Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive213

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


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

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 ) and a study of the Library of Congress of the United States of the 80's, again by an estimated 25% 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 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]


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: reported by User:CZmarlin (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Car classification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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: 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)[edit]

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


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)

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)[edit]

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


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)[edit]

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

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)[edit]

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


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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:GDallimore reported by User:Damonthesis (Result: Damonthesis blocked)[edit]

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

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.

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 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[edit]

After receiving a WP:HARASS warning, this user continues to send harassing and badgering messages to me, in retaliation for filing this complaint. Damonthesis (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After deleting that comment. this user has posted, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damonthesis (talkcontribs) 17:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)[edit]

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

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)
Pictogram voting x.svg No violation King of ♠ 09:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:kvaiting reported by User:SPECIFICO (Result: No violation)[edit]

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


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]
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)
Pictogram voting x.svg 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[edit]

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)[edit]

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

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)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg 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)[edit]

Page: Normandy landings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawaiifive0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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 - © Join WER 22:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Jeremy Duns reported by User:SonOfThornhill (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Ian Fleming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jeremy Duns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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]

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)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg 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: and User: reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )[edit]

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

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


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: reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )[edit]

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

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: reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours - Vianello (Talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC))[edit]

Page: Rape culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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.

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 - © Join WER 20:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg 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)[edit]

Page: Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Polarscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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].


  • [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)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg 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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)[edit]

Page: United Bates of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BBB76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)[edit]

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


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 ( 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) reported by Exclusive Agent (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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


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 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 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)

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

User: reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: War crimes in the Kosovo War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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]

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)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg 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)

User:Niemti reported by User:Canoe1967 (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Cosplay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niemti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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]


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)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg 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)[edit]

Page: Afzal Guru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shafaq123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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


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)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg 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)[edit]

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