(T/C) 01:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Because edit warring is disruptive and this edit warring by this editor is highly disruptive. You are welcome to seek redress for this editor in some other forum, but I see no reason to change my mind. Polarscribe should have a modicum of faith in the system. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• @Emufarmers: Thanks for the arbitration link, and good job there with the copyvio (Archive.org). As to Polarscribe, I agree with Drmies about the level of disruption, otherwise I wouldn't have brought this here. Nobody is forced to edit war about contentious material, even if it is possibly exempt from the rule. De728631 (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

72.208.60.225 reported by Exclusive Agent (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.208.60.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link to warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Attempt to discuss #1

1. Attempt to discuss #2

Comments:

The Ted Cruz article has been edited several times in the last few days with three and four references to that either: (1) Ted Cruz was born in Canada and/or (2) is a Canadian. The article has clearly stated for a long, stable period that Cruz was in fact born in Canada. But Ted Cruz is not a Canadian. There is no reliable source that states Ted Cruz is a Canadian. Editor 72.208.60.225 has been editing the article to state in the first line that Ted Cruz is a Canadian-born American, which implies that Ted Cruz is a Canadian-American, which he is not. He is an American. A different IP editor, who might be a sockpuppet of 72.208.60.225 has stated that the article must be edited to conform with the Jennifer Granholm article, where the phrase "Canadian-born American" is used correctly. However, Granholm was not only born in Canada but both of her parents were Canadian at the time of her birth. Cruz's mother is an American. The article clearly states in the appropriate places that Cruz was born in Canada, but the phrase "Canadian-born American" is properly reserved for Canadians that choose to be naturalized American citizens, such as Granholm. There is no need for a third reference in the article to the Canadian birth.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:212.178.236.59 reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked)

Page: War crimes in the Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.178.236.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [119]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not done, I am not involved in the edit-war. Two involved editors have attempted to address this on the IP's talk page here [125]

Comments:
This article falls under ARBMAC and the edit-warring needs attention. An ARBMAC warning at the very least. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

May I recommend the page for protection from new accounts and logged out editors? The summaries by the IP make it clear that the editing is intended to be fatuous rather than genuine. Zetatrans (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This is a normal edit warring block, not an ArbCom block. There was no notice on the article talk page about discretionary sanctions (I've now added one), and there was no warning to the IP about discretionary sanctions (I've now done that as well).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Niemti reported by User:Canoe1967 (Result: No violation)

Page: Cosplay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niemti (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. [126]
2. [127]
3. [128]

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

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

Comments:

Canoe's spamming his own (conflict of interests) ugly photo into the article, despite it not being needed in forst place, not illustrating anything even remotely relevant, and all the other uploaders not doing it (there are literally hundreds of MUCH better cosplay photos in Commons, but they're also not needed in the already illustrated article, and more importantely, the uploaders not pushing their stuff in like that). --Niemti (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's basically spam. --Niemti (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2013 (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. -- Also, WP:BRD is not BRRD. A picture was added, removed, and now discussion happens. Not "added, removed, reinstated and you ask for discussion". Reverting a revert without discussing anything on the talk page is the ignition spark for edit warring, and it didn't come from Niemti. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 17:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Shafaq123 reported by User:MohitSingh (Result: Stale)

Page: Afzal Guru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shafaq123 (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. [129] 19:48, 3 May 2013
2. [130] 19:25, 3 May 2013
3. [131] 19:07, 3 May 2013
4. [132] 19:03, 3 May 2013
5. [133] 17:34, 3 May 2013
6. [134] 17:07, 3 May 2013
7. [135] 17:02, 3 May 2013
8. [136] 16:05, 3 May 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Afzal_Guru#Guru.27s_Interview

Comments:

I had put the reasons for the changes in the talk page of the article. I had also continuously been asking User:Shafaq123 to refer to the talk page first and then make any further edit or reverts. But the user has not paid any heed and has been reverting the earlier edits.--Mohit Singh (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stale. Both parties were edit warring but appear to have stopped. I believe Shafaq123 needs help as I get the impression they truly don't know what they are doing Wikipedia-wise. --Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Factzombie and User:Sheppane reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Sheppane blocked)

Page: Donald Campbell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Bluebird K7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• Factzombie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sheppane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated slow-speed reversion war between these two, over these two related articles. No attempt at discussion, despite warnings and prompting. I make no claims as to which one is "in the right", for either policy or content reasons.

Could someone else please try applying the Clueiron. I've got nowhere so far and this is tiresome. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I've left a warning addressed to both editors on Factzombie's talk page and told Sheppane that they must contribute there. This may not be quick because it looks like neither user necessarily edits on a frequent basis.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

On Donald Campbell & Bluebird K7 I have made a number of significant factual and contextual contributions to these page over a number of years. It has been an abiding interest of mine for more than 35 years and I am considered an authority on this subject. Recently, I have had a number of my contributions altered by Factzombie. I am very happy to enter into any discussion with factzombie / wikipedia and cite any evidence you feel is missing.

The cause of the accident has been fully researched in the book Donald Campbell, Bluebird and the Final Record Attempt, which had unprecedented access to the original analysis carried out by the Norris Bros, designers of Bluebird K7 after the accident. The analysis was completely re-assesd by Dr Keith Mitchell, and Mr Tony James, who was an MD at Norris Bros, and project manager for the Bluebird K7 refit in 1966. Extensive help was also sourced from Prof John Stollery, who was Professor of Aerodynamics as Imperial College and consultant to the Norris Bros / Campbell team. In conjunction with work carried out by Dr R Englar of Georgia Tech, who has done extensive work on hydroplane's operating in ground effect, the analysis of the causes of K7 accident is that which I have abridged in both the Donald Campbell and Bluebird K7 pages. This adds substantially to the explanation of the accident and helps clear up many misconceptions and heresy that have built up over the years. Furthermore, as part of that analysis, an enhanced copy of Campbell's final run commentary was also exhaustively re-examined, and this revealed a different interpretation of Campbell's last words and their context. I have included this on both pages, but have also included a helpful acknowledgement of the fact that this interpretation differs from previous version. In this way, readers are able to make up their own mind. I have also provided a context for Campbell's commentary and given background as to how it was delivered, effectively in real time as events were happening, and not as a reflection or interpretation of events.

Neil Sheppard (sheppane)

I have contributed extensively to both pages and find it frustrating when copy is changed without reference to the wider increase in knowledge that has been brought to both pages in the last year or so, or without acknowledgement that differences of opinion do exist over some aspects of the Bluebird K7/ Donald Campbell story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheppane (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your focus on the content, but my focus is more on conduct. I don't want to see the article disrupted by a battle. I appreciate your saying that you're willing to discuss the content with the other editor, but that discussion has to lead to a consensus to resolve the dispute rather than just disgreeing with each other. Let's wait to see what Factzombie has to say. As I recall, both articles currently reflect your version, so Factzombie will either revert, talk, or do nothing. Just to be clear, if Factzombie reverts, report it; don't revert back.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I've blocked Sheppane for reverting on both articles. My recollection of the last state of the articles (see above) was incorrect. They were in Factzombie's version, but I believe I made it clear enough here and at Factzombie's talk page (which Sheppane was fully aware of) that there should be no more reverts. I'm not putting a result in the header yet as Factzombie has not edited anyting at Wikipedia since May 2.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Marko Leljak reported by User:Taivo (Result: )

Page: Kajkavian dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marko Leljak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [139]
2. [140]
3. [141]
4. [142]
5. [143]
6. [144]
7. [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

There is a long-standing consensus in articles dealing with the non-Slovenian West South Slavic language to call it by its most commonly-used English name--"Serbo-Croatian". The linguistic details of this relationship and terminology have been detailed at Croatian language, Serbian language, Bosnian language, Serbo-Croatian, Kajkavian dialect, and Chakavian dialect on multiple occasions. Most nationalist POV pushers revert once or twice and then go away. This particular POV pusher has been persistent for a month now and has intensified his/her efforts during the last 48 hours. --Taivo (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. The reported editor has not been editing for a month. They started yesterday. In addition, you should have warned them of edit warring earlier, not at the same time as you report them here. Finally, you never even tried talking to them, as far as I can see. Assuming they are truly a new user, I am not inclined to block them, even though it's an obvious violation of WP:3RR. Now, if they revert again after now having been warned (although still without any discussion), I would reconsider.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Armbrust reported by User:Spc_21 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Ronnie O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Armbrust (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. [147] 18:29, 5 May 2013
2. [148] 21:10, 5 May 2013
3. [149] 23:36, 5 May 2013
4. [150] 23:49, 5 May 2013
5. [151] 23:53, 5 May 2013
6. [152] 00:00, 6 May 2013

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Armbrust has just come back from a block and upon his return once more breaks the 3RR two times over.Spc 21 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And you were quick to jump on it, weren't you? But you didn't bother to notify him of this report as you're required to do (I've done so for you).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see:

And you were quick to jump on it, weren't you? But you didn't bother to notify him of this report as you're required to do (I've done so for you).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1. 18:29, 5 May 2013, 21:10, 5 May 2013 & [154] 23:36, 5 May 2013 are removals of unsourced controversial information about a living people.
2. 23:49, 5 May 2013, 23:53, 5 May 2013 and # 00:00, 6 May 2013 are removals of blatantly false information from a BLP article.

These fall under WP:3RRNO#7 I think. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• It would be better to semi-protect the article for 48 hours since O'Sullivan is currently contesting the world final. An IP is adding unsourced (and posibly inaccurate) facts to O'Sullivan's biography, and while they are not libellous they are still technically in violation of Wikipedia's living person policy; while Armbrust has reverted more than three times, removing unsourced additions to articles about lviing people are normally exempt from normal 3RR sanctions. Betty Logan (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I would have reverted them myself if I had caught them before Armbrust, and there are going to be many more edits of this nature especially tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Very quick to jump on it indeed Bbbbb23 thanks for noticing. Spc 21 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week. If it can be lifted sooner, please let me or some other admin know. I'm not sure I agree with the BLP exemption, but in this instance I think the IP's edits were disruptive, and I don't think Armbrust's reverts merit sanctions. @Armbrust, in the future, please let someone know if there's a problem like this so you don't expose yourself unnecessarily. @Spc 21, it's hard to believe that you interpreted my comments vis-a-vis you to be anything but sarcastic. Part of editing at Wikipedia means being neutral and not filing reports against other editors for improper motives.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Heathenguy reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: Locked)

Page: The Odin Brotherhood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Heathenguy (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. 2 September 2012
2. 5-10 September 2012 (not an actual revert, but had the same effect)
3. 07:26, 17 September 2012‎
4. 02:25, 29 January 2013
5. 03:31, 30 January 2013
6. 19:10, 1 February 2013
7. 3 May 2013
8. 5 May 2013

He also edit-warred in Odinism#The_Odin_Brotherhood, where he had copied some of the problematic text:

1. [155]
2. [156]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [157]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: #Melton, #Clarifying_Errors, #Religious_Hatred_has_no_Place_Here

Comments:

In September 2012 I reworked the article of The Odin Brotherhood, removing misrepresentations of sources and fluff, Heathenguy's first reaction was a full reversion with "(reverted wholesale changes made withoutb discussion.)". He repeatedly tries to remove sourced sentences like "most researchers doubt that it even exists" with excuses like "(points tightened up.)"

He also tried to wipe out Dbachmann's improvements[158] with his reverts of 29 January, 30 January and 1 February 2013‎. I made more improvements[159], and he tried to wipe out both my improvements and Dbachmann's improvements with his reverts of 3 May and 5 May.

Ever since then, he has edit-warred against User:Dbachmann and me, restoring misrepresentations of sources and promotional tones. I have verified all the sources and undone his misrepresentations (to put it bluntly, I caught him lying about sources in this section here).

Heathenguy is a Single Purpose Account and most probably a member of the group. He is only interested in using wikipedia as a promotional platform for his group. Now he is slowly editing the misrepresentations back into the article (thus my undoing of his edits).

Please block this editor for blatant and repeated misrepresentation of sources and edit--warring to restore the misrepresentations. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've fully protected the article for one week. I have trouble seeing this as an issue for this board. The edit war is extraordinarily slow and is essentially a content battle between you and User:Dbachmann (dab seems to have bowed out in February) on one side, and Heathenguy on the other. At bottom it is an unusual content dispute as to what the subject of the article is, a book, or a group. I can see that Heathenguy is a SPA. I can also see that their edits and comments are more problematic, but I don't feel comfortable blocking them. While the lock is in place, I suggest you try the usual dispute resolution mechanisms. If you feel that Heathenguy's conduct is sufficiently disruptive, then you can go to WP:ANI, but ANI is not a friendly place and will demand a high level of disruption to justify sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I'll try allowing him to switch the focus to the group. Then I can concentrate on representing sources faithfully. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

I am indeed a single-subject editor, for I have been a student of Odinism since the late 1970's. I have hundreds of books and articles and pieces of literature on the subject.

The article in question, The Odin Brotherhood, is supposed to be about a group and not a book, and I will be happy if the original subject (the group) is restored. I reverted Mr Naval's edits because I assumed that his unilaterally changing the SUBJECT of an entire article was a violation of Wikipedia rules.

For the record, a new book, The Way of the Odin Brotherhood, by Jack Wolf in Canada, will come out in 2013, so Wikipedia does not need an article on the earlier work by Professor Mirabello.

The group, however, is one of the most prominent in Odinism, so the group deserves and article.

Thanks.--Heathenguy (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MisterShiney reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [160]
2. [161]
3. [162]
4. [163]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

Comments: There is another subsequent deletion; MrShiney will no doubt argue it's not a problem, but that attitude is what needs correcting in general.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment First off, this is totally not needed. Since User:Nomoskedasticity impersonal warning, at 11:49GMT I have not reverted the disputed content, in fact, I have worked to improve the content further which was blanketly removed by an Admin with little regard to the changes.

I would like to point out that the 4th so called "Revert" is a removal of a tag and [166] addition of other tags and should be counted as part of the reversions. This is a clear waste of admin's time on an already busy function. Perhaps reverting wasn't the best thing to do, but as per Wikipedia:STATUSQUO, I was restoring (and improving) the content to what it was before the dispute so that it could be suitably discussed and the highlighted problems addressed. -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think further interpretation of whether the article was actually helped will be welcome. The rationale behind my initial removal of content, as supported by other editors, was that removal of unsourced, promotional and trivial content--and barring reliable outside sources, it is trivial--is preferable to keeping said content and peppering it with tags. Sometimes it's a complicated call, but this was pretty blatant. The section in question and numerous other peacock passages were detrimental to the bio, and to the quality of the encyclopedia in general. The red flag re: attitude went up following a restoration of unsourced content at another page I'd edited, and in the ensuing discussion at the Moos talk page, which appraised me of the user's, uh, discomfort with IPs. 99.136.252.252 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I will admit, there are times where IP users such as yourself make positive contributions. I myself was a constructive IP editor for years. But when they go around blanking content begs a justified question as to their motives. I am a strong believer in working with something rather than getting rid of it. We are all capable of finding something, namely sources, if we look hard enough and It appals me to see content blanked, not even controversial content, with a poor excuse of "unsourced" is just plain lazy!! Especially when a search engine brings thousands of links when searched properly. As for if today's edits helped article is a matter of personal opinion. But before it was reverted I had begun to find sources for the claims in the section, as well as removing some of the peacockery.

I would also like to ask that if someone has a problem with my attitude, then they should come to me first and not go running to an ANI. I have spent the better part of a year now constructively editing where my flow of internet browsing takes me, and to be slapped with a ANI just because an editor doesn't like me protecting content so that it can be worked on later is stupid! -- MisterShiney ✉ 16:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not that I suppose it matters to you, but this is not ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I know exactly what this is thank you very much. Is this not an "incident" regardless of the sub category Wikipedia has? I would also ask that as an Admin you watch what comments you make. I mean did you really need to correct me on my so called misunderstanding? In particular the tone. "not that it matters". -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to take any administrative action against you because my edits to the Moos page and my comments on its talk page make me WP:INVOLVED. That does not prevent me, though, from expressing my opinion on your behavior. Your edits at the article and your comments on the talk page demonstrated a misunderstanding of many policies and guidelines (e.g., WP:EW, WP:BLPSPS, WP:CONSENSUS). You are only digging yourself deeper into a hole every time you comment here. This report is effectively of your own making. That does not mean that I necessarily think your behavior merits sanctions. You have wisely stopped editing the article. You should show the same wisdom and stop commenting here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to defend myself against the accusations made. I wouldn't say I have a misunderstanding at all...just a different interpretation, as is common with so many different polices that contradict each other. As for my wise actions, its generally my standard practice when I have been slapped with a 3RR reminder. Which is why this report was totally unnecessary and unjust. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Martin mullaney reported by User:Pigsonthewing (Result: Stale)

Page: King Kong statue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martin mullaney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Kong_statue&oldid=553623456

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Kong_statue&diff=553657898&oldid=553655821
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Kong_statue&diff=553661681&oldid=553660974
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Kong_statue&diff=553662501&oldid=553661881
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Kong_statue&diff=553666253&oldid=553664514

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_mullaney&diff=prev&oldid=553662068 - first warning (generic removal of cited material)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_mullaney&diff=553664285&oldid=553662068 - second warning (includes 3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempted on user's talk page; no replies there.

Comments: Removal of cited references to "Mr Racey". Page cited says "It is likely that Racey was the second owner after Mr Shanley."

• Stale. One of the weirder reports I've reviewed. You both edit warred. Although I wouldn't recommend continuing the battle, of course, it's not clear to me why Andy stopped. I didn't understand why Martin thought the source didn't mention Racey's name as it does. Watching the video was strange - felt like a Monty Python episode. Of course, the article itself is strange. You didn't notify Martin of this report, Andy. At this point, I'm not going to bother. I'll stop rambling now and close this.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what bearing your partisan view of the article content has; but as for notification, we have a new, automated, notification system to do that for us, don't we? I'll take your comment as an invitation to restore the cited text. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • As long as the instructions require you to notify the user of a report, you must do so. If you want to raise the issue of whether these kinds of notification requirements are necessary in light of the new "system", you'll need to do that somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Usaforrest reported by User:Golbez (Result: A day)

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

Previous version reverted to: Portions of [167]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]
4. [171]
5. [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: He has been directed to the talk page multiple times, and continues to revert without edit summaries.

Comments:
I'd block him myself had I not been involved in the war. I should point out he has a clear agenda, as evidenced by his other edits on Institute for Historical Review and I would like the community to decide whether or not he's really here to work on the encyclopedia, or just prop his fringe views. --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day. I was tempted to just indef him per WP:NOTHERE, but it's probably better if you start an AN or ANI thread. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's okay, I'm confident he'll start up right where he left off in 24 hours and that will give probable cause for an indef. Thank you. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Smurfmeister reported by User:Raintheone (Result: Blocked)

Page: Miranda (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
List of Home and Away characters (2013) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smurfmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [174]
2. [175]
3. [176]
4. [177]

1. [178]
2. [179]
3. [180]
4. [181]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [182] and [183]

Comments:

This editor added a large portion of original research to the named article. They kept reverting despite being asked not to and notifying them of WP:OR. They carried on reverting and has been disruptive on talk pages and used the tactic of targeting JuneGloom07's edits elsewhere in response.Rain the 1 23:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that JuneGloom did exactly the same thing she criticised me for, I do not think she is in any position to start reverting my edits. Pointing this out is not a tactic - it is simply highlighting hypocrisy. If you're going to criticise someone's edits, be damn sure you have not made the same mistake the very same day.

I would also like to point out that Raintheone referred to my behaviour as 'abusive', yet as refused to clarify this despite repeated requests. I simply stated that I found JuneGloom's response patronising. That does not qualify as abusive - and if by some unlikely circumstance JuneGloom did consider it so, surely she is capable of speaking for herself? Smurfmeister (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

User has been warned at dispute resolution - but decided move on and edit war on the List of Home and Away characters (2013) article instead. I have now added the differences to the report to support the second violation of 3xr.Rain the 1 00:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. See also discussion at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein reported by User:Dervorguilla (Result: Stale, editors discussing)

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

Previous version reverted to: [184] [185]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
most recent

1. [186] 02:17, 16 April 2013‎
2. [187] 20:14, 16 April 2013
3. [188] 22:06, 21 April 2013‎
4. [189] 21:16, 23 April 2013‎
5. [190] 15:41, 30 April 2013‎
6. [191] 06:02, 1 May 2013‎‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [196]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [197]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [198]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [199]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [200]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [201]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [202]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [204]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [205] (proposed revision)]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [206]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [207]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208] (refactored) [209]

Page: Carmen Ortiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previous version reverted to: [210]

1. [211] ‎19:10, 22 April 2013

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute at RSN: [215]

Comments:
Aaron Swartz and Carmen Ortiz, BLP-contentious material dispute, going on 3 weeks months.

Nowhere near 3RR yet.  MarkBernstein — formerly in conjunction with David in DC — has been reverting my edits (mostly contentious) about BLPs at both Aaron Swartz (BDP-suicide) and Carmen Ortiz (BLP), typically within hours.  He likewise reverted one of Ocaasi’s similar edits at Aaron Swartz.  (David in DC reverted the other.)

The new information on my Talk page could be helpful:  MarkBernstein at “Eastgate Systems” announced at About Tekka that his company (“Tekka” with the same location) was publishing a book by Aaron Swartz.  (“Aaron Swartz, the 17-year-old who has for years been an established expert on metadata and the semantic Web, is writing a book called Small Is Beautiful that will debut here.”)

I want to revert the relevant content at Carmen Ortiz that appears to be false statements without having it immediately restored again by MarkBernstein and without getting close to 3RR territory. --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)  17:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)  17:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)  20:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am currently serving as program chair of ACM Web Science 2013, and so will be busy in the coming days. Devorguilla's research is prodigious: my employer’s house magazine, TEKKA, did publish some work by Swartz seven or eight years ago. I'd completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book. Like many book projects, alas, it didn't come to fruition. For what it’s worth, Devorguilla has been trying for months (not weeks) to remove references from a variety of sources, with little or no support from other editors. Interested readers will find quite a bit of discussion on the talk pages.MarkBernstein (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The TEKKA website presents you as more than just an "employee". I think that your words on it suggest a stronger connection that you seem to imply here to the Swartz article. My concern is with the Ortiz article which is a full degree away from Swartz - where there is a subsection on Swartz which by Wikipedia standards should only summarize the Swartz article and not be a mirror if it, and which is subject to WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 08:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC) .

I've been chief scientist at Eastgate Systems, Inc. since 1982. As I recall, in this period the editor of Tekka was Dr. Anja Rau, but of course ultimately Dr. Rau reported to me. My biography is fairly easily researched, as is my own writing if that’s of interest to you. For example, http://www.markbernstein.org/CV/MarkBernstein.html MarkBernstein (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Compare “I'd completely forgotten those discussions about getting teenage Swartz to write a book” (May 2013) (above)

Wikipedia Biography, Mark Bernstein (blog) (Jan. 2007)“Wikipedia biography is doomed, at least for living people.  People who are passionately admired by some and detested by others are going to generate revert wars and nonsense.”

with Aaron Swartz, Mark Bernstein (blog) (Jan. 2013):

“The first time Aaron came to Eastgate, he could barely see over the receptionist’s counter.”

The editor had known for some time that he was tasked by the Association for Computing Machinery with acting as its program chair for Web Science 2013, May 2–4.  His revert of May 1 appears to imply that he was willing to risk compromising ACM’s program rather than let the 155- or 162-word non-impartial McCullagh quotes be removed from the Aaron Swartz or Carmen Ortiz articles.

Five most recent reverts:

06:02, 1 May 2013 — MarkBernstein (→Arrest and state charges: Nothing new on talk page justifies your repeated revert. So much for you undertaking not to edit war.)

15:36, 30 April 2013 MarkBernstein (→CNET 'echo' of op-ed: Administrators; we’ve been beating this dead horse for four solid months. It’s got to stop.)

“This is getting very old.… You apparently have special super-secret knowledge that leads you to believe the McCullagh article is in some way incorrect ….  Please leave the article (and us) alone.” — MarkBernstein

19:15, 22 April 2013 MarkBernstein (→Aaron Swartz prosecution & suicide, graf 2: WP:DeadHorse. Extinct. Deceased. Gone to meet its maker.)

“You may know what the DA’s office knew — I increasingly suspect that you know quite well what the DA’s office knew — but that is neither here nor there.” — MarkBernstein

(MarkBernstein’s Eastgate Systems Inc. is located within the jurisdictions of the Middlesex County DA’s office and the U.S. Attorney for MA, Carmen Ortiz.)

17:17, 22 April 2013 MarkBernstein (→Silverglate, sec. II: Watching the article made gradually worse and worse by dozens of sly little edits is getting old.)

“One editor here apparently thinks something in these uncontroversial remarks is unbearably embarrassing to someone ….  I really don’t understand … why Wikipedia is the appropriate venue for the fight.…  Wikipedia is not the best or only place to defend one’s son-in-law or second cousin.” — MarkBernstein

--Dervorguilla (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)  20:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)  23:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Dervorguilla's editing decisions, over a period of months, have been disruptive to the project. In my view, she's been occassionally right, on the merits, and far more often wrong. But I imagine that the editorial behavior is what brought MarkBernstein to this page, not her technical compliance, and more often lack thereof, with other policies. It's certainly what brings me here. Please review her edits, and mine, to the Swartz and Ortiz articles (and any others you find relevant.) I think they'll reveal a consistent, persistent, insistent pattern of single-handed obstructionism in one set and a more collegial, but somewhat exasperated tone in the other.
  For an explanation of my use of personal pronouns, please see here. David in DC (talk) 01:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Dervorguilla’s editorial revisions to the project page over the last four months have been ‘undone’ 10 times:  once by an IP editor, once by Nomoskedasticity, and 8 times by MarkBernstein.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)  20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here’s the pronoun-use passage cited by David in DC, from User:Dervorguilla (2013):  “Style rule. Any editor, male or female, who adopts a feminine/masculine username and persona must be spoken of using the feminine/masculine gender pronoun only.”  Cf. Kinks (1970) (“Girls will be boys and boys will be girls. / It’s a mixed-up muddled-up shook-up world.”).  Or maybe it isn’t...  No gender-identity issues here!  --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Update.  A new section by MarkBernstein at Talk:Aaron Swartz, headed “Restoring Silverglate”, suggests he’s likely to restore.  “Nothing here seems particularly controversial…. My opinion is … that there is no reason to doubt the authority of either Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly or CNET….” --MarkBernstein 14:25, 7 May 2013.
What now?  --Dervorguilla (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That is, in fact, my opinion. I understand that you disagree, though I confess I do not understand precisely why . Might some alternate wording be more acceptable? Might other editors introduce insights? It hardly seems unreasonable to raise the question on the Talk page. Right now, it looks to me like the talk page contains about 8500 words, of which something like 6000 seem to be attributed to User:Dervorguilla. Taking the question to Talk seems sensible to me. (If anyone would like to explain this to me, my email is bernstein at eastgate dot com) MarkBernstein (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I end up with something closer to 2,560 words that can be attributed to Dervorguilla; also 1,853 that can be attributed to David in DC and 1,310 that can be attributed to MarkBernstein.  Same page, Talk:Aaron Swartz, but without attributing a direct quotation to someone who’s not the author.  --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm marking this as stale, since it appears there are still signs of life on the discussion page. As always, everyone is strongly encouraged to avoid edit warring and take things to the Talk. If you require mediation, feel free to ask. Regards, m.o.p 18:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

MOP: If you have any suggestions for a path forward, I'd welcome them. As far as I can see, we've got an intractable content dispute that's continuing to unfold. For the life of me, I don't understand the Dervorguilla's objection to these quotes. No variation in wording seems to help, and it Dervorguilla's rationales and intentions seem to shift often. It seems pretty clear that this page wasn't the right forum for her grievance, but I'm not sure what her grievance is, precisely, or how we can accommodate her other than to let her assume ownership. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on the article's talk page, then. m.o.p 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:75.51.171.124 reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Blocked)

Page: Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.51.171.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [216]
2. [217]
3. [218]
4. [219]
5. [220]
6. [221]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223]

Comments: Anonymous IP appears to be edit warring editor repeatedly blanket deleting sourced content and will not stop doing so. Editor will not try and build consensus nor allow for the content to stay in article and add their potential content. LoveMonkey (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. In the future, please warn the editor of edit warring on their talk page and notify them of this discussion on their talk page. You did everything on the article talk page. I decided the IP had sufficient notice despite it being done incorrectly, and the edit warring was defiant and against multiple editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I filed an SPI request about this IP [224]. He currently edit-war using multiple accounts. @Bbb23. I think this is User:EverlastingGaze you previously blocked (and also Jacob Peters). My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NeedsLove reported by User:Spinningspark (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [225]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [226] 02:39 7 May
2. [227] 17:22 7 May
3. [228] 10:43 8 May
4. [229] 11:50 8 May

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours m.o.p 18:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Kanuraj123 reported by User:Titodutta (Result: Blocked)

Page: Asaram Bapu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanuraj123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff
6. diff

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

Talk:Asaram_Bapu#Edit_of_wikipedia_policy

Comments:
Constantly edit warring in Asaram Bapu article!

Mention User:Grayfell Tito Dutta (contact) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that the user hasn't been informed yet, and therefore I have done so. I have checked the edit page myself, and it does like a definite case of edit warring and therefore a breach of the 3RR rule. However, it is my first time actually editing on this Admin's Noticeboard, and do tell me if I am mistakened. Toodle pip, Chihin.chong (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the editor, Chihin.chong. Kanuraj123 could be sanctioned for edit warring, but not for a violation of WP:3RR, which requires more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period. Here, Kanuraj has reverted 4x over a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I had not realised this! Thanks Bbb23. Toodle pip, Chihin.chong (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Added another diff! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

2 more reverts! Anyone? The recent edit needs to reverted too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 10:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. The last edit was a copyright violation, which I've reverted.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He is bypassing the block --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:IranitGreenberg reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: 72h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [232]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [233]
2. [234]
3. [235]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [236]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [237]

Comments:

Editor is ignoring 1rr and edit warring across numerous articles in the IP topic area. He could also have been reported for reverts at Zionism ([238], [239]). Ignoring 1rr combined with POV editing is disruptive to the topic area, the rules should be enforced for those who show no attempt to follow them. Dlv999 (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is very unlikely for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia when they start editing. That is why I think its better to explain the rules to the new editors instead of reporting them. Concerning accusation of POV, I suggest assuming good faith.--Tritomex (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The editor has had the policies explained to him many times (see his talk page). I told him that he was in breach of 1rr yesterday and asked him to self revert. Instead he made another revert within the same 24 hour period. This leads me to the conclusion that he is not interested in following the rules. Also I didn't say anything about the editors motivations, his edit pattern is not consistent with our nuetrality policy, that is all I know. Dlv999 (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

IranitGreenberg has been informed, explained, warned and blocked for the 1RR problem and he refuses to comply with it. (See his/her talk page). Pluto2012 (talk) 10:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago Style (without pants) reported by User:Dlv999 (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to: [240]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [241]
2. [242]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [244]

Comments:

Article is related to the Israel Palestine conflict and subject to 1rr restrictions. Edit warring in violation of 1rr combined with POV pushing is disruptive to the topic area and should be enforced. Dlv999 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted my violation. I've also joined the talk page. Thanks for the heads up on the rules, Dlv999. Chicago Style (without pants) (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not blocked Given that the user has self-reverted, no more action is necessary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well the original revert included a series of highly contentious reverts. The editor self reverted one of the series of reverts he made. Most of them are still outstanding. The editor also left this ridiculous warning on my talk page despite the fact I have only made on edit to the page in the last week. Dlv999 (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Correctionperson reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result:48h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [245]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [246]
2. [247]
3. [248]
4. [249]
5. [250]
6. [251]
7. [252]

Editing to add a new revert[253], this one after Correctionperson had been notified they were reported here, and after I specifically suggested the user not reinsert this unsourced original research[254] while answering a question on their talk page. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [255]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [256]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Drmies. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

122.62.226.243 reported by User:BlackCab (Result: )

Page: Pai Mārire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 122.62.226.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [257]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [258] (the first of a two-part revert)
2. [259] (the second part)
3. [260]
4. [261]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None. This is a case of rolling reverts without discussion rather than 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [262]
On the user's talk page: [263]
IP user adds a quote as requested, followed by personal argumentation: [264]
I object to a single offhanded comment in a source being used to contradict historical consensus, and also list a series of unacceptable edits the IP user is adding: [265]
IP user doesn't respond, but reverts again.

Comments:

• On April 30 I changed a poorly-written and inadequately sourced article on "Hauhau" to become a redirect to Pai Mārire, the more comprehensive article on the same religion. [266].
  
• On May 3 the IP user, who has a happy career of disruptive editing, edit warring and adding patently unsourced POV and OR material to articles (generally with the theme of placing undue emphasis on Maori cannibalism) (see talk page here) added poorly-written references to "Hauhau" activities and began a talk page thread criticising what he/she viewed as a portrayal of the cult as "proto hippies".
  
• On the article talk page I addressed the dispute over terminology by detailing a list of RS that showed the weight of opinion of historians and invited discussion. I also added to the article's lead a bolded reference to the "Hauhau" name that was in use by 19th century colonists. The IP user is not addressing the issue, but simply reverts to their wording (with inadequate sourcing) and also persistently deletes source citations and the bolded wording in the lead.
  
• The IP user accuses me of vandalism [267][268] but still fails to discuss the issue. BlackCab (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• ... and then responds to the template message about this discussion with more inane insults. [269] BlackCab (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks I'm blocking the IP for edit warring here and elsewhere. They have a long history of such behavior and this behavior includes, unfortunately, poor writing and referencing and original research, besides false claims of vandalism. In the past they've been pushing a POV envelope as well; right now I don't see evidence of that, but I'm no expert on the matter. Now, it takes two to tango, and the IP and BlackCab go back a long way, it seems--since BlackCab reported them here they should also be aware of the 3R and other edit-warring policies and guidelines, but their behavior is, in my opinion, less disruptive than the IP's. I do, however, ask for another admin to look into it and see if BlackCab deserves a block: BlackCab, with no prejudice toward the next admin's decision, please let this serve you as a warning. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think BlackCab should be thanked for his long-standing efforts to work with 122.62... (aka Claudia) to improve this and other articles. BlackCab has attempted to get other editors involved, but most of the regular New Zealand editors with an interest in history have been exhausted by efforts to deal with Claudia in the past.-gadfium 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Reyk reported by User:Unscintillating (Result: Declined)

Page1: Template:Arguments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page2: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

I am only providing one recent revert, but note that there is no edit comment. 

1. [271]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Reyk#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion, diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Comments section below, that has a 2011 discussion at WT:ATA, the current discussion at WT:ATA, and Template talk:Arguments.

Comments:

• WP:Edit warring states emphasis added, "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."  When I prepared the discussion structure at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 6#BRD for 426806486, I had expected a lot of discussion, but one day later Reyk decided to create his essay with the deleted material, rather than discuss.  Here is a list of related non-discussion instances:

• Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions/Archive 6#BRD for 426806486
• Template talk:Arguments
• [272]
• [273]
• [274]
• [275]
• [276]

• This issue previously went to WP:AN3 here, but to this day I don't know why Reyk was not warned that discussion is required.
• In the recent discussion at WT:ATA#History of TMBS, Reyk defies consensus against three other editors, with a fourth editor getting involved on the Project Page.  He/she responds to the statement, "[T]he consensus was that TMBS was not compliant with policy/guidelines." by explaining that I'm trying to pick fights.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Declined. This is not the right forum for this complaint. There is no edit warring, just a very long-term and unfortunately continuing spat. I'm not going to enforce Qwyrxian's warning from January 2013, although he is free to do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:PiMaster3 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Editor counseled)

Page: Ariel University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PiMaster3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [277]
2. [278]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article subject to 1RR per WP:ARBPIA; template is conspicuous on the article talk page.

Comments: Both edits remove West Bank and Palestinian Territories from the infobox, in standard POV-driven mode for this topic area.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Sean.hoyland reverted my edit to the article, and the issue that he had was the part where it stated that it was in Israel. I restored the rest the the edit without the part that he disputed. My intention was not to start an edit war.

With regard to whether this article should be listed as being in Judea and Samaria Area or the West Bank, since the university is fully within Area C, that means it is under full Israeli jurisdiction, so it makes more sense to list it under Judea and Samaria.--PiMaster3 ^talk 20:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Your comment indicates that you fail to understand WP:1RR. I'm not promising anything, but I strongly urge you to self-revert and then, if you wish, discuss why you violated WP:1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's now too late for you to self-revert. So, just explain to me why you were wrong and why your edits violated policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the disputed part of the edit also included the section regarding Judea and Samaria. The edit summary on the revert only mentioned the part about Israel. Had I known that it was also an issue I would not have re-added it.--PiMaster3 ^talk 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That helps a bit, but it doesn't get to the core of the policy issue (forget the content for a moment). When you change something in an article, that constitutes a revert from a 1RR perspective. If you change it again, even if only partly, that constitutes a second revert and violates 1RR. You need to understand that before you even start thinking about exceptions or administrative discretion. This is particularly important when dealing with articles subject to ArbCom restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize that my initial edit counted as a revert. I thought that a revert just meant changing to a previous version of an article. I will keep this in mind for the future.--PiMaster3 ^talk 22:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Terrific. I will assume good faith and close the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Croat1 reported by User:Taivo (Result: 24h)

Page: Kajkavian dialect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Croat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [279]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [280]
2. [281]
3. [282]
4. [283]
5. [284]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [285]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [286]

Comments:

This rather complex set of reverts, combined with reverts at Croatian language are part of a long-term nationalist POV-pushing pattern against consensus at these two articles (and usually including Chakavian dialect as well). --Taivo (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Viriditas reported by User:TomPointTwo (Result: )

Page: Second Battle of Fallujah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [287]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:41, 9 May 2013
2. 00:54, 11 May 2013
3. 00:58, 11 May 2013
4. 01:12, 11 May 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [288]

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

Comments:

Edit dispute with a longtime editor, User:Viriditas who refuses to acknowledge that others might simply have legitimate objections with how they are editing. Viriditas was rude, dismissive and condescending then devolved into accusing me of meat puppetry when I restored sourced material by an editor he's accused, but has yet to be found guilty of, sockpuppetry. Finally at the end Viriditas implicitly acknowledged that his reversions with the edit summary of "Not an improvement" were insufficient by bringing up issues with sourcing. By this time though he had already crossed the 3RR threshold and still seems unwilling to concede that I'm not simply editing out of bad faith. This is sad because, with the background of the editor, it seems more a case of ruffled hubris than actual ignorance. TomPointTwo (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no dispute on my end. An obvious sock puppet was identified and reverted, and an SPI filed. You appear to be proxy editing for the sock and you still haven't found consensus for your edits on the talk page. Other users have stepped in and have rewritten the section according to our policies and guidelines. You appear to be searching for a problem rather than recognizing the solution already in place. Viriditas (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly untrue. You've yet to justify your revert based upon your prejudice that I'm a meat-puppet and your overall conduct is clearly unbecoming and in violation of the long established 3RR rule. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The revert was justified on the user talk page, on the article talk page, and by at least two different users. The burden, however, is on the user adding content, like yourself. A sock was reverted and the 3RR was not broken. I hope this helps. Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help, at least you. No editors have yet to weight in, or at least in a way that backs your position that the material is inherently unjustifiable and that I'm a meat puppet. All your assertions are without backing and you're in clear violation of 3RR. From this point I'll let the process take over as you seem to be both nonnegotiable and belligerently unilateral. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this posting on the edit warring noticeboard; I'm the editor who stepped in to rewrite the section according to our policies and guidelines. Technically, Viriditas is now at 3RR with three reverts (1st, 2nd, 3rd), but Viriditas did not break 3RR, nor did Viriditas make any further reverts after receiving a 3RR warning here from TomPointTwo. Meanwhile, TomPointTwo is technically at 4RR in that he has four times undid edits by Viriditas with reverts (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th). Remember, WP:3RR defines a revert as any edit that reverses the actions of another editor, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. Hence, I recommend TomPointTwo withdraw this AN:EW complaint immediately and everyone just go back to discussing things on the article discussion page. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your edits have been constructive and needed but I don't think I'll follow as suggested. I've not violated 3RR and the edit history clearly reveals who has been unilaterally reverting. Being the experienced editor you are I'm puzzled at your conclusion of the log. Perhaps a further analysis? TomPointTwo (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Longkhj reported by User:Puramyun31 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Kim Hyun-jung (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Longkhj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [290]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [291]
2. [292]
3. [293]
4. [294]
5. [295] no image revision

and more...

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Longkhj, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kim_Hyun-Jung_%28singer%29

Comments:User:Longkhj is once blocked due to vandalism, but the user has still repeated unhelpful editing of the article Kim Hyun-jung (singer). Longkhj added this fair use image which obviously violates NFCC#1 policy. --Puramyun31 (talk) 01:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Suzanne888 reported by User:Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: Tom Waterhouse
User being reported: User:Suzanne888

Previous version reverted to: [296]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [297]
2. [298]
3. [299]
4. [300]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [301]

Comments:
'I believe I have resolved this issue and am happy to withdraw my request.'

FlatOut 05:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined Procedural decline, withdrawn by requestor. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [302]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [303] February 24, 2009
2. [304] May 16, 2009
3. [305] October 4, 2009
4. [306] April 19, 2013
5. [307] April 21, 2013
6. [308] April 24, 2013
7. [309] April 27, 2013
8. [310] April 27, 2013
9. [311] May 5, 2013
10. [312] May 6, 2013
11. [313] May 6, 2013
12. [314] May 7, 2013
13. [315] May 10, 2013
14. [316] May 10, 2013
15. [317] May 11, 2013
16. [318] May 11, 2013
17. [319] May 11, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [320] October 23, 2009
• [321] February 5, 2011
• [322] April 30, 2013
• [323] May 6, 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• [324] October 4, 2009
• [325] April 19, 2013
• [326] May 6, 2013

Comments:

Galassi has engaged in a longterm drive to make respected Soviet philosopher Aleksei Losev appear to be as antisemitic as possible, based on fringe or possibly minor viewpoints. In this drive, Galassi has been opposed by many other editors and supported by none but he refuses to be governed by consensus. On October 23, 2009, Galassi addedantisemitic text about Losev in the article Stalin and antisemitism. He was reverted at that article by Miacek/Estlandia but he restored the text three more times, forcing the article into protection by Will Beback. The same controversy was brewing at Jewish Bolshevism: Galassi was inserting text about Losev being antisemitic and influential to Stalin. When Paul Siebert pointed out that Galassi's source was only a literary critic, Galassi said "Literary or not - he is a serious scholar. His perspective may by atypical, but it is valid nonetheless." However, Galassi continued to act as if the source was scholarly, not "atypical". On November 1, 2009, Galassi again restored his desired text four times at Stalin and antisemitism, in this case opposing Miacek/Estlandia and Anti-Nationalist. For this, Galassi was blocked. He reinserted this same material on March 22, 2010. Eleven months later, Galassi restored the text when it was removed by Zloyvolsheb. At the Losev biography, Galassi's text about antisemitism and Stalin has been reverted by DonaldDuck in February 2009, Estlandia and administrator Alex Bakharev in October 2009, and in April 2013 by My very best wishes, Estlandia, and also by an IP-hopping editor. At Talk:Aleksei_Losev#Removed_text_.28.22Controversies.22.29, Galassi's desired text was opposed by My very best wishes, Miacek, Igor Makhankov, the IP hopping editor, and myself. Nobody supported Galassi's text except Galassi. Nevertheless, Galassi acts as if he has complete rectitude in restoring the disputed text. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an edit-war, but a long term content dispute. All my edits are properly sourced to reliable and notable scholarly sources. A number of nationalistic editors have attempted whitewashing Alexei Losev, but there are scholarly secondary sources that testify to the antisemitic, misogynistic and other controversies surrounding Losev in recent years. All this is eminently relevant. My view was supported by Igor Markhankov. User Binksternet is not literate in Russian, and relies on machine translation, not conducive to understanding the relevant texts. Overall he is retaliating for an unnrelated edit. --Galassi (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Igor Makhankov said the Losev biography on English Wikipedia was "worse than [the] Russian one, which is hard to beat"... and he never endorsed your connection between Losev, antisemitism and Stalin. You are alone in your desire to insert that text. Regarding your accusation of retaliation on my part, I must say that I have examined a good proportion of your edits because I find so many problems. If your editing on Wikipedia was mostly free from problems, I would leave you in peace. The first time I became aware of the possibility of problems with your edits was in October 2012 when you wrote in the article that the widely criticized book The Pink Swastika was "thoroughly researched and heavily footnoted." This in Wikipedia's voice! During the next week, I found that you had spammed promotional links into a number of music and Ukrainian articles and that you had a probably conflict of interest regarding pop music in the Ukraine with respect to the URL torban.org. Since that time you have been indefinitely banned from the topic of Ukraine, so I do not feel that my aim was poor. So, no, I am not retaliating against you; instead I am working to protect the encyclopedia from the edits I judge are questionable. Binksternet (talk) 03:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That book is thoroughly researched and heavily footnoted, regardless of its conclusions and goals. That edit was neutral, and it doesn't give you a right to stalk my other edits. And torban.org is considered sufficiently reliable regarding the organology of the instrument in question. Makhankov's comment refers to the Losev article as a whole, and not to my edits. He said that my source was reliable. Your aim was not only poor, it is also malicious.--Galassi (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Igor Makhankov said there was too much in the article about antisemitism, which is against your contributions. He said one source was a legitimate publication, not a tabloid, but it was still not a good enough source on which to base so much of your additions. His opposition to your additions makes it five against one (you), not four against two, which is still not enough to justify so many reversions to your preferred version. The arguments against your desired text are valid and policy-based; centering on WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. My own arguments focus on NPOV and UNDUE, because you are misrepresenting the sources, you are telling the reader only the worst aspects, and the writers are at best holding a minor viewpoint but more likely a fringe stance. You bring this POV into the article as mainstream thought. Miacek argues that you cherry-pick the most unflattering words from the thousands of pages written by Losev. My very best wishes says that your sources are not mainstream, that you are pushing a POV which is not representative of scholarly thought. These are not flyweight complaints that you can just shrug off while continuing to insert your desired text. You must address the complaints and deal with consensus. Binksternet (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The arguments for my edits are equally valid and more. And YOU are not qualified to judge russophone texts, because you are not fluent in the language. The machine translation gives you no excuse.--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The jumping IP is blanker/vandal, and cannot be counted toward 3RR.--Galassi (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And your policy claims are horsefeathers. Three scholars are DOCUMENTED to have said that Losev made antisemitic statements. There is no POV, RS, UNDUE or SYNTH.--Galassi (talk)01:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are only three reverts by Galassi during 24 hours and one additional revert, approximately four hours later. There is also a pattern of long-term edit warring against consensus. It's noteworthy that Galassi appears five times in the log of blocks and bans on Eastern Europe, including this editing restriction by FPS, and all these incidents are about his edit wars, but Galassi still tells above: "This is not an edit-war, but a long term content dispute". My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As an outsider coming into this - it does appear that Galassi is the only one supporting the contested revision. Is this a fair reading of the situation? This is a yes or no question; I don't need allegations of malicious intent or animosity, just a simple yes/no. m.o.p 18:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, Igor Marhankov supports my revision, conditionally - the article provides almost no information about the majority of Losev's activities. Actually I agree: the article direly needs that, to counterbalance the Controvercies section.--Galassi (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, only Galassi takes the view that this text is appropriate in the Losev biography and elsewhere. Igor Makhankov said there was too much in the article about antisemitism. Binksternet (talk) 19:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read through Igor's statement multiple times, and I'd agree with Binksternet's interpretation of it. Igor doesn't express support for anything in particular, he just points out some faults in the article; the other editors, however, oppose your additions outright. Though it's not the most clear-cut, consensus does appear to go against your edits, Galassi. Unless you can reach a compromise with the other editors and/or change the consensus, I wouldn't revert them anymore if they've agreed on an accepted revision. m.o.p 19:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Igor says my sources are reliable. Consensus is not a vote. I AGREE that there is "too much" antisemitism, BUT that must be remedied by increase in the rest of the article, NOT by whitewashing the subject, or trivializing antisemitism (and both Losev and Lev Gumilev have lent antisemitism the greatest respectability it ever had!).--Galassi (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you are going to restore the disputed portion of text? My very best wishes (talk) 12:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I fully agree with Galassi, consensus is not based on numbers of those pro and contra and what I think the real problem here is that racism should not be whitewashed or negated. Also, user Binksternet conduct in this issue seems to be POV pushing.--Tritomex (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a sober opinion. I am extending an invitation to My Best Wishes and Binksternet to expand and improve the rest of the article.--Galassi (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, and I already made a few edits.My very best wishes (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Tritomex, you and I have been involved on opposite sides of a Jewish genetics question at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Genetic studies on Jews and Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Jews/Archive_4#Elhaik_study. I jumped in to that discussion because I saw that you were opposing a large group of editors just like Galassi is here. I looked at the sources and at people's behavior and determined that you were becoming a disruptive editor on the topic of Jewish genetics. I made it clear several times that I thought you were the problem. In that light, your voice raised here against me is not surprising.

I fully agree that "racism should not be whitewashed or negated". It also should be given the proper weight of scholarship, and not unduly emphasized. The major Losev scholars dismiss this minor opinion held by Marianna Gerasimova (who Galassi does not mention) who was supported briefly by Konstantin Polivanov (a literary critic), Leonid Katsis (a respected Yiddish scholar), and journalist Dmitrii Shusharin. The Gerasimova theory is at best a minor opinion, as clearly stated by Russian philosophy scholar Vladimir Leonidovich Marchenkov of Ohio University, in the introduction to his 2003 translation of Losev's The Dialectics of Myth ISBN 0203633733. Marchenkov describes how Gerasimova, Polivanov, Katsis and Shusharin were quickly disproved by Olesya Nikolaeva, and by Losev's widow who published his letters, revealing Losev's private thoughts. The problem with Galassi's version is that he brings this short-lived minor viewpoint forward as the mainstream view, a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that I find your conduct in both situations problematic, does not mean that I have any personal intentions regarding you, rather I have problem with your way of editing.

Losev wrote "There is no such thing as Woman's Dignity. Similarly there cannot be a notion of Jew's Dignity" I suggest you also to read Sergey Zemlyanoy article "Clerical and conservative mythological dystrophy :Alexey Losev [327]--Tritomex (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that Binksternet is editing on the side that tries to refute the genetic connection of Jews to Palestine, isn't it?--Galassi (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• And it continues. I have added today's two reverts, with Galassi continuing his edit war. Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you the one socking through a Japanese proxy-server?--18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not me. I have never socked. Are you the one who is continuing to edit war even though you are being brought in front of this noticeboard? That's what I call disruption. Binksternet (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Тhere is no edit war. We have a content dispute. Your dislike for the content in question doesn't delegitimize it.--Galassi (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You are edit warring to return non-neutral text to an article. I have no "dislike" for the text, I am just very much aware that it is a fringe/minor viewpoint and not mainstream—that you are presenting it as mainstream against WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, and that this position of yours is a stance that you have taken across several articles. Me, I am happy to let the sources speak, and what I'm seeing is that just about every biography of Losev talks about his philosophy but does not bring up his supposed antisemitism. What I see instead is that Losev was the subject of a politically motivated attack in 1930. The attack made Losev into a villain; apparently you wish to continue to portray Losev as a villain in contradiction to mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Losev either way, but 5 mainstream notables hold him as an anisemite. One of these is a major 20th century writer, Maxim Gorky. Your whitewhashing of Losev doesn't fit the GOODFAITH criteria. And no one here ever says that he was a villain, only that his writings contain certain controversial ideas.--Galassi (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your mention of Maxim Gorky is actually the moment of truth. As I noted here, Gorky suggested in 1930s to exterminate all "class enemies" as "physically and mentally inferior parasites" (his words) by using then as guinea pigs for human experimentation. Does it mean that Gorky must be painted like Joseph Mengele in his biography? Of course not! Same with Losev. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• And again twice today. The reversions apparently will not stop, despite strong concerns about UNDUE and NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Horsefeathers. One of my edits was a restore of IP blanking/vandalism. To remind you: the consensus is a mutually agreed compromise, not a vote. You cannot UNILATERALLY delete PROPERLY CITED information. Your edits are DISRUPTIVE.--Galassi (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)17:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Now it is three times today, twice while the article was "in use" via template. Galassi, I would like to recommend that you take a coffee break, drive the car around a little, walk the dog... something other than obsess over this article while I improve it with mainstream secondary sources rather than primary sources as interpreted by you, or fringe sources that have been disputed. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Galassi strikes a blow in a long-closed RfA. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You should read up on WP:CENSOR.--Galassi (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And you might want to re-read the phrase at the top of that AFD that says "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it." --| Uncle Milty | talk | 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• And it continues. Galassi invited me to participate in this article (see above). However, when I made a few relatively minor changes, he immediately reverted my edits [328]. Note that he did it without discussing my edits on article talk page. But this is not anything new. This is the reason he was sanctioned five times in EE subject area (see my comment above). If he repeatedly edit war while his case is pending on WP:3RR, what he does when he is not reported? My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What continues? I find Binksternet's version more or less acceptable, with the exception some stylistic issues. At the same time My Best Wishes continues POVpushing.--Galassi (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you can not resolve even minor stylistic issues without blindly reverting another contributor (my diff above), while your case is pending on the WP:3RR, and consider such behavior legitimate, I do not think you can edit in any "difficult" subject areas. Sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your claim of DEFAMATION is not supported by any source, simply put.--Galassi (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and for the edit at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Binksternet.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Black60dragon reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: )

Page: Parkour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Black60dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [329]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [330]
2. [331]
3. [332]
4. [333]
5. [334]
6. [335]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [337] (Same link as above) and after another reversion without any comment on talk page from Black Dragon [338]. Black Dragon has again reverted without comment after I posted the previous link, again inviting discussion.

In this reversion I remind Black Dragon that he is (at that point) at 3RR and continuation may be considered edit warring. Another editor has also warned Black Dragon of his editing on Black Dragon's talk page here to which I added a comment here.

Comments:

I provide "many" sources and you never even looked at them. I am talking about it on his page, which again you never went to. I was reverted you because "you" vandalized by continually removing the template alongside the nickname. The template needs to stay and I should not be punished for keeping it on the page. I also warned him to keep the template which he did not do. BlackDragon 19:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides this isnt even violation of the 3 revert rule. As it specifically states "you may not revert more than three times in a '24 hour' period" which I did not do. Besides if time didnt count you would also be at fault for reverted mine too. Just saying BlackDragon 19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. BlackDragon is correct that neither he or anyone else is at 3RR. However, his behavior in the slow-burning edit war is worse as he has not discussed any of the changes at the article talk page, despite Chaheel's having opened up a topic there. If BlackDragon continues to battle without discussion, he risks being blocked, regardless of whether he has violated 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Hey I was discussing the matter at anothers page as he was the one reverting it originally. I hadnt noticed that there was a discussion at the page itself and wasnt worried about it. The infobox doesnt necessarily need a source if its in the article.

Besides I stopped reverting his and stopped adding the nickname despite it being true. I would know I have been doing it for many years. The edit that put him over was not even a revert. I clicked "undo" to go the pack to not have to type in the template he blatantly kept removing and erased the Art of Motion part BlackDragon 00:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hm, not sure how BD can claim to have been unaware of discussion, as by default Wiki watches talk pages as well as mainspace articles, so he should have been aware of changes being made. Also, Feraess invited BD to discuss changes on BD's talk page here on 8th May, and I did the same here on 10th May. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Atshal‎ reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: )

Page: UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Atshal (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:

User:Atshal's edits

1. [339]
2. [340]
3. [341]
4. [342]
5. [343]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [344]

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

Comments:

This page is highly contentious. This user and others (incl. myself at times) have sailed close to the wind in reverts, but Atshal has crossed over several times, the four links above are a sample, examining the history of the article you will see many more reverts. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 14:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there

I am not sure if this warning is appropriate or not, but I was reinstating material that was being repeatedly deleted by another user, called Emeraude. I have spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of days editing the page, rearranging things and adding things - the only things I deleted were repetitions that made thing cluttered, and nobody complained about that. The material that Emeraude deleted was sourced from academic journals, or from the official manifesto page of the party. On one occasion Emeraud deleted a whole section because the website that I was citing was down due to a denial of service attack, and I reverted this since I don't believe that is a sensible thing to do. Similarly for material that was deleted by Emeraude that came from peer reviewed jorunals. Emeraude does not appear to have a warning for deleting my material, but I do for reinstating it? I would appreciate some clarification from somebody about the changes I can or can't make to this type of page, and if my behaviour was wrong in this case. Atshal (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, the links that are provided by Gimli here were for a specific section that kept being deleted due to a broken link. I reverted each time thinking I had fixed the link, before finally I managed it (there was a hidden character at the end because I had copied and pasted from somewhere). I think the initial deletions were wrong, as the link should have been fixed instead of the whole thing deleted but the multiple reversions were due more to my failure to correct the link each time (even though I knew it was valid!) Atshal (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that after the final edit by Emeraud I put a discussion in the talk page Talk:UK Independence Party as to why I think the reversions by Emeraud were unjustified. The two editors who have replied support my original edits, in both the tone and the suitability of the sources. Emeraud has yet to reply. Atshal (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [345]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [346]
2. [347]
3. [348]
4. [349]
5. [350]
6. [351]
7. [352]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [353]

Comments:

I'm not involved in this, but what I see from Sigiheri is disruptive removals over the same content in the lead section, and arguing about it in the talk page stating that 'Shareholders do not own the corporation'. This is a slow, but long edit war, with Srnec and more recently Discospinster reverting their edits. With this kind of disruption, I think Sigiheri deserves a block for his/her actions, but we'll see what the admins think about this. Minima© (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I blocked only Sigiheri for a few reasons. First, they were removing the opening paragraph from the lead, which is inherently more disruptive than removing other material. Second, they were being reverted by multiple editors. Third, they appear to have an agenda as they recently disrupted Corporation over the same issue. Finally, their comment on their talk page ("I have an open offer to discuss the issue in talk, but no one who reverts is doing it. What else should I do?") reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about edit warring and consensus. (As an aside, other editors are contributing to the discussion.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:RGloucester reported by User:RightCowLeftCoast (Result: Warned)

Page: 2012 Benghazi attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: In regards to the lead, the majority of changes were reverted, as can be seen by this diff to a status very similar to that of 8 May 2013, before the major changes made to the lead by Cirrus Editor

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554478319&oldid=554477226
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554479156&oldid=554478319
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554487867&oldid=554486575
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554544375&oldid=554540197
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2012_Benghazi_attack&diff=554551184&oldid=554550369

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RGloucester&diff=554622458&oldid=553858856

Comments:
The editor appears to be involved with an edit war, and appears to have violated three reversion rule within the 24 hour period. I believe that the editor meant well in their reversions, wanting to move the discussion to the talk page; however, as this conversation was started here on 7 May (with a different section name), but RGloucester did not appear to have joined the discussion on the talk page before reverting others edits.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is not at all an edit war. We are going through the exact same process we went through last time to develop the present lead, which was developed through a consensus-based discussion. A good discussion is being had on the talk page. Until consensus is reached, I was maintaing the status quo and referring people to the talk page. This is a controversial subject, and with all the new information proliferating, it is necessary to be careful. Anyone who reads the talk page discussion, and my comments there, will understand. I invite RightCowLeftCoast to come to that talk page and assist with the discussion there, because the help is sorely need. If I must be blocked for breaking a "rule", it is just as well. I was going to ask for article protection prior to this, because of the influx of potential POV edits that are now occurring. It is the same thing that happened when this article was first created. I'm doing my best to help along the article, and a lead overhaul will hopefully be agreed to in time. Anyway, do what you must to me, but someone ought keep tabs on the article in the meantime. RGloucester (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I’m continuing to work with other editors on the lead for this article, at the talk page, until I know my fate. It is perfectly congenial, and I’ve alerted them of the charges I face. I hope I can still contribute in the meantime without causing any further trouble. RGloucester (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. RGloucester violated 3RR, but with 4 reverts, not the 5 listed above. The first two diffs are consecutive and count as one revert. In declining to block RGloucester, I'm taking into account that he stopped edit warring after being warned, his apparent good faith belief that he was not being disruptive, and his responses here and on the article talk page, both of which demonstrate good faith. That said, I'm warning him that for the foreseeable future (I'm not going to impose a strict time limit) he should restrict his efforts to improving the article by discussion on the article talk page, not by edits to the article itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Gobbleygook reported by User:Viriditas (Result: Moot)

Page: NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gobbleygook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User removed and/or modified the statement "The bombing campaign was criticized, especially for the number of civilian casualties that resulted from the bombing" four times in the last 24 hours.

Previous version reverted to: 13:13, 10 May 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:30, 11 May 2013
2. 19:25, 11 May 2013
3. 19:38, 11 May 2013
4. 01:56, 12 May 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was warned twice on their talk page about edit warring on different articles, once at 22:44, 10 May, and a second time at 19:04, 11 May.

• The user was informed of the 3RR on at least two prior occasions on the same day contemporaneously while the reverts were taking place on NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
• The user disregarded the warnings and blanked their talk page at 16:23, 11 May and at 19:26, 11 May
• Three of the above reverts in this report were made after the two warnings were blanked by the user, indicating that the user was aware of the 3RR and decided to ignore it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: of 22:59, 10 May 2013, and 21:16, 11 May 2013‎.

Comments:

• In the last 48 hours, the user has reverted two different users, including myself and User:Peacemaker67.[354] Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• No doubt 3RR has been breached, although neither editor has properly engaged in discussion on the article talk page. I believe a short block and an ARBMAC warning would be appropriate. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have no interest in the subject. I merely detected an unauthorized number of deletions and modifications made by a "new" account and noticed your revert and followed up accordingly. I've also filed a corresponding SPI. As for engaging the user, as the link above shows, I discussed these edits on their talk page, which was subsequently blanked by the user. Finally, I have engaged this user on multiple talk pages with no change in their behavior. The user has perfected the art of IDHT and agenda-based editing to the point of professionalism. I maintain that this account exists solely to disrupt Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's not an accurate portrayal of the issue and your point about how this account exists "solely to disrupt Wikipedia" is bad Wikipedia etiquette and does not assume good faith. The first revert took into account what user Peacemaker67 said so technically it's a self-revert. You then reverted my next two good faith attempts to balance out the lead (while not removing the criticism) by adding legitimate third-party sourced material reflecting an important section of the article (namely, that there existed significant support for the NATO intervention of Yugoslavia), but despite even violating at least two wikipedia edit guidelines, I was still willing to take this to the talk page and even created an RfC for this issue specifically (unfortunately nobody has yet answered the RfC so hopefully some input can be given). In the meantime, I actually read the Chicago tribune article (the source cited) and found out that what was being cited (namely the criticism about the # of civilian casualties) wasn't even the point of the article and rewrote it accordingly to make sure that it not only reflected what is written in the source, but also that all sides of the debate were fairly represented. On a final note, I would like to point out that this user has engaged in a serious case of wikihounding as he/she has reverted every single contribution that I've made so far on Wikipedia so I would seriously ask that administrator's take a look at this.Gobbleygook (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• I dispute every letter of every word you just wrote above, and I'm absolutely convinced that you are a returning blocked user who is not supposed to be editing Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Declined Let's finish up the SPI first. If they turn out to be a sock, then we won't need this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)