Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive277

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

Noticeboard archives


User:‎Getoverpops reported by User:North Shoreman (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Southern strategy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Getoverpops (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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Southern strategy#Neutrality Dispute and the seven or so sections under that


This editor originally posted as an IP. After a 3RR warning, a referral was made for edit warring with the result of semi-protection. See [[5]] he IP was also blocked for 24 hours for uncivil edits (see [6]. The IP obtained a registered account and has generated a great amount of text on the article's discussion page. Four or five editors have responded and all disagree with every point raised -- nobody has agreed with him. Today he started editing against consensus on the main article. He reverted the first sentence to a different version (which was the main focus of the IP editing), deleted a paragraph that had been discussed at length with no agreement to change, and added sources that had been rejected on the discussion page. The third deletion above (this is not a 3RR referral) came after the new warning that I issued. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This accusation of edit war is unfounded based on the three included references. I made two changes to the article only one of which was disputed. The first change (see as links 60 and 61) was the inclusion of additional references in the opening title. The first change was not a revert but an original edit. The second was a revert based on the one revert rule [[7]]. In other words it was undoing the removal of material I added. The last claim of reversion is unrelated to the first two. I had previously removed a single sentence paragraph that was in the opening section because the same sentence also exists in a later section. Hence I was not removing content from the article but making a simple style edit. I did that style edit twice because the revert of ref 60 added back that change as well as undid my changes to the first sentences. Thus the revert of link #60 was more than a revert of a single edit of mine.
For reference and in case things change the links to my edits in question are currently #60-62.--Getoverpops (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The first change listed in the diffs above reverted this edit [8] that I had made on March 18. After my edit the first paragraph read:
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.
After Getoverpos first edit listed above the first paragraph read:
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to an Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States. Some sources claim the strategy specifically appealed to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5] Other sources dispute that there was a strategy to appeal to racism.[6][7][8][9] Regardless of the dispute over the facts and origins of the term, the "southern strategy" has come to imply an appeal to racism in the Republican Party.
This change was the central focus of the discussions on the article talk page.
As to the other edit, he made a material change to the lead. Saying that he was just reverting the elimination of a repetitive sentence is disingenuous. Material in the lead is often (always?) repetive of material in the body of the article. Two editors had reverted his elimination of this material from the lead and Getoverpops, after he received the edit warring warning, still eliminated the material. This material was mentioned throughout the discussions. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The March 18th change and the more recent change are not the same. The objection to the March 18th change was based on the use of "alleged" as a leading word. I attempted to address that concern in the later edits. It is also important to note that the editor did not move the conversation to the Talk page after undoing my changes. That you disagree with the changes I made in the talk page does not make it an edit war. Your claim regarding the final edit is true in that I removed it from the opening section but it stylistically does not fit in the opening and it means the same sentence appears twice in the article. How is that problematic? Furthermore, that is not the same edit as #60 and #61. --Getoverpops (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Slight rebootage here:

Revert 1: 13:45, 24 March 2015‎, edit summary "Removed unsupported, inflammatory entry."
Revert 2: 16:41, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Per one revert rule I am re-reverting. Move to talk."
Revert 3: 17:06, 24 March 2015, edit summary "Removed sentence that was nearly identical to one in later section (Recent comments on Southernization and Southern strategy)"
Revert 4: 20:51, 24 March 2015, edit summary "This article has been submitted to the neutrality review board. I am adding the neutrality tag for the time the article is under review." Note this reverts removal of POV template by a previous editor here.

Four non-consecutive reverts in (much) less than 24 hours. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Per Boris this now looks to be a plain old WP:3RR violation, besides a long-term pattern of warring. Normally this calls for a block. If Getoverpops will promise to stop warring on the article and wait for a talk page consensus, it would help his case. EdJohnston (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

First, what exactly is meant by non-consecutive reverts? My understanding of the 3 revert rule is three reverts of the same material. That is not the case here. It was 1 revert of disputed material which is allowed per 1 revert rule. The redundant sentence was only reverted because it was re-added with an unrelated revert. That is I made two separate changes but an editor incorrectly reverted both while only talking about one (the other was not a subject of discussion). Finally, the warning tag was one that I originally misunderstood the use of. However, it was re-added after I submitted the article to the correct board. That is, it is not a revert at all. I would also point out that my IP address based reverts included requests (which was per BOLD even if I didn't realize it) to move the discussion of the removal to the talk section. The editors who were removing those section were not responding to the request to move to talk. I don't think consensus will be easy to reach given the nature of the article and the way the editors have not been open to addressing the issues I have seen. That said, I have opened a dispute to avoid further 3RR issues. Please take that as a promise to not revert with out discussion. I would hope in kind North Shoreman will promise to engage in an open discussion regarding issues in the article. --Getoverpops (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC) I want to point out that the rebootage claim #1 was a revert that should be seen as undoing vandalism. This should qualify as a revert exception under [[9]] rule #4. Thanks. --Getoverpops (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing admins are requested to review the 3RR violation in the context of a larger pattern of behavior that includes not just edit warring but forum shopping and canvassing for support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Could I request to have this review closed. I seem to be the only case that was started with just 3 cited reverts (my reading of the rule is that 3 is the edge but not over the edge). I think North Shoreman acted incorrectly when citing the first revert. That one was removing vandalism and it's notable that no editor disagreed with the removal nor has the removed text been added back. That revert is one of the ones Boris cited. With that removed North Shoreman has cited only 2 reverts which I think would put me more comfortably back from the edge. Boris cited a 4th revert that North Shoreman didn't. However, that was an editing error on my part. I didn't realize I needed to post to the neutrality dispute board before posting the notice to the article. Thus it was proper for the editor to remove the tag. However, after the tag was removed I did post to the neutrality board thus it was proper to add the tag. Thus I would argue that was not a revert at all. As a new editor I was not aware that I shouldn't appeal the general neutrality of the article at the same time as requesting moderation on a specific change. The Neutrality discussion is still on going. Regardless I feel there were only two reverts that would be subject to the 3RR rule and thus would ask that the case be closed. Thank you.--Getoverpops (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Swarm X 02:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:DiscSquare (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Evelin Banev
User being reported: User: User: User:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Using multiple IP addresses, this user repeatedly changes the summary of the page without confirmed sources - the edits by this unidentified user are disruptive, inaccurate and also biased - while this living person is under criminal investigation, he is NOT a convicted criminal since his trials are ongoing with multiple acquittals and reversals of convictions.

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Swarm X 03:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone reported by (Result: IP blocked)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 March 28 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OccultZone (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]

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


He keeps revet a topic I am bringing upo to delate. I tried to revert a couple times but he keep changing back with no comment and tries to call myself the vandal.

Any admin can read the recent WP:AIV report[10] and consider blocking this sock. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually its hard to make a prpper page when all the work kept getting delated. (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The IP was blocked for one week by Kuru.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Irondome reported by User: (Result: Semi)[edit]

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

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

Manual removal by attemting to push POV, by assert the Source as Unreliable and the major Edit as "poor"

  1. 15:11, 29 March 2015
  1. 15:45, 29 March 2015 - tagging
  2. 15:47, 29 March 2015

User Irondome does not showing any good faith in his recent edits. He left me an unpleasant comment with the immediate demmand (talk page, 15:42) to remove and comment my revert. 3 Minutes after that, he used an very guileful tactic by calling: "No consensus talk attempted by IP", 15:45 as main reason, to push his own POV and to remove my add.

There's no way that we could have made any consensus or that I could express myself within 3 Minutes after the demmanding command on my talk page

User Irondome seems also involved in other reverts, 24 hrs:

  1. Revision as of 00:07, 29 March 2015
  2. Revision as of 00:25, 29 March 2015 failed attemp to revert
  3. Revision as of 00:28 manual revert

Its seems that Irondome have made 6 reverts (3 manual) within 24 hours.

As a new User, I'm very alienated by such behavior. could somebody please take some actions? Thanks


You completed ignored my comments on your talk section, which were perfectly reasonable, and refused to discuss. Your "sources" were inferior which I have amply explained on the relevant Talk page. You now run to the boards without attempting to communicate in any way whatsoever. You appear to be extremely knowledgable about the mechanics of the drama boards. New user? I doubt it. It is a pity your obvious knowledge and experience of Wikilawyering does not extend to the Tiger I. Irondome (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ignored? You revert my add in less than 3 Minutes before I could comment upon your demmand. There's no way i could have convince you, that you're wrong! You dont have explained anything to me, you just making pure assumptions! The report clearly states "the vehicle's desgin for such a powerful gun is excellent accomplished" - written straigt on the entry of the Report. As next, the Lone Sentry article provides the press release of the "Aberdeen Trials", althought very controlled for such wartime publication it still elucidates how exceptionall well the internal mechanical system was made. Please stay on subject, and keep personal attacks aside. You getting nowhere with your pretentious behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
There was no "demmand", but a request to communicate. Only now are you interacting with me on content, here of all places. 3 mins was actually 24 minutes. You have had nearly 4 hrs to communicate with me, but you chose to come here. Now. Lets drop this crap and go to the talk page, where we can discuss the weakness of your sources and their context. Withdraw this, and go to the talk page. I take WP:BRD very seriously, (I left you the link on your talk page). Editors who refuse to discuss but merely revert are not a plus to the project. Now, withdraw and discuss at the Tiger I talk page. Irondome (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I wont drop this 3RR warring report. Stop twisting it. You clearly demmanded on my talk page: "Please can you revert your most recent edit. Both your sources are unreliable in the context of being primary sources and Lone Sentry is shaky as a source. Please revert your edit and take it to the Tiger Talk Page" 15:42, 29 March 2015 . 3 Minutes later you did it by yourself, without giving myself the opportunity to convince you, that you're wrong! See edit on Tiger I page: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45 , 29 March 2015. You gave me no time to start any discussion on my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Your technical abilities are excellent for a "new user" also. Hmmm. You had 24 minutes between those reverts. NOT 3. Dropping off a 1 line message on my T/P would have taken 30 seconds. Your refusal to drop the stick, indicates a potentially problematic temperament. And your err, economy with the truth is not helping here. I would watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. Irondome (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You gave me 3 minutes (!) from the comment of my talk page to the revert on the Article. I was already writting a lengthy comment on my talk page before you interupted me again by calling me: No consensus talk attempted by IP Revision as of 15:45. So i droped and searched for some possibilities to report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Your 6 reverts in 24 hours are still on subject. No WP:BOOMERANG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ummm. Your interest in those is "interesting" too. Even though they have nothing to do with the case in hand, as I was dealing with a very similar situation. If I screwed up, I hold up my hand, but to the community, not to you certainly. Irondome (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. You have attempted no communication with me in over 4 hours, but "searched for some possibilities to report you". I think that speaks volumes. Irondome (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Why I should? You stigmatized me after 3 Minutes! You didn't let me to express myself on my talk page, before you took prejudicial reason No consensus talk attempted by IP to make the revert again. Of course I dont want to attempt any communication, with such behavior. You simply could wait more, I could have send you the report in pdf and you would have seen that you are simply wrong. But yeah, keep on twisting anythin in your favor with your biased POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I gave you a polite note on WP:BRD, you were not "stigmatised". In other words, you refused to communicate and you are using that as a rather weak hook. I have no POV on a piece of inanimate metal. I do have a POV on editors who refuse to communicate. It is the worst behaviour pattern on WP and causes the most stress, and directly leads to crap like this. Irondome (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected due to edit warring by IP-hopper from Manchester. Cf. WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:PBS (Result: Voluntary article restriction)[edit]

Page: Robert Hastings Hunkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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. Revision as of 22:54, 28 March 2015
  2. Revision as of 01:44, 29 March 2015
  3. Revision as of 01:57, 29 March 2015
  4. Revision as of 02:29, 29 March 2015 (the removed this addition: 02:28, 29 March 2015)
  5. Revision as of 02:44, 29 March 2015

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

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


See user:WordSeventeen exchange with User:Winkelvi at User talk:WordSeventeen#Biography MOS diff

After I read that, I placed advise in the section Talk:Robert Hastings Hunkins#WP:UNDUE with a list of the edits that had been made by different editors since 22:00 yesterday. In that list it was clear that User:Winkelvi had broken the 3RR on five or six occasions. As User:Winkelvi was blocked for 24 hours by user:Swarm on the 13 March for 24 hours for breach of the three-revert rule, I expected User:Winkelvi to show contrition and promise not to repeat the behaviour. I did not think it necessary to report it to this notice board at that time because the last edit by User:Winkelvi to the article had taken place at 02:44, 29 March 2015‎.

However User:Winkelvi reply to my posting shows that User:Winkelvi still has no idea what this rule means (diff):

"How is it possible an administrator doesn't know that reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring when it comes to 3RR? -- WV 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)"

I will leave it to an uninvolved editor to decide what to do with an editor who has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR who writes "reverts of disputed content are not what makes for edit warring". -- PBS (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments Interesting how I have been discussing the disputed content on the talk page (here [11] and here [12]) and have not edited the article in question for about 18 hours (the reporting party has edited there 6 times since my last edit there, and the latest just 6 hours ago - see here [13]) but I'm being reported for edit warring, at this time, almost a day later. I've even been trying to get opinions on this content dispute from other parties (see here [14]). The intent by the reporting party seems to the hope for punitive action rather than prevention as well as silencing me in the content dispute and keeping me from editing the article further. I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report. Pretty shameful behavior coming from an administrator. -- WV 20:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I appreciate that PBS took the time to make this report regarding Winklevi edit warring at the Robert Hastings Hunkins article. I was a bit shocked when Winklevi tried to tell me that all of my edits on that page (7 at the time) were reversions when I pointed out he had done four reversions in a very short period of time.

From here [15] Please learn what 4 reversions in less than 24 hours (between 02:44, March 29, 2015 ‎and 22:54, March 28, 2015‎ means on the article Robert Hastings Hunkins. WordSeventeen (talk) 9:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Is that a threat? Because, if it is, I see seven reversions at that same article for you [1]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 9:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

While you are please trying to learn please read over the difference between an edit and a reversion. LOL WordSeventeen (talk) 10:00 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

I posted a warning about edit warring on the talk page of Winklevi here [16] but he quickly deleted the notice from his talk page. At that point Winklevi had been warned about edit warring by myself and the admin PBS. I would like to point out as illustrated n the chart listing of reverts at the article Winklevi had six reverts in a very short time like 4-6 hours. I did do a warning on the talk page on Winklevi hoping they would understand that their edit warring was wrong. I was not sure how to do a report here since I have never filled one out before. If I had known how to do the report I would have done one at the time. I really had no idea that Winklevi had a history of edit warring until I read the report above. The comment above by the user Winklevi that " I smell serious ownership issues along with dishonesty in this report." is false the report was not dishonest at all. It was true and accurate. As for ownership issues, I believe they belong to Winklevi. Thank you. WordSeventeen (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. The violation of WP:3RR by Winkelvi is clear-cut. The user's apparent lack of insight into what constitutes an edit-warring exemption is surprising given his history. Finally, his reaction to this report evinces at best a lack of maturity, defensively attacking the filer when Winkelvi is in the wrong. That said, the user appears to be saying he will not continue edit-warring. Based only on that comment, I will not block Winkelvi if he will agree to not edit the article for any reason for the next 10 days. Frankly, this is a generous offer considering all the circumstances, but it's up to the user whether he wishes to accept it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no problem with this, Bbb23, however, the characterization of my statements in this report are out of context. I'm not going to even bother to post diffs to put it into context, because it's clear to me that because an administrator brought this report here, I'm fighting a losing battle. In fact, I'll go you one better in regard to the article. I won't edit it for longer than 10 days, nor will I give a shit about what a piece of crap article it is. Why? Because PBS won't allow anyone to do anything to it, anyway. Like I said, it's a piece of crap article -- obviously, he wants it to stay a piece of crap article, so if he is so set on owning it, I'll leave him to his ownership of it. But, it would be nice if next time someone reverts one of his edits using Twinkle, he realizes that the canned comments in the edit summary saying "Revert good faith edits..." are not actually telling him he edits in bad faith. Yeah, that actually happened. [17]. -- WV 00:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not the most gracious of accepts, but it will have to do. If Winkelvi violates the terms of this agreement, anyone can report the violation either at this noticeboard (linking this report) or on my Talk page. I consider the matter closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── As Winkelvi really seems to have no idea what constitutes reversion, there is a real danger of transfer of this behaviour to other articles.

Winkelvi seems to be editing pages which were created by or edited by user:Kbabej (currently blocked). For example Winkelvi put the article Benjamin Hunkins up for deletion on 6 March 2015. Another page created by Kbabej on 28 December 2014,‎ was Autumn Jackson this article has been edited by Winkelvi during the last 24 hours.

Winkelvi's editing of Benjamin Hunkins between the opening of this report and Bbb23's first posting to this section, led user:BoboMeowCat to state on user talk:Winkelvi that "Edit warring on Autumn Jackson You are over 3RR on that article."diff (in fact I do not think Winkelvi was -- see below). However Winkelvi response was not to question the 3RR assertion, but to state "You keep putting incorrect content into a BLP. Do you realize the seriousness and possible liability to Wikipedia by doing so?" diff, eventually after further exchanges Winkelvi self reverted, but then negated that self revert by making another edit.

  • Winkelvi Between 04:11 and 04:36, 29 March 2015‎ made a number of edits diff
  • (1)Wikielvi reverted BoboMeowCat edit at 18:54, 29 March 2015‎
    • BoboMeowCat partial revert over a series of edits between 22:53 and 23:04, 29 March 2015‎
  • (2)Wikielvi partial revert at 23:51, 29 March 2015‎
    • Wikielvi made 2 more edits
  • Wikielvi self revert at 00:38, 30 March 2015‎ back to the last edit by BoboMeowCat
  • (3) Wikielvi diff at 00:38, 30 March 2015 made the next edit to the page which deleted the content of the parents parameter in the Infobox, and this means that the two edits together were another revert of the first revert by BoboMeowCat.

In the last few days I have seen Wikielvi make a bold edit to several different pages which when reverted instead of following the advise on WP:BRD immediately reverts the revert (diffs can be supplied if Winkelvi disputes this). The better course of action would be not to make this revert of a revert to a bold edit, but to follow WP:BRD and discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, (and if consensus proves to be illusive to follow the dispute resolution process).

I would suggest that Winkelvi, should agree that if Winkelvi makes a bold edit that is reverted, either fully or in part, that Winkelvi agrees not to revert the revert but agrees to start a discussion on the talk page of the article and follow the dispute resolution process.

-- PBS (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: The kind of restriction you're suggesting is a generalized one on Winkelvi's editing of all articles and goes beyond what I believe is my authority to act unilaterally in these circumstances. The appropriate forum to propose such a restriction if you wish to pursue it is WP:ANI or WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think I will wait if others post any additional comments to this section, before considering whether to take it further at this time. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Since I was pinged, I will chime in. Yesterday Winkelvi violated 3RR on Autumn Jackson. I brought this concern to his talk page. [18] It’s a confusing edit history at this point, in part because Winkelvi eventually self reverted in a series of edits, but never indicated agreement to comply with that request on talk page, and he didn’t call it self-revert in edit summary, which would tend to make him look more uncooperative than he actually was, and might lead one to believe the edits I was complaining about were up toward the top when they were lower down. The reverts include more than just the parent info-box content. Anyway, I agree there's a concern here, but currently I’m not seeking any sort of action against Winkelvi, because, at this point, he has self-reverted, and is participating in the various talk discussions on talk:Autumn Jackson which I opened regarding the disputed content. However, I do think PBS's recommendation that if Winkelvi makes a bold edit and it is reverted (either fully or in part) that he not just jump back in and immediately re-revert and instead open a discussion, is a good recommendation.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Bbb23, here's what I know: PBS is unhappy with me and has been for over a week. I'm not surprised he wants more to come from this report and the decision you made. It was my gut feeling from the moment he filed it that it was about punishment rather than prevention (otherwise, why file an edit warring report when any hint of edit warring stopped over 18 hours prior?) He's painted a very one-sided picture of my editing (at Hunkins article as well as the Jackson article) by taking my comments out of context and not providing the whole story (as BoboMeowCat attested to above). On two separate occasions PBS has demanded an apology from me for things that were completely benign and didn't merit an apology. One instance was because he felt the canned response from Twinkle saying "Revert good faith edits by PBS..." was implying he made bad faith edits. I still don't know why that ruffled his feathers so much or why he thought I was accusing him of anything. I also know that when I have made edits at articles he watchlists and guards to keep status quo he has threatened to take me to ANI. He insists BRD should be followed, yet he doesn't have the same requirement for himself -- just those who edit "his" articles. At this point, I have taken all articles I have on my watchlist that are edited by PBS off my watchlist. My hope is I never run into him again because of what I've experienced to be his tendency to fly off the handle about nothing and WP:OWN articles. I have been here long enough to know when someone has placed their territorial ownership seal on an article that it's not worth the hassle as practically everything you try to do will be contested and/or reverted with demands of talking about every little tiny detail on the article talk page. As far as me being more mindful of BRD, yes, I can do that -- I don't need a special sanction or group of watchdogs following me around to make sure it happens. -- WV 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Wester reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]
  5. [24]
  6. [25] (further revert after this case was started)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] (now removed)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Max Verstappen#Nationality of drivers

Talk:Max Verstappen contains two sections where today I and other editors have attempted to explain why F1 driver Verstappen races under the Dutch flag, but Wester maintains that Verstappen is a Belgian national holding no Dutch passport, and has edit-warred persistently to that effect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No, those were not simple reverts and NOT an edit war but a constant reworking of the text based on real sources. I have sources, Bretonbanquet has not. Also it's a bit bizar that Bretonbanquet makes this report now since the edits were from this after noon with no threat on escalation. --Wester (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Consistent, repeated reversion (both straight undo-style and more subtle alteration of text) to support their own poorly-supported claims regarding Verstappen's nationality despite overwhelming weight of evidence that Wester is incorrect. Highly disruptive, and reversions far in excess of 3RR. Pyrope 23:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I have clear sources. An interview by his mother and other factual sources such as the FIA rule book. For the interview: [27]. You on the other hand have no sources and you dare to say that I am incorrect?! You don't even speak Dutch to READ the sources.
I even started a discussion on the talk page.
Also point out that in this edit Bretonbanquet even agrees. But wrongly since he implies that Verstappen has dual passport. That's not true. That's why I corrected it in the next edit. Than Bretonbanquet boldly reverted it based on absolutely nothing. Than I made the following edit that is no reversion but more a factual correction of the text based on sources. Also not that I tried to make a compromise: I for instance did not revert the Belgian flag in the infobox. So no, this is not a 3RR case and it's a bit pointless that Bretonbanquet made this request other than silence me to win the discussion based on force rather than arguments. --Wester (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I certainly do not need to "silence" you because you lost that argument a long time ago. But you continue to edit war. You call refraining to make an utterly incorrect edit "a compromise", and you fail to understand that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." (my bolding). You've disrupted this page, and arguably the talk page as well, all day. I turned a blind eye to 4RR but 5, 6 etc, forget it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
1.There is no edit war since it's not a reversion but an evolution of the text. 2.I stopped editing that page long ago. 3. There is an ongoing discussion which I started on the talk page. So it's not that I'm unwilling to discuss. That did not withhold Pyrope to edit the page and making false and on-sourced statements. 4. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three users against one does not mean you are right. --Wester (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Mann jess (Result: No action)[edit]

Talk:Abiogenesis (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  2. 21:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) to 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    1. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086434 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  5. 21:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086734 by BatteryIncluded (talk)"
  6. 21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654086914 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  7. 21:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC) ""
  8. 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088045 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  9. 21:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088239 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  10. 21:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088380 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  11. 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088612 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  12. 21:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654088948 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  13. 21:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089243 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
  14. 21:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 654089413 by Apokryltaros (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Two editors warring over the talk page. The ip was amply warned, and kept warring. Not really sure what to recommend be done, so I'm reporting here and to RfPP.   — Jess· Δ 21:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence does not meet the standards of Wikipedia core content policies

Wikipedia was founded on the fundamental principle that its content must fall under certain criteria to be admissible. One criterion is that it must submit to a neutral point of view ( see WP:NPOV ), another is that it must be verifiable. (See WP:VER ) "Abiogenesis is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does not meet these standards, whereas "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process of life arising from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds" does. Since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes, saying so is not a neutral point of view and therefore not acceptable. (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Users Apokryltaros and BatteryIncluded continually deleted a suggestion I made on the abiogenesis talk page regarding the statement of a simple, objective fact. Upon resorting to their respective talk pages for further discussion, they also chose to delete rather than discuss it there as well. Even going as far as to claim harrassment for me calling them out on their personal bias. (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


The only scientific debate regarding abiogenesis is not "if" it happened, but how. While the proposed chemical mechanisms are hypothetical, it is not so for abiogenesis, as life is factual, an evident empirical phenomenon. The continuous demands to label abiogenesis a "hypothesis" are a chronic recurrence in this scientific WP article. Multiple and similar discussions have happened in the past years regarding the labeling of abiogenesis a "hypothesis": ([28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48].

All the dicussions listed above concluded to dismiss it, on the grounds of the cited scientific publications. Several of the requests of labeling it a 'hypothesis' had the ulterior motive of including religion/creationism as an alternate and equally valid scientific explanation for abiogenesis, but were dismissed by the WP community because such religious and philosophical arguments are best presented in non-scientific articles. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is that since abiogenesis itself is a hypothetical processes like you just stated, the lead sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. The statement "abiogenesis is the natural processes..." is not a neutral point of view since it is not verifiable that life arose through natural processes in the first place. The statement "abiogenesis is the hypothetical natural process..." IS a neutral point of view AND a true statement, unlike the former, since no model of abiogenesis at this point in time has been empirically verified. (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nobody knows how gravity and mass came to be; there are hypotheses, explaining the possible mechanisms, but they do not make gravity and mass hypothetical facts. Juggling semantics will not make it less real. I will not discuss science in this venue, besides your semantic arguments have not succeeded in academia or in the US Supreme Court. I don't expect you will produce a reliable reference that may supersede the hundreds of references now cited in the WP article, so I leave this matter in the hands of the administrators instead of entertaining WP:CHEESE. Thank you, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The difference between mass & gravity and abiogenesis is that mass and gravity have been OBSERVED. Speculation and assumption are not science. Testable, observable hypothesis are. That's why we call it the big bang "theory" and the "theory" of evolution. Abiogenesis is no different, and for these reasons it is necessary to change the lead sentence of the article to reflect this fact. Since we are currently unable to explain or describe any natural processes by which living cells could emerge from non-living material, we cannot just assume there is one and call it science. There will be no double-standard in Wikipedia articles and since abiogenesis has yet to be empirically verified, it is merely hypothetical at this point in time. (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Regardless of the scientific merits of the IP's argument, I don't particularly see any reason they weren't 100% within their rights to post that comment on the talk page. Apokryltaros's repeated deletion of their comment was inappropriate and clearly in violation of the talk page behavioral guidelines. I've unprotected the talk page, as this incident certainly doesn't warrant protection. Mann jess appropriately warned Apokryltaros to stop edit warring and they appear to have done so, thus I see no need for action on this front either. Let's take this opportunity to brush up on WP:TPO, WP:OWN, and WP:BITE. Best regards, Swarm X 03:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:GarnetAndBlack (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: South Carolina Gamecocks (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: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [50]
  2. [51]
  3. [52]
  4. [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

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

Comments: Anonymous IP user has been repeatedly asked over the past week to stop tendentiously editing this article without engaging in a discussion on article Talk page to attempt to gain consensus for an edit that does nothing to improve a previously stable article. This leads up to today's edit warring by anon IP in which further warnings were given to cease reversions of article without discussion. Anon IP finally engages on Talk page, but continues to revert, demonstrating no real effort to gain consensus for edits. Anon IP was informed about 3RR, and blatantly reverted afterwards, while still refusing to reasonably discuss on Talk page. Anon IP has also removed 3RR warning from their Talk page, demonstrating that the warning has been noticed, and apparently ignored. Temporary page protection may also be required, as it would appear we are dealing with a stubborn and combative anon IP user.
GarnetAndBlack (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you are edit warring, both of you decided not to discuss issues, and when I finally did start discussion, y'all argued about each other and did not bring up the manual of style, policies, or guidelines. The IP posted three times as often as you have in the thread I started, and you completely ignored a neutral third party's reasoning and failed to provide a policy-based reason for your content preference.
Were I an uninvolved admin, I would give both of you the same treatment, be it warning or block. Both of you have shown serious WP:BATTLEGROUND problems, and you may have shown WP:BITE problems. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
The IP has posted NOTHING of relevance in the Talk thread, but comments about me, and "I know I'm right" statements about their tendentious edits. I have no inclination to waste my time dealing with an anon IP editor whose tone in those comments and in edit summaries thus far has been one of stubborn indifference to Wiki policies or any sort of compromise. But if you want to go to bat for this type of editor here, have at it. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Mostly true (though this one at least directly responded to my third-party findings), and your single post on the talk page ignored my third-party MOS-based argument and made a vague WP:OR argument that football is more important without providing sources.
Technically, once I made an MOS based argument, and you failed to provide any policy, guideline, or source to support alternative arrangements, the consensus became alphabetical order. Both you and the IP were edit warring, both you and the IP used the talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND instead of discussing things, and both you and the IP need to back away from the article and let people who have more level heads handle it because neither of you is capable of playing well with others on this topic. It does not matter that he is an IP and you have an account, both of you are in the wrong. As someone with an account, you should actually know better. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
As someone with an account, and years of helping to maintain articles dealing with the University of South Carolina, I've seen far too much of this type of behavior from anonymous IP editors, and I've had my fill. Editing from an anonymous IP is no excuse for not approaching this project with an open, helpful approach, and learning the policies and procedures used here. This IP editor has done neither, and in fact, only chose to parrot back my attempts to elicit some sort of discussion. Like I said, if you want to bend over backwards for this type of all-too-common disruptive editor on Wikipedia, be my guest, but don't expect the rest of us to fall in line behind you. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that both the IP and User:GarnetAndBlack should be blocked. They are both over WP:3RR and neither party appears willing to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I propose that you are wrong. I was more than willing to discuss the edits in question here, but anon IP editor showed no inclination for a solid week to do so even when prompted. That's not the basis for me to assume good faith toward an IP that does nothing but revert and claim in edit summaries that their opinion is the only one that matters. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion either party could avoid a block if they will agree to wait for consensus before reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Which I clearly did, after posting a 3RR warning on the anon IP's Talk page. What was the response of anon IP? Why to post the template to my Talk page in retaliation, and immediately revert the article. And here we are. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Both of you were edit warring without meaningful discussion.
(edit conflict × 2)GarnetAndBlack: If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have started discussion and left a message asking him to discuss it there. If you were willing to discuss matters, you should have made a response to third-party feedback that indicated you actually read said feedback. It is your duty to assume good faith from the IP if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site. Not "only if their edits were an obvious improvement," but "if their edits could possibly be an attempt to improve the site." You have ignored everyone else's feedback in this, which is at least as tendentious as the IP's possibly-ignorant behavior.
(edit conflict × x3)GarnetAndBlack: The account isn't a badge, it's a responsibility. One of those responsibilities includes teaching IP editors how things work here if they don't know. Another responsibility is to pay attention to third-party feedback and gauge responses accordingly. Another is patience, instead of just lashing out with reverts.
Ed: Yeah, blocking both is starting to look necessary, because both of them seem convinced this as a zero-sum game and think that the other's misbehavior excuses their own. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Haberstr reported by User:My very best wishes (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haberstr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [56]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [57] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [58])
  2. [59] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [60])
  3. [61] this is revert to previous version by same user from March 25 (same revert on March 25 [62]
  4. [63] - again

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64].

He came today and repeated his previous edit war conducted on the same page on March 25. This user was previously blocked for edit war and warned by User:Callanecc about EE discretionary sanctions[65]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected by Nakon. User also warned about personal attacks. Swarm X 03:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am attempting to place a POV tag at the top of the article. Other users repeatedly violate Wikipedia policy by removing it. This is the most contentious, biased article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, other than the other articles on recent Ukraine history that the anti-Russia editors maintain control over.Haberstr (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
So, you are telling that you are satisfied by result of your edit warring [66]? My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
All participants in this dispute are encouraged to behave well in the future. The sanctions of WP:ARBEE can be imposed if it appears that one or more people are unable to edit neutrally about the disputes between Ukraine and Russia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Duly noted. However, the neutrality of edits is frequently difficult to judge. For example, the claim of anti-Russian bias is wrong because the majority of sources criticize Russian politics in Ukraine, and we simply go with sources. What can be easily judged is this: (a) the violation of 3RR rule, (b) an editor openly expressing satisfaction by results of their edit warring, and (c) casting aspersions about "anti-Russian editors". My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Frankly, I'd appreciate it if some administrator could patrol this article in line with WP:ARBEE. The amount of tendentious behaviour surrounding it is enormous, and enforcement is lax. Could you keep an eye out, EdJohnston? RGloucester 17:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Emperortikacuti reported by User:Dolescum (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Second Battle of Tikrit (March 2015) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Emperortikacuti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71]
  5. [72]
  6. [73]
  7. [74]
  8. [75]
  9. [76]
  10. [77]
  11. [78]
  12. [79]
  13. [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82]


Slow edit war over the formatting of numbers in an infobox. User simply refuses to discuss edits and appears to ignore any discussion on their talk page. Would be reporting @EkoGraf: who's been reverting Emperortikacuti aside from the fact I can't blame them for they've tried discussing the matter with Emperortikacuti and been utterly ignored.

Tired of watching this. Dolescum (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Like Dolescum said, I left three messages at Emperortikacuti's talk page, as well as at least a dozen messages (if not more) in the edit summaries, to none of which he replied. I made a compromise proposal, which he ignored, just like he ignored all of the messages. He's only course of action has been to revert every time and reinsert the break in the rows, despite me trying to compromise and make arguments that it was ether redundant since the text was already in another row or that it broke the flow of the text. The reverts would always take place little over a day later or a few days later, but sometimes even within 24 hours. Other editors also tried to revert his edits (I was not the only one) but he reverted them as well. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This editor has been doing this for weeks, across many, many articles. He needs to stop. RGloucester 21:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely. This user has failed to communicate in any form during their entire time here on Wikipedia, and they've demonstrated they don't plan to start (they've only ever made one talk page comment but it's proof enough that they're capable of communicating in English). User may be unblocked if and when they assure us that they'll change their ways in the future, but unless that happens I don't see their behavior as being tolerable in a collaberative project. Communication is key, as they say. Swarm X 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Kb333 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: GNOME (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and GNU/Linux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kb333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [83]
  2. [84]
  3. [85]
  4. [86]
  1. [87]
  2. [88]
  3. [89]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring one. Editor has just come off a 24 hour block for edit-warring (their AN3 report is still above) and immediately has resumed their incivility and edit-warring, pushing their GNU/Linux POV despite being very aware by this point that consensus on Wikipedia does not support their edits (MOS:LINUX). The editor has made no attempt to discuss the redirect change on any talk page, yet still continues to revert against consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

And apparently "whatever" is justification to continue edit-warring. The editor has made is perfectly clear that they have no intention of discussing, but rather reverting and forcing their changes into articles.[91][92] This is reinforced by the declaration (while still edit-warring) that the editor does not care about consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I was just looking at this editor's reverts over at GNU/Linux earlier and wondering if I was going to have to block them again. Apparently they haven't gotten the message yet. Swarm X 00:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Corona del Mar High School (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: [93]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [94]
  2. [95]
  3. [96]
  4. [97]
  5. [98] - Hypocritically accusing me of edit warring, even though I've stopped and he keeps going.
  6. [99] - And disregarding the insight of neutral third-parties.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Corona_del_Mar_High_School#Rewrite_done

WP:SPA IP (who geolocates to near the school) has a long history of trying to whitewash the article to WP:RGW. Their citation of WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS is wikilawyering, plain and simple. This would not be the first time that they've been blocked under WP:NOTHERE. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. If citing WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS is prohibited wikilawyering, Bahooka committed the first crime. The article subheading that Ian Thompson repeatedly reverted was straight out of WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS72.194.125.162 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
He said "maybe" (recognizing that the page was an essay, not policy) not "should be adhered to" (which was where you were wikilawyering). You've reverted almost twice as much as anyone there, and reverted multiple users. The section I reverted was an attempt to separate the nationwide attention into positive and negative to promote one and hide the other, instead of presenting all sourced information neutrally. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Please can the IP editor be given a very long block, and please can the page be protected against non-autoconfirmed editors, so the IP editor does not simply use another IP.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The edits I made today would have improved the article, and Bahooka supported them. There are no grounds for blocking me or protecting the article. (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The edits you made were an attempt to promote material you liked and segregate material you didn't like, instead of presenting all sourced information neutrally. Bahooka modified one portion of an edit without commenting on whether the rest of it was appropriate, and has not expressed actual support. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As my user name is being mentioned here and apparently I "committed the first crime" by citing advice from a WikiProject, let me reiterate what I stated on my user talk page. I stated that "I also understand that under WP:CSECTION controversies should generally be integrated into the article rather than be a standalone section. Combining the sections does achieve this goal, although it is simply a guideline.". I think combining the sections to include both the controversies and academic rankings is the best way to integrate the controversial material into the article, rather than having a separate controversies section. I changed the section title slightly when it just contained academic rankings for consistency among school articles, but that is not an appropriate title for the combined section. Bahooka (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Two links to consider:

--NeilN talk to me 22:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No legal threats were found to have been made. Going back to the merits, the "Nationwide attention" section mixes apples and oranges; or rather, buries apples in an avalanche of oranges. The lede repeats the controversies that are detailed in that section (see footnote 3). In my opinion that is not encyclopedic. Am I not allowed an opinion? (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the nationwide attention simply addresses the issue "what attention has the school received from the rest of the nation?" Not apples and oranges, just fruit. Your edit promoted national attention you like and segregated attention you didn't like, even though all the material was reliably sourced and in proportion to the sources available.
You are allowed to have your own opinion, but not shape the article to fit that opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Clear reverts at 21:45, 21:41, 21:32, 20:55, 20:18, 19:45, and 19:30. Warned previously and blocked previously. If he rotates IPs I'll consider semi. Kuru (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
We've already got block evasion by Special:Contributions/|]], which geolocates to the same place. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Blocked the wireless IP, extended the block on the stable IP, and semi-ed the page. Kuru (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kuru: Hop, hop, hop. Don't know if you can do much though. --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I really, really hate protecting talk pages in any way, but it looks like the only IP edits to that page over the last two years at least have been him. I've semi-ed it as well. If he moves to other pages we'll shift to whack-a-mole. Kuru (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hadraa reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 20:24, 31 March 2015
  2. Revision as of 00:46, 1 April 2015
  3. Revision as of 00:51, 1 April 2015
  4. Latest revision as of 01:14, 1 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk Page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page


The first revert is a revision of this: [101] Although clearly explained he is still unable to understand as to why it was removed (see here:[102]) Oddly enough, he speculates that I am a sock of Amaury vis versa (see here:[103]) AcidSnow (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

i know a bout this because its not the first time he did this to and i used all my 3 times for today not 4 see the dates and see you tommorrow. Hadraa (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. AcidSnow, in the future please notify any user reported here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
My apolgize Bbb23. AcidSnow (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (Result: Not on this board)[edit]

There appears to be a single-issue edit war going on at Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System about the names of certain people involved in the early history who don't have wiki articles of their own. Their names were removed by multiple users and IP addresses that you can find in the page history, but someone seems to be bent on including them with excessive detail using the rationale as stated in their edit summary as "Wiki rules say creators of notable works are notable" -- this sounds like straight vanity to me, if not a complete misunderstanding of notability. I'm going to take a Wikibreak from that specific article for a week or two. I would like someone from here to read the article and edit as appropriate. -- (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. This really isn't the place to make this kind of a report. There isn't enough recent activity to justify protection of the article, and nothing I would call edit-warring. There hasn't been any discussion about the content dispute. If you're willing, I would start a topic on the article Talk page and raise your concerns about the material being added (restored? - can't tell). The section in the article that's disputed is very poorly sourced, and it certainly doesn't help that the user is adding yet more unsourced material.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sabahudin9 reported by User:Yerevani Axjik (Result: Both editors warned)[edit]

This edit warring complaint has been closed. If you have more to say on the Bosnian dispute, please go to User talk:EdJohnston#Bosnian dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Bileća (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Canton 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Herzegovina-Neretva Canton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Damat Ibrahim Pasha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sabahudin9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: [104] [105] [106] [107]

[108] [109] [110] [111]

[112] [113] [114] [115] [116]

[117] [118] [119]


User:Yerevani Axjik has been vandalizing multiple Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles with his Serbian and Croatian nationalist opinions. I have reverted several of them, only to have said user revert my reverts, numerous times. The country is called Bosnia and Herzegovina, not Bosnia-Herzegovina-Croatia-Serbia. The user has also been reverting my proposal for deletion of the new article Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina, without reason or explanation.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not he. :) Second. You're the one pushing your Bosniak ethnic nationalist propaganda everywhere, with comments such as "Reverting Serb nationalistic POV vandalism", ""Muslims" is a dated and beyond offensive term. Serbs do not want to be called "Christians". Thats not their ethnicity, its their religion. Stop with your nationalist edits", "Stop denying Bosniaks of an identity", "Stop denying Bosniaks of an identity and attempting to delete Bosniaks from history. The term "bosnian Muslim" is offensive and dated". Callim my edits nationalist doesn't hold any ground at all. As for your proposal for deletation of the Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina - you don't mention a single reason why the article should be deleted. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are nationalistic and denying Bosniaks of an identity. The term "Muslims" as an ethnicity is dated and BEYOND offensive. Serbs are ethnically Serbs, not ethnically Christians. Calling Bosniaks "Muslims" as an ethnicity is offensive, dated and ridiculous. As for the article I have proposed for deletion, the reason is in the proposal.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why it would be offensice? Look. I don't have nothing against anyone, and I hate being accused of nationalism. I don't care for your ideology, but, you must look into this -
According to the 1991 census, which was a census where you could write what ever you want as your ethnicity, 1,898,963 of people declared as Muslims; 10,727 as Bosnians, 876 as Bosniaks-Muslims; 96 as Bosniaks-Yugoslavs and 22 as Yugoslavs-Bosniaks, so you could say there was 994 Bosniaks in total, compared to 1,898,963 Muslims by nationality.
And this is not offensive term at all, especially not to people who declared or still declare as such. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says they are ethnically Muslim. That was Yugoslav-era propaganda that should be dead and gone but nationalists like you keep it alive. Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina are BOSNIAKS.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina, if we speak about religious group - can be whatever they want to be. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If the source says Muslims it should not be a problem of putting them as Muslims. Also Sabahudin, you should stop your personal attacks and accusations of nationalism towards the other user. It is not the first time you start making personal attacks and remarks to editors you are opposing. FkpCascais (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I came here after posting a warning to Sabahudin9's talk page concerning edits of his that struck me as blatantly chauvinistic. On further inspection, however, it became clear that the other party's motives are just as dubious. WP:AN/3 does not appear to be the best venue for this issue, not only because it is unclear if either (or both) of the parties broke the 3RR, but also because both users promote opposing extremist views. As such, they will continue to clash and will contribute nothing to factual accuracy and neutrality of articles in their area of interest. The general WP:ANI might be a better place. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This user insists on changing Serbian Cyrillic to Cyrillic in Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina-related articles. I have commented on his talk page about it.--Zoupan 05:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The articles are not Serb-related... they are articles about villages and towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country of Bosnia and Herzegovina has both Bosnian and Serbian as official languages. Both Bosnian and Serbian use the Cyrillic script. It is incorrect to flat-out say it is "Serbian Cyrillic" when both languages use it.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

OK... you're doing it again - [120]. And as for Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina, if you want to discuss why the article should be deleted, please, join the discussion, which I started yesterday. As you didn't joined the discussion, I assumed you gave up. And, if you won't join discussion, there's no reason why there should be a deletation template standing there. So, either discuss, or stop reverting my edits on the article. ([121]) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 06:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yerevani Axjik: this is a two-way street. You are attempting to portray me as a nationalist vandal. You are telling me that my reversals of your nationalistic edits are wrong.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@"The articles are not Serb-related..." — this clearly shows your POV. The Cyrillic in Bosnia and Herzegovina is the Serbian Cyrillic script, and not the Russian. It is in official and every-day use in Republika Srpska, and not in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.--Zoupan 09:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The articles ARE NOT Serb-related. They are articles about villages in BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. Cyrillic script is also in use everywhere in the Federation (road signs, etc.) That specific Cyrillic script is both Serbian and Bosnian.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't have official languages. Republika Srpska doesn't name it's official languages, but states that official languages of Republika Srpska are "language of Serb people, language of Croat people and language of Bosniak people", which is Serbo-Croatian. It's one language. Only in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina the languages are explicitly and separately mentioned as Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian language. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize that it's 2015... not 1992? Serbo-Croatian was only official in SFRY. It is no longer in use. The languages of Bosnia and Herzegovina are Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. All use the Latin script, but only Bosnian and Serbian also use Cyrillic.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This division of Serbo-Croatian language is political, not linguistic. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors are warned they may be blocked if they continue to revert on these topics. User:Sabahudin9 is warned not to engage in WP:Original research. If people report themselves on a census as being 'Moslem' it is not up to you to record them in our article as 'Bosniaks.' This is on the edge of source falsification, for which a long block is possible. Deciding whether a certain script is Serbian or Cyrillic needs consensus. Both of you are expected to wait for an agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yerevani Axjik has not stopped with their nationalistic edits. Yerevani Axjik has continued vandalizing several Bosnia-Herzegovina-related articles with Serbian Cyrillic, and Serbian this and Serbian that, removing any mention of Bosnian anything. After the edits of Yerevani Axjik, the Bosnian language has been replaced with "Serbo-Croatian" (example: edits on Drvar), which has not been in use since the Yugoslav-era.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Sabahudin9, you are on thin ice. I recommend you find an appropriate venue to have a proper discussion of which language template should be used. At the moment, you're the person who appears to most susceptible to nationalist editing. If you can't find a way to reach agreement on the language templates, I recommend that you work on something else. Many Slavic people in the Balkans speak a language that is often referred to as Serbo-Croation. See Talk:Serbo-Croatian and its archives for all the past disputes. The following appears in the page header at Talk:Serbo-Croatian:

In English, the language spoken by Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, and Montenegrins is generally called "Serbo-Croat(ian)". Use of that term in English, which dates back at least to 1864 and was modeled on both Croatian and Serbian nationalists of the time, is not a political endorsement of Yugoslavia, but is simply a label. As long as it remains the common name of the language in English, it will continue to be used here on Wikipedia.

Re-opening the discussion about Serbo-Croatian every ten minutes is not a welcome development. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Yerevani Axjik's edits on Vasilije Kačavenda removed all reference to the subjects nationalist ties and replaced "underage boys" with "men" when referring to subjects recent sex abuse scandal, which is factually inaccurate, as supported by multiple sources. The user also added a poorly sourced addition to the article Osman Karabegović which claims the subject was a supporter of nationalist leader Slobodan Milošević. User has also continued adding Serbian Cyrillic translations to many towns and cities within the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina including on Bosansko Grahovo and Glamoč. User has also replaced the ethnic term "Bosniaks" with the Yugoslav-era "Muslims", a highly offensive and dated term. I don't understand why I am the one being vilified here for simply reverting this users nonconstructive edits ? Apparently the Bosniak Avdo Humo is now a Serb, according to User:Yerevani Axjik. --Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not one article mentions that Kačavenda abused underaged children, but only that he had sex with number of adult men. You or someone else misused the sources. Give me one source (link) that was used which claims he had sex with underaged boys. And the term Muslim is not offensive at all, it's your own personal view. --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

one, two, three, four, five. These are just five sources, all Serbian, but there are many more if you need them to prove that this man is a nationalist and a pedophile.--Sabahudin9 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

And none of them was used in the article, right? :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
And none of them was used in the article, right? :) --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User:115ash reported by User:CosmicEmperor (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
115ash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


I haven't done this type of reporting before , so i don't know how to fill up the above spaces.I am mentioning the details below:

After I was warned by Ged UK , I didn't edit this page Bengali people .He was also warned. Right now there is a discussion going on in talk page in order to reach a consensus. But still he is editing Bengali people according to personal bias as evident from his edits. He has a biased mentality against Bengalis living in West Bengal and he wants to remove them one after another as evident from his comments here .