Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive307

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

Noticeboard archives


User: reported by User:Jeraphine Gryphon (Result: )[edit]

Michael Page (fighter) (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
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 00:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922531 by Morohbj (talk)"
    2. 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922455 by Morohbj (talk)"
    3. 00:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703922381 by Morohbj (talk)"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905039 by Morohbj (talk)"
    2. 11:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703905021 by Morohbj (talk)"
    3. 11:02, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 703904852 by Morohbj (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


The other party in the edit war made a thread on the talk page, IP did not react to it or to my warning and continued reverting instead. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Yesantiago reported by User:KungAvSand (Result: )[edit]

Ponce Health Sciences University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Yesantiago (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "authorized by chief operation office ann coss"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 19:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operations office"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) to 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 20:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
    2. 20:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "by chief operation officer"
  4. 20:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"
  2. 20:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University. (TW)"
  3. 20:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Ponce Health Sciences University ‎. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Editor has an obvious conflict of interest and keeps on removing the previous (mostly properly sourced) content and replaces it with content obviously taken from some sort of promotional material issued by the university (text mentions "our students" etc.); also destroying the previous format in the process. All attempts at letting Yesantiago know about the problems with these edits seem to have been in vain, and the page currently includes the problematic material again. KungAvSand (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer reported by User:Me and (Result: Warning)[edit]

WLVA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) to 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 23:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows no articles, just a full page ad."
    2. 23:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, that page shows "International Show News", nothing regarding WLVA."
    3. 23:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
    4. 23:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
    5. 23:36, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson"
    6. 23:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing, once again, this page shows nothing regarding WLVA"
    7. 23:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "removing information that was linked to sources that did not show the information on the page. Other sources are correct and that information remains."
  2. 16:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "unsourced, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V violations."
  3. 16:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "all unsourced, do not readd without sources. thank you."
  4. 23:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted good faith edits by (talk): Information is unsourced, please add third-party reliable sources per WP:RS. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC) "/* WLVA */ WP:3RR"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User's reverts are just outside the 24-hour 3RR boundary, seemingly as a deliberate attempt to avoid the bright-line 3RR rule. They are insisting on removing information with good sources added by an IP editor and which I went through and meticulously verified myself before re-adding. Attempted to discuss with the editor on their talk page (including an explicit 3RR warning) and on Drmies' talk page, but Neutralhomer continues to insist the sources are invalid. —me_and 12:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Minor wording clarification —me_and 12:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I've just added some more discussion on the WLVA talk page in the hope that explaining precisely how Neutralhomer could verify the sources himself might help. —me_and 12:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The edits that begin with "removing" in the edit summary are actual edits, not reverts and thus not covered under 3RR. The last three are reverts and I stand at 3RR and have not made any reverts since the manual warning given at 17:55 on 2/8.
My continued issue with these edits is that the references on the WLVA page do not correspond to articles within the linked reference. As such, the information can not be confirmed and under OR and RS can be removed.
Also, for further reference for Me_and, I'm a guy. - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I was going to look into this, but something's come up and I ran out of time. To save the next admin some time, just a note that the series of edits that start with "removing" do count as a revert, because taken as a whole - which we do with consecutive edits - they remove a large majority of the IP editor's text that NH previously just reverted (plus some other stuff). WP:3RR clearly includes the phrase "in whole or in part". No comment on blocks or warnings, haven't had time to look at other people's behavior or the content of edits. But there were definitely 4 reverts in a period of 24 hours + 20 minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @Floquenbeam: We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Regardless, though, I am going on an extended WikiBreak while I re-examine my participation in this project. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
      • (oops, forgot about this) "Agree to disagree" is not an option. You are wrong, about a very clearly worded policy, and it may get you blocked. "Agree to disagree" is an unwise reaction to finding out you're wrong about something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
        • @Floquenbeam: So I should just ignore references that don't match the articles linked? I went through each one of these "Variety" references that Me_and is so desperate to add. This one is an ad, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or Glenn Jackson, this one shows nothing regarding WLVA or WLW. The others are the same. The references given on the WLVA page can not be found on the "Variety" magazine links given. So, should I have left them there or should I have removed them because the references were not correct? - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
          • First, this is not about content, it's about WP:3RR, and your apparent gaming of it (in two ways). Second, I see you've commented on the article talk page, where your confusion about page numbers has been answered, but you don't appear to have read their message. And third, this attitude that User:me_and is "desperate" to add these references, like they're trying to pull something, shows that you do not have the correct attitude to deal with other good faith editors right now. That wikibreak seems like a pretty good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
            • As of this post, no one has replied to my message on the WLVA talk page. I don't really expect one to be honest. I also don't expect this to just be a wikibreak. I'm calling it that to leave the door open, but this is the last straw for me. I'm done. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You've been on this project long enough that you ought to know better than to pull this crap. Many users have come and go. If you need a wikibreak, please take one. If you decide to come back and contribute in a positive fashion, you'd be welcomed and have what I assume to be a good history behind you to go with it. But editors who act in a mature fashion don't announce their intentions to leave. There's nothing to be gained by doing it, except if you want to hear the following: You know where the door is; don't let it hit you on the way out. Jm (talk | contribs) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • On the one hand, I hate to turn a blind eye to gaming the system (breaking a revert into pieces and claiming it isn't a revert, 4th revert a few minutes after the 24 hr clock had "reset"). On the other hand, when NH's 4th revert was undone, he did not attempt to revert again, and claims to be starting a wikibreak; if I were to block NH for 48 hours (because last edit warring block was a while ago), it might interfere with his ability to let go of the place for a while, which would be a good idea. So, no blocking, but a warning that this was absolutely a 3RR violation, and could easily have led to a block if I weren't such a pushover. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
    • For the record, I didn't make the 4th revert "a few after the...clock 'reset'" on purpose, it just happened that way, it wasn't intentional. Again, just for the record. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Per my comment on the article talkpage, the sources do check out fine; I think this is an AGF mistake, and Neutralhomer doesn't understand how to use (which is, to be fair, ridiculously counterintuitive since the "page numbers" in their scans don't match the page numbers of the original print source). I'd say no harm, no foul, provided NH doesn't revert again. ‑ Iridescent 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Sir Joseph reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: blocked)[edit]

Page: Western Wall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:14, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[2]
  2. 18:23, 09 February 2016: Reverted Nishidani.[3]
  3. 19:54, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[4]
  4. 20:02, 09 February 2016: Reverted Chesdovi.[5]
  5. 23:28, 09 February 2016: Reverted Sepsis II.[6]
  6. 00:15, 10 February 2016: Reverted Nableezy.[7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8][9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute and have not edited the page in question; I am just reporting the edit warring. Past experience at Template talk:Infobox ‎has convinced me that any comments by me would not be helpful.


Could someone please post a notice to User talk:Sir Joseph? I cannot post to this user's talk page.[10]

Also, this may be under Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions. I will leave it up to the discretion of the admin who deal with this report to decide whether DS applies. (Is there a 1RR restriction on the page?[11])--Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

this is just a petty filling by a user who has it in for me and has a history with me. I'd ask him to stop stalking me. There's also no edit warring, I'd ask you to look at the talk page and my talk page. Most of those are not reverts. If he's not involved, he should stay that way. I could boomerang him for his behavior. Sir Joseph (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I find it difficult to reconcile the above claim ("most of those are not reverts") with the fact that all six diffs I posted have edit summaries that start with "Reverted 1 edit by..." or "Reverted to revision X by...". IMO, this sort of WP:IDHT behavior is part of the pattern of disruptive behavior I am seeing in Sir Joseph. As for the stalking claim, WP:WIKIHOUNDING says "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." I have not nor do I intend to edit any articles or talk pages just because Sir Joseph edited them, but I do intend to monitor his behavior at least for a while and to deal with any unambiguous violations of Wikipedia's behavioral policies I see, just as I would with any other editor who I noticed being disruptive. All Sir Joseph has to do is refrain from things like edit warring and he will never hear form me. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Guy, for the record, there is an exception for required notices when banned from a user talk page by that user. As he's obviously seen this thread, I suppose the question is moot. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Clear 3RR violation. I have blocked for 24 hours — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:140:8200:de:9c92:58a1:e43e:3b98 reported by User:‪‬ (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: List of Power Rangers Dino Charge characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:140:8200:de:9c92:58a1:e43e:3b98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see version comments

User apparently does not to care about consensus or edit warring. (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the edit that this guy has restored. He is just saying that because I caught him using 5 different logins to keep restoring the silly piece of unsourced trivia.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Three users support the edits - this ONE editor does not and has edit warred to revert them. I don't know what "5 logins" means butI know 3RR and he passed it. (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a lie. One person added the edit, I undid it (and did other fixes), and then YOU kept undoing my fixes and restoring the edit. I know you're also (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and (talk · contribs · WHOIS). You're lying that there is a consensus. You keep reverting all the good changes I've tried to make to do what? Get me in trouble? Have a silly sentence that one actor is the oldest actor on the show? What's the point?--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
And now he's done it again as (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This has to be vandalism. He's ruining the page just because he can and because he wants me to be in trouble for it.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Note to the reviewer: I am the 107* IPs. I'm not the other ones or the registered user. I don't want t "get you in trouble" I want you to respect the rules and stop edit warring! (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You're the 107 IPs and the 116 IPs. Stop lying. I wouldn't be edit warring if you hadn't started edit warring by undoing every change I made to the page. Now it's locked because you kept lying about a consensus existing for your version.--2601:140:8200:DE:9C92:58A1:E43E:3B98 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Darek555 reported by User: (Result: Warning, Semi)[edit]

Page: Permanent death (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darek555 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: the problematic section's been continuously re-added for like 2 years now... I guess maybe [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]
  4. [21]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: didn't have to, someone else already warned him [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not really my attempt but consensus is clear enough against restoring the section [23]


that about sums it up (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • This is untrue, that user periodically remove my entry, generally in this thread is some small group of people who usurp the right to correct definition, They do not want to provide concrete proof I clear requested

I'm author of this thred.--Darek555 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Only to comment and not as an assessment towards if this is edit warring: I've seen Darek555's participating in a few article talk pages that I watch and it should be evident that I don't think English is their first language. This may be hampering efforts to work constructively between themself and others. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • he's not discussing anything, he's ranting and refusing to hear about WP:V - his edits also violate clear consensus on the talk page (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{admin help|he did it again, can some admin finally take a look at the above report please}} (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Darek555 is warned they may be blocked the next time they make a change that doesn't have prior consensus on Talk. I'm also semiprotecting the article for two months. This can be lifted if consensus is reached on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Why you revert my enter and why you listing this people ? They dont make proof I requested here :

[25] Where is untru in my redaction ? :

  • Path of Exile has Hardcore separated worlds. A character killed in this mode cannot be accessed any more, there is no possibility to resurrect him, player lose everything with this character. This is very hard mode of permadeath where player lose a months of playing even years and every thing he reached[1][2][3][4][5] , not only couple hours of playing, which can be reaped in next time. In Path of Exile exists special harder option called cutthroat [6].

Please dont delete this redaction , until some ones answer to my question in talk: I have simple a serious suggestion to you prove me that you are a man and and kill a character in Hardcore League and resurrect him back in Hardcore League, prove my that ! If you are man and not a group of philosophers pests, disputing for ever. If you prove that I will never try add this game as game with permadeath. Simlpe deal !
To this request , no one answer yet.

Additionally i have started a suspicion that some ones have some interest in removing section about Path of Exile.

Please consider this with true attention--

  1. ^ "Leagues - Path of Exile". Retrieved 2016-02-04.
  2. ^ xTBHProductions (2014-01-04), Path of Exile [Perma Death Series Episode 4.7], retrieved 2016-02-10
  3. ^ Astarngo (2015-08-10), Path of Exile Shenanigans! (Tempest Server, Permadeath) #1, retrieved 2016-02-10
  4. ^ "Steam Community :: Path of Exile". Retrieved 2016-02-10.
  5. ^ ZiggyD Gaming (2014-12-17), Meta: "Hardcore vs Softcore" in Path of Exile - How to Help Our Community Grow, retrieved 2016-02-10
  6. ^ "Forum - Race Events and League Ladders - One-Week Cut-Throat (IV008) - Path of Exile". Retrieved 2016-02-06.

Darek555 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid this ship has already sailed. (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Albanian Historian reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Dardani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Albanian Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704292038 by TU-nor (talk) Albanian is as old as Latin and Greek...even older. So it is valid."
  2. 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704286553 by 23 editor (talk) No it is not, Dardanet is simply the Albanian version of it. If the Greek version can be used, why not the Albanian? Sources are clear."
  3. 17:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704231130 by (talk) I disagree. "Dard" means "pear" and "ane" means "side hill". Its still used by third party sources so it is valid."
  4. 09:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704219510 by TU-nor (talk) Dardan is an Albanian name, Dardania covered most of modern day Kosovo and Macedonia. The word "Dardanet" is used by third party sources. It is legit."
  5. 07:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Dardanet is used today by Kosovar Albanians, and is even referenced to. Albanian version valid."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


POV, anachronistic use of the modern Albanian term to insinuate connection to the ancient tribe. Disruptive editing, edit-warring against multiple editors. Editor warned about ARBMAC DS, 3RR. Dr. K. 21:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE. Continues POV-pushing, blatant OR and synthesis, copyvios, despite warnings.--Zoupan 22:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:EtienneDolet (Result: Stop it before everyone gets double detention)[edit]

Economy of Russia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [26] at Economy of Russia. [27] at Vladimir Putin.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

At Vladimir Putin
Before the page protection
  1. [28]
  2. [29]
  3. [30]
  4. [31]
Shortly after the page protection
  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
At Economy of Russia
  1. [35]
  2. [36]
  3. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on Feb 8 and on Feb 10

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38][39][40]

Comments: The user appears to be gaming the system by reaching 3RR each and every time but stopping short of violating it. The edit-summaries of the user's reverts are also concerning and filled with misleading statements, misrepresentations, and insults. Some examples include:

  1. "??? I'd appreciate it if you actually bothered to read the source" [41]
  2. "This is just an attempt to poison the well for POV reasons." [42]
  3. "At the very least can you PLLLLLLEEEEEAAAAAZZZZZZEEEE at least not restore the crappy grammar?" [43]
  4. "one more time - it's what the source says. And you can't write "see talk" when you haven't said jack on talk (I started a section)." [44]
  5. "Textbook POV pushing. And don't even try to pretend this is a BLP issue" [45]
  6. "please stop making blind reverts, bad grammar and all." [46]

Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Vladimir Putin article, the text was actually restored by User:Nomoskedasticity [47] based on discussion at WP:BLPN.[48]. Strangely enough EtienneDolet seemed to agree with this change [49] per his comment on Nomoscedasticity's talk page. In that discussion Nomoskedasticity stated that it would be better, per WP:BLPN, to actually remove the paragraph, which is what was actually done. Unfortunately, a user immediately undid that edit, re-starting the edit war that occurred before page protection was implemented. And this was done under shady pretexts as discussion talk page indicates (basically a whole bunch of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). It's also worth noting the comment by User:Maunus made at the BLPN discussion: "An article about Putin that does not explain the political and economic consequences of his policies would be simply a joke. Putin's article has long looked like a joke written by his propagandists, but if remove this the joke is entirely on us". And this is indeed the case, with a couple editors, EtienneDolet among them, removing anything that may even remotely be considered as critical of Putin. Hence, my edits there were made in accordance with the consensus at WP:BLPN.

On the Economy of Russia article the situation is actually a bit more serious, and here EtienneDolet deserves a sturdy WP:BOOMERANG. I made edits to the article on Jan 28. And I have made numerous edits to this article over the years. EtienneDolet only showed up to the article on Feb 5th [50], right after the dispute on Vladimir Putin, in what clearly is a case of WP:STALKing - they've never edited that article before. Their edits were also non-constructive. For example restoring atrocious grammar ("fallen oil prices") [51], which shows that this was just edit-warring for edit-warring sake (revenge edits) involving blind-reverts without even bothering to look into the nature of the edits.

Considering the nature of these reverts by EtienneDolet and his tag-team buddy Athenean, I'd say my edit summaries were justified. Can someone please explain what exactly was wrong with any of them? A user added a spurious tag without bothering to check the source first. EtienneDolet made blind reverts restoring atrocious grammar (after it's been pointed out that the edit involved bad grammar). A user used the edit summary "see talk" without actually bothering to say anything on talk. Etc.

I haven't broken 3RR in any of these cases (those four diffs in the first para are not four reverts as EtienneDolet pretends), I have discussed everything on talk (however frustrating that has been), I've explained my reasons and I am the one who actually went out and found sources (rather than mindlessly removing anything that doesn't suit one's POV). My statements and edits have been supported by others both on the talk page and at BLPN. It is extremely frustrating and tiresome to have to deal with a couple of users who are clearly engaged in WP:ADVOCACY and who are not refusing to discuss the issue in good faith (and one of them more or less even admitted that).

My suggestion is that the article be fully protected and the matter be taken to WP:DRN or mediation because with the way that some of these fellahs are acting I don't see the matter being resolved without outside help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I just want to clear up that I do not necessarily agree with the edits in question by Volunteer Marek or Nomoskedasticity. I just didn't "mind them" as in I was not willing to revert them at that time. I also did not stalk Volunteer Marek. My edits at Economy of Russia were a couple of days before my first edits at Vladimir Putin. Contrary to what Volunteer Marek claims, I indeed said something on the talk. In fact, I opened up a discussion right after my first edits at Economy of Russia. But what's the point of opening a discussion when Volunteer Marek edit-warred over the material and tried to instate a version that only he prefers. I'd also kindly request that Volunteer Marek refrain from calling these edits "blind" over and over again. I think that's one of the main problems here. The fact that he genuinely believes that certain users are somehow blind in their understanding of the content is not helpful, especially when there's ongoing discussions at the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The "using "see talk" in edit summary but not actually bothering to say anything on talk" was not directed at you but at another user. In fact, it's surprising that you even brought it up since it wasn't addressed at you.
What you DID do however was make reverts which restored crappy grammar. And this was *after* it was pointed out that you were reverting grammar fixes. This very strongly suggests that you reverted NOT because of what the edit was, but because of who made the edit. In other words, blind reverting. You can object to such a characterization but it sure looks like it. The sensible thing to do in this situation would be to admit "yeah, I got caught up in reverting and reverted grammar corrections, which I shouldn't have" and at that point we could just drop the matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I should also point out that on Economy of Russia, my edit (which EtienneDolet above lists as "reverts") actually *incorporated* their objections. Here I remove wording ED objects to (making this a partial self-revert, not a revert). And in this "revert" [52] while I do restore sourced content which was arbitrarily removed (more WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT) I also changed the text in a way that ED wanted (from "There were fears of the Russian economy going into recession" to "The Russian economy risked going into recession"). Oh yeah, true, I also corrected the "fallen prices" again. It's extremely bad faithed to accuse someone of edit warring when they're actually mostly agreeing with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
If you feel like its "crappy grammar", then fix it. I haven't even said what part of the grammar you found so "crappy". Fallen instead of falling? Ok. But to keep calling everyone's concerns as blind is not productive towards any discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh freakin' a, that's the whole point - I DID TRY TO FIX IT. You reverted it! Without checking that the grammar was being fixed. Yes! "fallen prices" is bad grammar. It means that some price tripped and fell over. It should be "falling prices". I am NOT calling "everyone's concerns" blind! (and who is this "everyone"? Stop making stuff up - and see comments at BLPN about the nature of Putin's article for what "everyone" actually thinks) I am calling YOU reverting my edits without bothering to check what they were blind. That right there - reverting others without even reading their edits - that right there is what "is not productive towards any discussion". That's why I do think that in this instance a WP:BOOMERANG is called for. Maybe next time before maliciously reverting others you'll actually check what their edits consist of.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
This revert of yours, doesn't fix grammar. It just reverts the lead to an older version you prefer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It does correct bad grammar. And this revert of yours restores it. I mean, the least ... THE least... you could have done is to change "fallen prices" to something that actually makes sense. But you didn't, because you didn't even bother looking at the edit. Which is why it was a "blind" revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
For starts, it would be encouraging if you actually stated what part of the content you found grammatically incorrect. I see no explanation from you from the edit-summaries, nor the talk page. It appears that you are using bad grammar as an excuse to restore the content only you prefer. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
(Bangs head against the wall). I *did* state which part of the content was incorrect. Twice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Textbook gaming of 3RR. User is extremely aggressive and hostile in talkpage interactions, making it difficult to work with him [53] [54] [55]. Edit-warring before Vladimir Putin was page protected is bad enough, but he continued even after the page was protected. While page protection might solve the problem at Vladimir Putin (at least temporarily), it won't solve the problem of VM edit-warring at multiple articles. The bad-faith accusations of stalking are malarkey, I actually edited Economy of Russia before [56] any dispute erupted at Vladimir Putin [57]. On the contrary, it's VM that followed me to Economy of Russia. So as far as the WP:STALK accusations, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. And it's also a red-herring designed to distract from VM's edit-warring. Athenean (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Athenean - the page was protected over this material: [58] removed by User:Nomoskedasticity. YOU are the one who reignited that particular edit war after the expiration of the protection [59], after User:My very best wishes made an edit as suggested at BLPN. ON TOP of that, you are the one who asked about this issue at BLPN, declared victory as soon as the first comment was made, and then backtracked when the discussion started not going your way [60].
And to make matters worse you have refused to discuss the issue in good faith or compromise on wording. Here you engage in bad faith discussion ("That's right, didn't think so"). In this discussion you repeatedly engage in obnoxious taunting of the "I dare you to revert me" sort. And then you finish of by more or less saying that you're not interested in coming to a compromise (presumably because you think you can get your way simply by edit warring and tag-teaming) You even refuse to answer a simple question and instead resort to personal attacks. Seriously, I'm tired right now and I got real work to do, but there isn't a single edit that you've made on these two articles in the past 72 hours that wasn't in some way disruptive - either edit-warring, making obnoxious comments, taunting others, or purposefully derailing discussion.
Again, I can only refer to User:Maunus comment at the BLPN discussion: "An article about Putin that does not explain the political and economic consequences of his policies would be simply a joke. Putin's article has long looked like a joke written by his propagandists, but if remove this the joke is entirely on us". And you manage over-the-top POV pushing with a WP:OWN WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which makes it impossible to collaborate on this article (or related ones) with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am the user who is accused by User:Volunteer Marek in the above comment section of adding a spurious tag and using the edit summary "see talk" without actually bothering to say anything on talk. I dislike the fact that my edits are being discussed by Volunteer Marek on this noticeboard without being informed by him.

I indeed added the <<dubious>>-template after one sentence in the article on Vladimir Putin. I did, however, first leave a comment on the talk page explaining my reasons to do so. This diff of the talk page shows that Volunteer Mark isn’t telling the truth here. I already pointed this out to Volunteer Mark, so it’s appaling that he repeats his false accusations here.

I did discuss the dubious claim with Volunteer Mark on the article’s talk page, but Volunteer Mark chose to repeatedly remove the template message (see diffs 78 and 79 provided by User:Étienne Dolet and here again). It’s inappropriate to remove a template when discussion is going on and before other users can give their opinion.

I believe Volunteer Mark should try harder to reach consensus with other editors before making changes to the article on Vladimir Putin. That will probably be a lot easier if he abandons his harsh and hostile language. — 37 (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You put your comment in a completely different section, into the middle of an unrelated discussion. That and your user name shows up as 37 on talk page rather than "Tridek Sep" which is how it appears in page history (I hate it when people do that and this is one of the reasons why). So I didn't see your comment. Additionally you also marked your non-minor edits as "minor" as well, which added to the confusion.
If I repeated my mistake here, it's because I forgot that this number "37" was the same as you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Please stop. You wrote on this noticeboard that I put a tag in an article without commenting on the article’s talk page. Now you change the story and claim you could not find my comment because it was in a ‘completely different section’ or because of my user name. Even before you wrote on this noticeboard, I pointed you to my comment and mentioned why it is located in exactly the right section.
In your latest comment on this noticeboard you just go on accusing me of tag-teaming with other editors. Looking at your block log, it seems this has been your routine for quite some time now.
And no, I don’t think I can win by edit-warring based on sheer numbers and chutzpah, as you so eloquently put it. The opposite is true; I don't want to work on the article of Vladimir Putin any longer. Good luck trying to find consensus with the other editors involved. — 37 (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottomline: there was no 3RR infraction here. The edits I made, were also made by other users: [61], [62], [63]. They also had support at BLPN [64] [65] [66] [67]. Which makes it sadly ironic that Athenean is edit warring over this as he was the one who asked (incorrectly) for input there. Yes, Athenean, Tridek Sep and EtienneDolet oppose these changes and they are tag-teaming here (quite effectively I might add). They are also either outright refusing to discuss/compromise on the issue (again, even to implement suggestions made at BLPN) or appear to be purposefully obstinate and engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games as the talk page makes clear. My impression is that they seem to think that they can "win" (WP:BATTLEGROUND) this dispute by edit-warring based on sheer numbers and chutzpah. This is why above I suggest dispute resolution or mediation because I don't see how this issue can be resolved if editors don't respect sources or basic Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Bottom line: There is no need to break 3RR to be guilty of edit-warring. Gaming 3RR as you did, it edit-warring, plain and simple. There is nothing you can say that will change that. All I see here are wild accusations of bad faith in an attempt to justify your edit-warring. The thing is, such accusations do not excuse your edit-warring. When multiple users revert you, it's tag-teaming, but when people that share your POV revert on your behalf, that's not tag-teaming. And then you talk about chutzpah. Athenean (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You know what's "gaming"? Taunting other editors, daring them to revert you, like you did here here (yea, that's a reeeeallllyyy constructive comment - and funnily enough you make it right before turning around and accusing others of "bad faith") or here. And then more or less telling them that you are not going to compromise, like you did here or here. And you know what else is "gaming" Wikipedia rules? Sitting there and flatly denying that a source says something that a source says AFTER it's been quoted to you. Twice. Like you did here, here, here and here. Did I mention that this is after the relevant passages were quoted to you twice? You're like a guy who just threw a rock through a window and when somebody says "hey why did you throw a rock through that window" you say with a straight face "no I didn't". And when they tell you "yes you did I just saw you" you reply with "no I didn't". And when they say, look I even caught it on my cell phone, here's the video, your reply is "no I didn't". Look those people over there, they saw you do it too. No I didn't. Etc. Here is a source. No it isn't. Here's what it says. No it isn't. Let me quote you the specific passage. No it isn't. Ok, here's couple other sources. No it isn't. That's basically your way of "discussing" content. That ain't WP:GAMEing?
We can keep going. Let's see... what else is "gaming". How about dismissing (and insulting) a source, simply because of the ethnicity (which is problematic for reasons that go beyond Wikipedia policy)? Like you did here. Or how about dismissing an obviously reliable source as "Russophobic" because it doesn't fit in with your POV, like you did here. Or dismissing reliable sources as "Western propaganda outlets", like you did here which again sort of betrays your POV and WP:FRINGE approach. Or insulting other editors because they wish to use reliable sources like here while at the same time saying "no need to get personal" (!). And this just goes on and on and on and on...
Oh, and how many reverts did YOU make on the article? Oh, that's right. Four. Not three, four. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4. Now, that's in a little (not much) bit more than 24 hrs. But hey, "There is no need to break 3RR to be guilty of edit-warring". And you're showing up here to lecture me about "edit warring"?
I actually sort of feel nauseous after collecting all these diffs and putting them all together.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

And one more time. I did not break 3RR. The edit I made had support at WP:BLPN. They were also made by other users. The inability of others to work towards a compromise provoked this edit war. This article and its disputes is need of some serious dispute resolution and mediation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

TL:DR. I'm sure you think everything you do is justified in your head. But that doesn't mean you didn't edit-war, and it doesn't justify your edit-warring. Neither will accusing others of what you are guilty yourself, nor will filibustering. Athenean (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've provided plenty of diffs as evidence - you can dismiss these as "TL:DR" (which is another way of saying "I ain't got no coherent response"), but they're there. Since you're trying to deny it, let me point one of the issues out again: how many reverts did YOU make on the article? Oh, that's right. Four. Not three, four. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4. *I* didn't break 3RR. *You* came very close to breaking it. I'm sure this is "justified in your head".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Trying to cloud the waters and divert attention from your edit-warring? This [68] is not a revert. I know you are way too experienced to not know what a revert is, and that you know how to count, so I can only assume you are doing this intentionally. Lying and trying to deceive anyone reading this thread will not save you. And neither will accusing others of what you are guilty. The sensible thing to do at this point would be to own up to what you did and pledge not to do it again. Athenean (talk) 07:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course it's a revert. You're removing text added to the article by someone else. In particular you were reverting this edit by User:Galassi, which makes it, what? Fifth? Sixth? Different person you were edit warring against? You were saying something about "lying and trying to deceive"? You edit warred. You reverted more than I did, and now you're being called out on it. I'd really really really appreciate it if you refrained from making personal attacks and false accusations. You've had your fun, you got it off your chest, you made plenty of insults and taunts - as can be seen from the refs above. So please stop it. Enough. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I meant this 3 and this 4. Where you came up with "Fifth? Sixth?" and " You reverted more than I did", I'll never know. I'm counting seven reverts of your in the diffs above, including, three after the page was protected. Add to that another three at Economy of Russia. Again, attempting to deceive won't save you, all it does is ruin your credibility. You may want to stop digging at this point. Athenean (talk) 08:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation As the admin who full-protected Vladimir Putin the other day in an attempt to put a lid on this nonsense, I can't help thinking you are just desperate to stick Volunteer Marek's head on a plate and throw mud pies at him. I can full-protect these articles again, but I don't think there's enough evidence of rapid back-and-forth this morning to justify it. That said, VM, it would help to put the torches and pitchforks down and edit another article for a bit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Spirit Ethanol reported by User:Neve-selbert (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: List of state leaders in 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spirit Ethanol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 06:48, 8 February 2016

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 09:26, 11 February 2016
  2. 09:39, 11 February 2016
  3. 11:44, 11 February 2016
  4. 12:44, 11 February 2016

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:39, 11 February 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:05, 11 February 2016

Continually PoV-pushing on the sovereign status of Palestine—without consulting the talk page first for making such drastic changes, hence breaching WP:STATUSQUO.--Neveselbert 13:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

No edit warring going on. I created an RfC to resolve dispute here. After creation of RfC user posted this and this to my talk page and filed this report. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Have added edit warring on the talk page of the accused user in question.--Neveselbert 13:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:1RR per WP:ARBPIA.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've struck my block and unblocked the two users. This is my fault. Even though the two were battling about Israel-Palestine, the article is not subject to ARBPIA. I have apologized to the two editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, the status-quo version should be restored. If the Rfc results in a consensus for change, then the new version can be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Idielive reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Not really edit warring, but warned about disruptive editing)[edit]

Biblical cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Idielive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "minor changes"
  2. 19:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "I have taken out the lies and added in the TRUTH"
  3. 18:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) "Add content"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Biblical cosmology. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Their 4th revert claims to be a minor change but was actually a major content change of sourced material. Obviously a pov editor, using sources such as, etc. I did try to explain this on their talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

  • These aren't really reverts - it's new material each time (with maybe a slight overlap). But it is disruptive editing, and I've left a warning on their talk page. let me know if they continue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tvx1 reported by User:Legacypac (Result: Warned)[edit]

Metrojet Flight 9268 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Immediately Requests Full Page Protection to seal their preferred position. [69]
  2. 20:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 704358183 by Parsley Man (talk): Not an accurate descreption. Official investigation not Egypt-only and still ongoing. (TW)"
  3. 23:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 704166769 by Lipsquid (talk) Don't put an article in a state that is clearly disputed on the talk page. It was in this state for weeks until you barged in." (breaches 1RR in under an hour)
  4. 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "The only thing the official investigators have revealed so far is that no evidence of an act of terror could be found."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Metrojet Flight 9268. (TW)"
  2. [70] multiple posts to user talk
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 23:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Why does this still say cause uncertain? */ see Lipsquid\s point"

User willfully breached 1RR on a SCW-ISIL DS article ignoring the big warning on the talk page, and 2 big warnings when you go to edit the article. This put them on top of a content dispute, where they continue to remove well sourced content. See talk page and additional warnings here [71] It appears they will continue to remove any attempt at inserting accurate info (including a compromise) about the cause of this terrorist attack. Now he filed for full page protection to protect his position which is edit warring in another way. Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

This user has been very recently warned to stay far far away from me and not cast false asperations [72]. Since they are now on a 1RR restriction for making this board their regular home, I'm very surprised to see them posting on the 3RR board making more false allegations against me. Legacypac (talk) 21:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
For the sake of giving a complete overview, Legacypac has also broken the rule I have apparently broken.
Diffs for Legacypac's reverts:
  1. 20:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "revert removal of facts and sources"
  2. 5:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "more nuanced, with some refs"
  3. 23:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) "See talk. see the article. Everyone is saying bomb. even the locals have made arrests."
I will contest that I willingly broke the rule. I didn't become aware of the 1RR enforcement on that article until Lipsquid mentioned it on the article's talk page. I didn't take the time to read the edit notice during my reverts. The only reason for my reverts and my recent request for protection was to attempt to restore the stable, consensus-supported version of the article that had existed for about two months. As evident from the talk page discussion there is no consensus for their proposed changes at the moment and as a result their continuing editing despite and contrary to the discussion is getting disruptive. I opted to requested page protection as this would force us to focus our efforts on discussing this matter on the talk page, while keeping the article stable, over turning all of us in for edit-warring as this could led to up to four editors being blocked, which wouldn't help anyone.
This report seems therefore to be a retaliation from an editors who doesn't like things not going their way, even though I admittedly broke the policy. I would like to add that my edits have nothing to do with ISIL or any conflicts in the arabic world, for which the 1RR rule is in place on this article, but solely with an aircraft accident investigation and ensuring that an article on this reports on this matter in an accurate manner. Tvx1 21:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Your choice of wording above is quite intriguing, not to mention misleading to the casual passerby, LP. Contrary to your misleading comments above, there has been no official, admin-directed warning to stay away from you, nor has there been any official, admin-directed warning in regard to "casting aspersions" on you. Everything you label as warnings came from you, no one else. Nothing I've written here is anything but the simple truth of diffs and my uninvolved observations. After what I've seen here from other editors involved, as well as what's on the article talk page, it seems I'm not the only one making the same, or similar, observations. Note, also, that my observations were made prior to the same or similar observations noted by other editors. However this turns out, it does appear there was edit warring going on and excesses of 1RR. Can't deny that. -- WV 01:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Diff 2 above [73] ((more nuanced, with some refs)) was reverting this IP edit [74] which is not restricted by 1RR. Diff 2 also introduces a new compromise position that only adds referenced info to Tvx1's position and is therefore not really a revert at all. Diff 1 is single revert within 1RR, as is Diff 3.
I don't understand how a plane that ISIL says it bombed [75] [76] is not related to ISIL.
Not being aware would involve not reading the Massive Warning Boxes [77] about 1RR each time one edits the article. Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all I am involved with the edits in question. Reverting an edit and breaking 1RR then asking for page protection is pretty tough to swallow. Other than that User:Tvx1 seems sane and reasonable except on the "summary" position on this page where he believes his 1 source, that is bias and has been noted as unreliable in the past, trumps 20 other sources that say the cause was a bombing. We try middle of the road edits and to reach consensus, but there is no consensus he will agree with other than the reason the plane exploded is a complete unknown. Irregardless, he is a long time editor that broke 1RR and then did it again even after being warned about the page being 1RR. Lipsquid (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I have not broken 1RR "again". My third revert came nearly two days after the first two (which constitute my only breaking of the rule). That the source is biased is just your opinion and is not something for the talk page and it is being discussed there. Regarding Legacypac's 2nd revert, the policy says the following: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." According to that their second revert can be very much considered a revert. Lastly, I have not claimed the article has not relation to ISIL whatsoever. I stated that there was no motive in my edits to specifically alter information dealing with ISIL on wikipedia and I stand by that. My edits were only aimed at investigation of an aircraft accident.Tvx1 23:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
As Tvx1 already confirmed, on each edit they failed to read the BIG warning box on each edit that says "WARNING: Editors of this page may not make more than one revert per twenty-four hours when reverting logged-in users." An IP is not a "logged-in user". Secondly, 1RR does not apply to only parts of an article. Third, they removed the actual term ISIL with their latest revert which makes "no motive in my edits to specifically alter information dealing with ISIL" a strange thing to say. Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason why I wrote that is very simple. Removing ISIL from that part of the infobox was not my motive. My motive was to restore a summary that was at least in line with the sources and the explanations in the article. I couldn't care less about ISIL or any conflicts in the Arabic region. If you check my edit history you will find that I have never before edited any article regarding that subject. So please stop insunating that my edits have any political motiviation. Tvx1 01:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Offer for Resolution

If T will a) restore the wording created by Lipsquid and myself (reversing the effects of their breach of 1RR and b) drop the request for full protection, and c) agree to start reading warnings and sources, I'll suggest this be closed with a warning. Legacypac (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think request a) is a fair proposal for resolution in any respect. That only satisfies your needs and ignores the fact that the talk page discussion never showed a consensus in favor of Lipsquid's change in the first place. It ignores the fact that as much as three editors have now reverted that wording, which clearly shows there is more to the dispute than just me breaking 1RR. I can only agree to proposal b) if all the parties involved in the repeated reverting agree to not make any further edit to the disputed content until after the talk page discussion has reached a consensus. I have no problems to agree with proposal c) of course. Why would I? Tvx1 01:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • OK. (a) Tvx1 can't restore the article to previous wording, because other editors have edited it in the mean time. (b) I've declined the request for protection, for now. (c) I'm declining to sanction Tvx1 for this; their only 1RR violation was on the 9th, they were warned, and haven;t violated 1RR since then. However, Tvx1 is now notified that 1RR is in effect, and any subsequent breach will result in a block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem to adhere to that. I had never broken any RR policy and I don't intend to ever do so again. I really have no desire to lose my editing privileges over anyting at all really. I'm here to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. Tvx1 01:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Katycat3567 reported by User:Livelikemusic (Result: )[edit]

This Is What the Truth Feels Like (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Katycat3567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Yes they are"
  2. 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "First of all, I sent you a message. Please read it. Second, doesn't international mean around the world?"
  3. 22:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "No, they aren't..."
  4. 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ That's fine, but the Target exclusive tracks are no longer Target exclusive."
  5. 22:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ The Target bonus tracks are going to be made available everywhere, so they're no longer exclusive to Target."
  6. 22:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */ Unsourced writers, and if it's a bonus track for the standard... that never happens. Include it with the tracklist."
  7. Consecutive edits made from 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) to 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    1. 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "This sounds awkward"
    2. 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
    3. 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Track listing */"
  8. 02:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "The title is blurry this way. If it's just a title, why does it matter to you?"
  9. 02:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "It's the Target version, not the official album cover"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User was warned about edit-warring on their page, not once but twice within a twenty-four hour period, and has even edit-warred on an editor's user page and another music-related page (Cheap Thrills (song)). User's editing behavior seems to be very problematic, by the way of battleground behavior. livelikemusic talk! 02:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, so I'm new here, and I said that earlier tonight. I didn't know about the 3-revert rule. I would like a second chance, if I could get one. I'm sorry if I came off as rude to anyone, it was not my intention. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, livelikemusic, I have nothing against you, so why are you out to get me? You commented on the other post made about me on another page, and now you made your own. I don't want us to be enemies. Katycat3567 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Chickchick77 reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Yazidis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Chickchick77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 19:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "We need this informations in front of the pages because it is important for Yazidi people. Many people do not understand that Yazidis are not Kurds. There are a lot people who fight for the Yazidi identity and the world must recognize their genocide."
  4. 16:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "please do not delete facts and sources"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yazidis. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Pictogram voting info.svg Comment User has a history of disruptive editing on the article as shown on the talk page. Uamaol (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. Though the user has done many reverts at Yazidis, and has criticized others in edit summaries she has never posted to an article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Tilde.drakan reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ttongsul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tilde.drakan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

03:38, 7 February 2016‎ (talk)‎ . . (5,622 bytes) (-2,582)‎ . . (Deleted some statements b/c their citations are irrelevant (as I mentioned before) or the translation of the citation is wrong. Please find appropriate citations first if an editor wants to restore them.)[78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 09:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,645 bytes) (+1,023)‎ . . (drug medicinc, cuisine delete category. Undid revision 703706605 by (talk))[79]
  2. 10:58, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+991)‎ . . (Revert vandalism.)[80]
  3. 11:07, 8 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (-34)‎ . . (Undid revision 703909103 by (talk))[81]
  4. 06:14, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,613 bytes) (+600)‎ . . (With respect to Sengoku period, Source exists. refrain from malicious editing.)[82]
  5. 06:51, 9 February 2016‎ Tilde.drakan (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,115 bytes) (+429)‎ . . (restored to a stable version.)[83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

04:09, 9 February 2016‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (3,884 bytes) (+1,803)‎ . . (→‎February 2016: new section)[84]

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


It was distorted documents from the beginning of Phoenix7777. For example. "The fecal wine local history of the Korean peninsula has been many centuries, except for the era when the Japanese Empire prohibited the practice due to health concerns." [85]This is, Non-existent information. Malignant edit, cause confusion in the false information.―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The sentence you mentioned, "The fecal wine local history [...]," is not included in the article at least from the beginning of 2016, so it is irrelevant to your present reverts. -- (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Creation of [86] This was distorted edited continuously. No original research. Phoenix7777,, Estimated to be the same person. ―― Tilde.drakan (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Please write intelligible English. If you cannot do so, you should not edit English Wikipedia.
(i) "Creation of [9]" -- What do you mean? Is [9] my creation?
(ii) "This was distorted edited continuously." -- What does it mean?
(iii) "No original research." -- My edits are based on verifiable sources and I made citations properly. It is you who erases well-sourced statements.
(iv) "Phoenix7777,, Estimated to be the same person." Phoenix7777 and I are not the same person. -- (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bluid balls reported by User:Harry the Dirty Dog (Result: 24 hour block)[edit]

Rolf Harris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Bluid balls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "seems to now match his renown as a musician/presenter"
  3. 17:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""Unsourced" doesn't stand up, sorry. WP:LEDE is a summary of body, and there are myriad sources given for his appalling sexual abuse"
  4. 17:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Absurd, multiple sources supporting this guy's raper status"
  5. 18:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "rv per WP:OWN. i actually don't. i may not be part of the select few who "own" this article, but there are multiple sources supporting this man's raper status"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on Rolf Harris."
  2. 17:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rolf Harris."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "/* Mentioning his conviction in the first paragraph */ rm per WP:BLP"

Fourth revert despite warning and invitation to discuss on TP. Edit is also against consensus which is why it was reverted by several editors. Harry Let us have speaks 18:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked this user for 24 hours for disruptive editing (before seeing this report). -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
May require a longer block given his reaction to being blocked and his continued WP:BLP violations on his TP/Edit summaries. Harry Let us have speaks 18:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

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

List of European countries by average wage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Pwolfik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (suspected to be the same user as (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) because is making the same editions and reversions.
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  3. 02:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  4. 02:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "User HardstyleGB protects vandalized version of the page with wrong sources (non-governmental) and wrong exchange rates of currencies"
  5. 02:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC) ""
  6. 02:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing the page and check sources/exchange rates before you begin to do it"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC) "Edit warring. The user Pwolfik is breaking the 3 revert rule. This user will be notified and this page will be requested for protection."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


User warned in his personal talk page. The user Pwolfik kept ignoring the warnings and continued to revert to his version of the page.

I want also to request the protection of this page, because in those last days it's suffering several editions from anonymous users without any trustful sources. --HardstyleGB (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Article semi-protected for one week by Lectonar.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cls14 reported by User:D.R Neal G (Result: Semi-protection warned filer)[edit]

Page: Budbrooke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cls14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I am reporting the said user for making alteration and edits to the Budbrooke( Talk:Budbrooke} page based on the following reason, he open states that he not local to the area and bases his edits on ignorance. In other-words if he can't Google it or has no knowledge of what being said he deletes or alter it regardless of the reference, that are conveniently contested or dismissed. I personal belief this user is either a local property developer who own the bar and cost-cutters or someone in his payment making the changes for out of a vested interest, its a fair assumption considering someone whose invested in property in the area would not want earthquakes, tornado's or the fact the village sit on one of the countries largest natural sink holes. Also I note the exclusion for the amenities section of the local farm-shop. D.R Neal G (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • As a right of response: a) It doesn't matter if I am local to the area of not. That doesn't mean I can't edit. b) Just because I don't live somewhere doesn't mean I'm ignorant of it. c) I do delete it if I can't find it on Google BECAUSE d) The references given by D.R.Neal G are made up references. d) It doesn't matter who you think I am, that's not relevant. However as you stated I am not local previous how could I have a vested interest. That makes no sense. e) I've never challenged the earthquake, that's well documented.

In conclusion to whoever reads this: I have been editing Wikipedia for about 10 years now, I'm autopatrolled and a reviewer with over 190 articles created and 8,500 edits. However this is by the by. In this case I am deleting edits by this new user because he is putting things in an article that are derogatory about a business with no real references. I have personally got hold of the newsletters that he claims are his references but what he claims they say they do not. If anything the above user should be cautioned or at least told by someone else not to make remarks about something without referencing. He has started and is continuing an edit war by not following Wikipedia protocol.

Until this point I was unaware of the three revert rule as it is not widely advertised. I reverted so many times because the above user did not follow Wikipedia protocol and made remarks about someone's business without referencing. Wikipedia should always be referenced when making controversial claims.Cls14 (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: D.R Neal G has repeatedly added badly unreferenced information to the article, which while possibly not falling under WP:BLP because a specific person isn't mentioned, may be seen as disparging against a business without any evidence. Aside from this, I note that Cls14 has received neither a 3RR warning nor a notice about this discussion, as required. I also note that D.R Neal G has seemingly impersonated another user (namely