Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 4 July 2013

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Anonymous209.6 reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: )

Page: Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anonymous209.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Cartoon Diabolo has made NO attempts to resolve or even speak to anyone. Cartoon Diabolo has merely seen ANs on editors they do not like and decided (after this one got hatted by an admin) to re-post them. Both this and the above are duplicates of posts by Casprings on AN, reformatted and re-posted ALSO on ANI.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
Per request at ANI Anon's issues have been moved here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

On the administrator board, I was simply going down his edits here. I think he has also shown a clear pattern of edit warring and POV pushing. But I don't think the problem is over four reverts in 24 hours. It is just constant POV pushing and edit warring. Its a long term problem with POV pushing I was trying to report. Casprings (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2013

Cartoon Diabolo has posted an allegation of 3rr that has no conceivable foundation, and no diffs or links--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also point out I have tried to address the issues with him. In fact, I have a whole section of his talk page dedicated to me.Casprings (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no ALSO about this (aka CD attempt). There also is no TRY(aka Caspring attempt). Casprings has made minimal, pro-forma contributions to Talk, and INSTEAD of making arguments, repeatedly files empty motions, that have the effect of confusing discussion, never adding to. Already warned about tendentious filing of RfCs INSTEAD of engaging editors on Talk.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

As I explained above, I really wish everyone would simply follow WP:BRD, but if not, it takes two to edit-war. And in this particular case, it appears that we have several edit-warriors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Casprings is unique in doing repetetive BLIND reverts (aka unjustified). --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Cartoon Diablo seems to be filing these poorly fleshed-out and baseless reports because they saw some edit conflict (note BLP issues in removal of material) in which they mostly were not involved; they DID have a conflict with Arzel only, on a different page, the page I was editing, CD's contributions were small. BRD really does not apply here.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

\ The word "stale" applies here with 8RR in 10 days (counting every example given as a revert, to be fair to the OP), and nothing to indicate that any block would be other than simply punitive (as well as late). Going to the drama boards about every "opposing editor" has been one of the single greatest weaknesses of Misplaced Pages, and we likely ought to discourage this "post complaints about everyone" syndrome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

This article is seeing revert-warring between multiple editors on both sides as noted above in the request regarding Arzel. CD is one of the edit-warriors, with Casprings and Roscelese being the most determined reverters opposing Arzel and Anonymous.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

TDA; Arzel makes arguments, and justifies most reverts. I have justifications and Talk page arguments for just about every action, and both Arzel and I have several WP:BLP deletions that are exempt. In fairness, I would not include Roscelese, as they often edit, not revert, and often justify. Casprings, on the other hand has no or few (if you can make sense of any) arguments on Talk, just motions, and has justifications like POV that are not adequate for the edits; in fact, without explanation (and none have such followup), blindly tagging other editors' with POV is considered WP:PA

Also forgot to add - CartoonDiablo, while I agree is making only unconstructive edits, really hasn't made that many on the Article in question, so blocking for Edit Warring in this case would be premature. Looking for other people fighting with an editor (presumably Arzel) with whom you have a beef, and doing nothing but trying to aggravate those, and inflame conflicts, as the edit history and these two spurious and unsupported reports show, however IS a really, really good reason to block the filer.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Diff number 4 above # diff appears to me to be more a clarification than a revert. That said, I haven't been following the article lately; is there a reason I'm missing why this is incorrect?William Jockusch (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of my edits are clear edits, and counter-edited in several cases to get a compromise wording. Multiple BLP removals, clearly marked, do not comprise edit-warring. Casprings repeatedly just hits revert, even after long stability, and without addressing any issues. CD is similar, but really doesn't edit on this page - they are just picking a fight on another page to continue an edit war with a different editor on a different page.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I would note that user:anonymous209.6 recently made an edit, despite the fact there there was no consensus for that edit on the talk page. The edit is here, , and the discussion is here.. I would call on him and all editors of this page to gain consensus and if needed, uninvolved editors, to resolve these differences. Casprings (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sticks830 formerly User:Carly3737 reported by User:superfly94 (Result: )

Page: World Mission Society Church of God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sticks830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) formerly Carly3737 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: #

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This section (History - 1985) seems to be a point of contention as dispute resolution was used in the past with a different editor User:Nancyinthehouse. This current dispute seems to rely on inside knowledge of User:Carly3737, as evidenced by their latest comment in the talk section. I have asked for a reference but suspect it will not be forthcoming as I have already researched the WMSCOG website. Also, if such evidence was there, User:Nancyinthehouse would have found it and used it already for that same portion.

The initial edits done by User:Carly3737 in the History section were reverted and I explained in the talk section that this portion had already been agreed upon using DR. I also deleted a reference to a prophesy in the Bible as there was no actual passage ref'd. User:Carly3737 deleted the portion again at which point I reverted it back to its original and explained that, if User:Carly3737 had an issue, that perhaps 3O or DR would be the way to go and they should initiate such a procedure. This hasn't been done. Instead User:Carly3737 deleted the portion once again and, in the Talk section, explained why the portion shouldn't be included. Unfortunately the information included does not cite any reference and thus is unreliable.
If it weren't for the time lapse between edits, this could be considered classic 3RR.
My argument for keeping this section is simply that the founder of the WMSCOG and NCPCOG is the same person and both churches were one until shortly after his death in 1985, at which point they split. The references for both churches support this as there is a huge overlap on both their histories on their websites. User:Carly3737's argument is that they are two completely separate entities and that the NCPCOG is lying in their history. Superfly94 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Carly3737 has edited the portion in dispute after notification of this process. Superfly94 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

From Carly 3737: I did list a reference website as requested but then was blocked from editing anymore. So, the evidence is there. Just because one user didn't find it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Here are two website references that explain the history as I had mentioned. http://www.thetruewmscog.com/ncpcog-vs-christ-ahnsahnghong/ http://wmscog.org/index.php/the-church-of-god-sectarianized-after-christ-ahnsahnghong-ascended/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC) Therefore, please refrain from using the claim from the NCPCOG website on the history section of the WMSCOG wikipage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The first website provided by User:Carly3737 is a blog and thus unreliable. The second belongs to the US branch of the WMSCOG. This editor has outed herself as having a bias with this organization, as described here Note and I believe should not be providing input to controversial edits. There is most certainly a conflict of interest as per Misplaced Pages:COI with User:Carly3737 editing anything to do with WMCOG, its founder ASH, and any persons who are associated either positively or negatively with the organization such as Steve Hassan. My argument remains that the NCPCOG and WMSCOG were one in the same until 1985 and as such this information and the link for the NCPCOG as a ref, should be included in this article. The history pages of both organizations have just way too much overlap for it to be a coincidence. See NCPCOG here and WMSCOG here. And, contrary to User:Carly3737's view, I do not believe the NCPCOG is lying. Superfly94 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94 stated that the second website belongs to a US branch of the WMSCOG... Does this mean it shouldn't be used as a reference then? If so, why is the official WMSCOG able to be used as a reference? On the otherhand, if it should not be used as a reference because it is a church website, then why is it plausible to use another church's website, the NCPCOG website, as a resource, which clearly contradicts the WMSCOG's take on this history? The argument at hand is based on opinion, not on fact. Superfly is still holding onto an opinion - "the history pages of both organizations have just way too much overlap for it to be a coincidence." This is an opinion, not fact, therefore it is not reliable as a reference. If the NCPCOG website is considered a strong reference stating that the two branched out, then also second WMSCOG website is also a strong reference stating that it did not occur this way. Clearly, there is a dispute and difference of opinions, so it should not be included as "fact" on the[REDACTED] page. It's fine if Superfly94 believes the NCPCOG is telling the truth - welcome to have that opinion of course. But since it is an opinion it should not be stated as a reference on the WMSCOG wikipage. Superfly94 is also welcome to have an opinion on who should be or should not be allowed to have input on controversial edits. I do not think Superfly94 should have input on this edit either, as he/she does not appear to have a pure motive, but is trying to stir up trouble. Regardless of what we think on this matter, anyone is able to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said the WMSCOG.org site could not be used as a reference. However, upon closer look, this site also seems to be a blog that is determined to contradict anything and everything that the NCPCOG says, which really doesn't help to provide a NPOV. Superfly94 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Both of them are not blogs but are websites. It is an opinion to say "it seems to be a blog that is determined to contradict anything and everything that the NCPCOG says,". Well, I believe that the NCPCOG's website is seeking to contract anything and everything that the WMSCOG says. Again, these are opinions. We are both more than welcome to have them and agree to disagree. But the[REDACTED] page is not for opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If this argument were valid, then someone would have also used Examining the WMSCOG site, however that is a blog, like the pages you have listed, and it is also heavily slanted, and contrary to Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Superfly94 (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is why the NCPCOG site shouldn't be used either, as it is also heavily slanted, contrary to . This is proving my original point that I was trying to make from the beginning. None of the sites should be used as references - the ones I listed, as well as the examinecog site, as well as the NCPCOG site, because they are ALL slanted and SUBJECTIVE. The wikipage should stick with facts. Women in the WMSCOG wear veils - this is a fact. WMSCOG believes in God the Mother. This is a fact. No one would dispute this matter, whether it is along the same line as their own personal beliefs or not. However, regarding the history of NCPCOG vs WMSCOG that has been claimed on the NCP website - this matter is not a fact. It is not a fact that one church was split in 1985 into NCPCOG and WMSCOG. This is an opinion of one church and some editors. According to WMSCOG and their websites and some other editors, this is NOT what happened. Therefore, because it is an opinion, shouldn't it not be included as part of the history? BTW, your previous posts were definitely a personal attack: "This editor has outed herself as having a bias with this organization, as described here Note and I believe should not be providing input to controversial edits. There is most certainly a conflict of interest as per Misplaced Pages:COI with User:Carly3737 editing anything to do with WMCOG, its founder ASH, and any persons who are associated either positively or negatively with the organization such as Steve Hassan." Would you please delete this information written and save us the hassel of opening another dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• They are not blogging websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional point - the NCPCOG site is slanted negatively towards the WMSCOG and its teachings, so listing it as a reference violates the wiki policy so should not be used, just as examinethewmscog site should not be used for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Please show an example of where the NCPCOG site is in any way biased against the WMSCOG. I have looked all over the English site and found nothing. As for showing that you have a conflict of interest, how is linking to your edits a personal attack? There is no link to your personal information, who you are, where you live, etc. whatsoever, just what you have written that shows you have a direct association with the WMSCOG. Superfly94 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

To the Admins invigilating over this, I need to step back for a bit from the merry-go-round above. If you require any further info I will be monitoring this page, but have had enough with the circular logic being provided by User:Carly3737. Superfly94 (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a personal attack. It was stated that I shouldn't be editing for the reason that I have a direct association with the church.. which doesn't make any sense because someone who would have the most knowledge about the WMSCOG and its history would be someone directly associated with the church. It was also stated that I have outed myself as being biased, which is completely twisting my words. I said that the NCPCOG website is biased towards their church, as is the WMSCOG website biased towards there church. Therefore, information linking the two should not be on the page.

You requested a reference stating the history of the relationship between the NCPCOG and WMSCOG, and I listed 2 of them. So good, I'm glad the issue is solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the point that I have made for the History section for WMSCOG is that the NCPCOG's site that Superfly94 used is a blog and not an official website. Moreover, the NCPCOG clearly violates all the copyrights of the books of the founder Ahnsahnghong, which is currently owned by the WMSCOG. Why would you cite a source that violates a copyright???--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As User:ReformedArsenal stated, "(cur | prev) 06:13, 26 April 2013‎ ReformedArsenal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (11,668 bytes) (+385)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Nancyinthehouse (talk): I'm not sure what copyright violation you are refering to, this is a valid citation. (TW)) (undo | thank)" This is one of the decisions that was received during DR. There is no reference to any publications for the specific link in question. And, based on basic copyright law for the publications User:Nancyinthehouse is referring to, there is no violation. The pubs on the site in question were written for distribution prior to 1985. The publishing house that currently holds the CW was created in 1990 I believe (anyway, AFTER 1985) and has the CW for any versions published after that time. The publishing house has not contested the right of the NCPCOG to distribute the material in question. Also, the NCPCOG site is not a blog anymore than the WMSCOG site is.

The edit war is still going on in the talk page for the subject, with User:Carly3737 not seeming to accept any explanations given and not taking the advice to seek a third opinion or ask questions in the Teahouse or by other means. I have asked them repeatedly to hit up the Teahouse for advice. Any time I have an explanation for why something is valid or not this editor find some other obtuse reason that the NCPCOG site cannot be used and has gone so far as to accuse senior editors such as User:ReformedArsenal of not knowing what they are doing here. I am hesitating in throwing the contested bullet back into the WMSCOG page as User:Carly3737 will probably just delete it. This editor is also carrying out edits without logging in so that just an IP address is visible. I'm not sure if this is to seem anonymous, sock puppetry or simply because they forgot to log in, but the remedy would be to log in and take responsibility for those edits. Superfly94 (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

And now things have deteriorated into a flame war here. Superfly94 (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop referencing ReformedArsenal as a neutral third party. He has many degrees in Biblical studies and Christianity and claims a different denomination. The doctrines and teachings of the denomination(s) he associates himself with are completely contrary to WMSCOG teachings and doctrines. Regardless of how much editing he has done, it is not a neutral third opinion

My apologies if any of my edits are unsigned; I have been putting the four Sticks830 23:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC) each time I edit or if I have forgotten to do so, I have gone back and wrote it, so I'm not sure as to why my signature is not showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carly3737 (talk • contribs)

Hi Superfly94. I don't think you understood my point. NCPCOG.net is a blogsite. Go to a search engine and search that site. and see the blog section. You can see that it is a blogsite. World Mission Society Church of God site is an official site, and currently the Melchizedek Publishing company owns all Ahnsahnghong's books and his writings. The NCPCOG does not own any rights of his writings, and are distributing his writings online which is surely violating the copyrights. I don't know why you want to include a unreliable source which has nothing to do with the World Mission Society Church of God page.--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We can sit here and debate this all day, but neither of us will change our minds, which is why I keep asking people to go to the Misplaced Pages:Tea_House or ask for a Misplaced Pages:3O. I don't see a blog on the NCPCOG site any more than I do on the WMSCOG. Also, they have everything to do with each other as they have a shared history. This pic here is a prime example as it shows ASH preaching with the NCPCOG emblem in the background (Why do I have to keep repeating this?). And again, wrt the copyrights, please re-read what I said above, which was, "There is no reference to any publications for the specific link in question. And, based on basic copyright law for the publications User:Nancyinthehouse is referring to, there is no violation. The pubs on the site in question were written for distribution prior to 1985. The publishing house that currently holds the CW was created in 1990 I believe (anyway, AFTER 1985) and has the CW for any versions published after that time. The publishing house has not contested the right of the NCPCOG to distribute the material in question." Given how serious the Korean government and people take copyright issues this is saying something. For more info regarding Korean copyright law please see here. Superfly94 (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Superfly94 - Regarding about Ahnsahnghong's pic - the emblem translates to New Covenant Association which is different from the name; New Covenant Passover Church of God. Why is the NCPCOG using a different name? Where is the proof that the publishing house holds any versions published after that time and that it was created in 1990? And where is the reference that the publishing house has no contested the right of NCPCOG to distribute the material in question?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Moreover, I wonder if you are related with NCPCOG?! Because you seem to know so much about them with references!?--Nancyinthehouse (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You asked, "Regarding about Ahnsahnghong's pic - the emblem translates to New Covenant Association which is different from the name; New Covenant Passover Church of God. Why is the NCPCOG using a different name?" Because they changed the name after 1985, as their history states. The point is, ASH is preaching in front of an emblem that the NCPCOG is using to this day, therefore only solidifying their shared history. Now, do we have to start debating TM laws as well?

You ask, "Where is the proof that the publishing house holds any versions published after that time and that it was created in 1990? And where is the reference that the publishing house has no contested the right of NCPCOG to distribute the material in question?" The proof is in Korean CW law. Specifically wrt the creator of a work passing away and the CW being good for 50 years after. This means any publications made after the death of ASH would have to have some type of difference from what he wrote in order for them to hold a separate and protected CW. Once again, if you look here all of that information is there, and very easy to find.

You ask here, "Moreover, I wonder if you are related with NCPCOG?! Because you seem to know so much about them with references!?" What does that have to do with anything? I could ask the same of you and User talk:Carly3737 but I don't, because it is irrelevant until such time as a bias starts interfering with getting the info out there for a Misplaced Pages user. Resorting to questioning one's beliefs and associations, such as User talk:Carly3737 did here and you did above really does nothing to improve your position in this argument. Superfly94 (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if you have had any luck at the Tea House regarding determining if the NCPCOG site is a blog or is you've asked for 3O on this? Superfly94 (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not solidify their shared history at all. Please stop trying to make accusations based on your understanding of the picture which you know nothing about, and furthermore backing up your evidence by another church's claim, while disregarding the evidence coming from the other view. You're looking for something and trying to make an accusation that's not there; but the the truth is, it's just not true, and therefore there isn't supportive evidence of this matter. And NCPCOG didn't "just change the name" in 1985;I just viewed the history thoroughly on the website, which doesn't state that either. You are now making up things that are not there based on your own understanding and opinion. For a long time in history, the Catholic Church reigned as the only Christian church. During the reformation period, people left the Catholic Church and started their own churches. Then, would this history be regarded as "the church splitting" ? Obviously not. We would say that those members left the church and started their own church, even though both churches claim to have the same founder, Jesus. In the same way, members leaving the church and later forming their own church, claiming the same founder, does not constitute the church splitting. Therefore, this history is irrelevant to the WMSCOG. If NCPCOG claims it as part of their own history, fine--then feel free to make a wikipage for them, claiming that history. You could have made one by now with all the time you're spending on this page, since this is a very concerning matter to you. Sticks830 19:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Sticks830

I've said it before and I'll say it again (I feel like a parrot). We are not going to agree. With that, please start the Misplaced Pages:Dr or Misplaced Pages:3O process. I went through this with User:Nancyinthehouse already and, frankly, there has been no new evidence provided by you as far as I can tell. If you feel there is new information that wasn't presented in the previous process that you feel a third opinion would see better than I then please start this process. I've asked you to do this several times already but you seem unwilling to make the effort. You're obviously becoming very emotional about the whole thing by using negative words like "accusation" (Which I don't understand since it's a 'claim' certainly not an 'accusation.') and other derivatives and just essentially being childish at points as well, such as in the subject talk page here and above by suggestion I am spending way too much time arguing the point. Now, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black... At least starting a new DR or 3O will give us both the chance to put all of our arguments down in a more organized fashion, unlike the dog's breakfast we've created above. Superfly94 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

To the Admins, I am willing to go through DR, 3O or any other type of mediation in order to sort out this issue however, as I initiated the last round on this same subject and I have not seen what I believe to be any new evidence than what was presented prior here, I feel the onus is on User:Sticks830, formerly User:Carly3737, to agree to this and initiate the process. I've pretty much stated this above and am just reiterating it as there have been no comments in this thread for almost 48 hrs and I don't want it to disappear into the archives before things are sorted. Superfly94 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian Cup Template

User:Toymaster1 reported by User:C6541 (Result: )

Page

William Hung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Toymaster1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 28 2013 3:41 PM to Jun 28 2013 3:43 PM
   1. Jun 28 2013 3:41 PM "Undid revision 562011583 by EditorE (talk)"
   2. Jun 28 2013 3:42 PM "Undid revision 562011777 by EditorE (talk)"
   3. Jun 28 2013 3:43 PM "Undid revision 562011583 by EditorE (talk)"
2. Jun 28 2013 3:39 PM "Undid revision 562011303 by EditorE (talk)"
3. Jun 28 2013 3:34 PM "Undid revision 561999650 by EditorE (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from Jun 28 2013 1:50 PM to Jun 28 2013 1:54 PM
   1. Jun 28 2013 1:50 PM "Undid revision 561873685 by C6541 (talk)"
   2. Jun 28 2013 1:51 PM "Undid revision 561988462 by EditorE (talk)"
   3. Jun 28 2013 1:54 PM "Undid revision 561873174 by C6541 (talk)"
5. Jun 27 2013 4:07 PM "Undid revision 561784942 by C6541 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 27 2013 4:41 PM "Caution: Unconstructive editing on William Hung. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User:TwoNyce reported by User:Don King's hair (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. --Don King's hair (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
2. --Don King's hair (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Don King's hair believes he can change the format that is used on every other boxing article. I'm only doing what is necessary cause article Timothy Bradley does not fall under the "Philosophy of User:Don King's hair". If anything Don King's hair needs to be reported for his vendetta against me. --2Nyce 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:76.189.109.155 reported by User:155blue (Result: Declined)

Page

User talk:76.189.109.155 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 30 2013 1:53 PM "Undid revision 562275234 by I B Wright (talk)"
2. Jun 30 2013 1:49 PM "Undid revision 562274904 by I B Wright (talk)"
3. Jun 30 2013 1:44 PM "Undid revision 562274378 by I B Wright (talk)"
4. Jun 30 2013 1:43 PM "Undid revision 562274284 by I B Wright (talk)"
5. Jun 30 2013 1:26 PM "Undid revision 562272316 by 155blue (talk) i told you several times to stay the fuck off my talk page"
6. Jun 30 2013 1:23 PM "Undid revision 562272028 by 155blue (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from Jun 30 2013 1:19 PM to Jun 30 2013 1:21 PM
   1. Jun 30 2013 1:19 PM "Undid revision 562271532 by 155blue (talk) I told you to stay off my talk page.. educate yourself on WP:BLANKING (and, again, you added a SECOND template)"
   2. Jun 30 2013 1:21 PM "re-added template rm due to incompetent editing by 155"
8. Jun 30 2013 1:17 PM "Undid revision 562271340 by 155blue (talk) 155blue stay off my talk page, you added a SECOND template to my page, learn how to use that tool"
9. Consecutive edits made from Jun 30 2013 1:13 PM to Jun 30 2013 1:14 PM
   1. Jun 30 2013 1:13 PM "I B Wright, stay off my talk page and quit posing as an admin"
   2. Jun 30 2013 1:14 PM ""
10. Jun 30 2013 1:11 PM ""
11. Jun 30 2013 1:02 PM "Undid revision 562269745 by I B Wright (talk)troll"
12. Jun 30 2013 12:18 PM "Undid revision 562254851 by Bbb23 (talk) there is no requirement that it be at the top of the page"
13. Jun 30 2013 4:20 AM "Undid revision 562215043 by Toddst1 (talk) see your talk page to discuss, WP:BLANKING did not exclude it the day it was removed, until you added it 16 days later."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 30 2013 1:18 PM "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on User talk:76.189.109.155. (TW)"
2. Jun 30 2013 1:25 PM "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 30 2013 1:18 PM "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on User talk:76.189.109.155. (TW)"
2. Jun 30 2013 1:19 PM "/* For making me laugh at User talk:Yunshui#Move-protected article */ deleting extra template"
3. Jun 30 2013 1:22 PM "placing warning at top of page"
4. Jun 30 2013 1:25 PM "Welcome to Misplaced Pages! (TW)"

Comments:

• Comment This user has gone against the direct order of admins in order to start the edit war. 155blue (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, this is regarding my own talk page. 155blue is clearly uneducated about 3RR, NOT3RR, WP:BLANKING, WP:OWNTALK and WP:DRRC. I've tried to explain it to them, but they will not listen or simply don't understand. You guys can try explaining it to them. Good luck. And of course take a quick glance at my talk page history to see the flood of edits from 155blue and another editor named I B Wright. I didn't waste my time filing here about them. I'm dealing with that with some admins. Btw, 155blue failed to mention that there is a current ANI discussion going on, which includes this issue. Thanks. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This complaint is astounding. While blanking one's own talk page may be antisocial, it cannot possibly be considered an edit war. User:155blue has a recent history of starting inappropriate administrative actions against other users. I've attempted to engage him or her in a discussion regarding this, but found my comments blanked from 155blue's own talk page. This investigation should be closed immediately, and 155blue should stop creating a hostile environment and wasting other editors' time. Pburka (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
• Declined. This is being handled at WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The decline reason is quite interesting and misleading, considering the fact that I did not edit war and the AN, which Bbb23 himself started (he failed to mention that above), was not the reason the AN was opened. And, more to the point, that AN doesn't even attempt to decide if I was edit warring. It was my own talk page for heaven's sake, and of course none of the WP:NOT3RR exemptions apply to what the reporter was doing. And I'd suggest you take a look at the reporter's history of improperly reporting other editors for different false allegations at various noticeboards, and being warned about it. In fact, they even reported this alleged edit warring by me at the vandalism noticeboard ! And of course they also posted about it in the AN disucssion. So, the next time someone reports edit warring that isn't edit warring, say that. And don't ignore the reporter's own actions, as was done here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:69.235.4.44 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Semi)

Page

Scarface (1983 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 30 2013 5:55 PM "Undid revision 562123832 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
2. Jun 30 2013 5:55 AM "Undid revision 562123832 by TheOldJacobite (talk)"
3. Jun 29 2013 4:30 PM "Undid revision 562087118 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)"
4. Jun 29 2013 2:27 AM "Undid revision 561633689 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 30 2013 9:11 PM "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Scarface (1983 film). (TW)"
2. Jun 30 2013 9:11 PM "Final warning: Vandalism on Scarface (1983 film). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User making unexplained edits, refusing to discuss, ignoring provided guidelines and edit warring with two editors over content. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP user has made almost ten reverts and has never left an edit summary or a talk page comment. Perhaps the semiprotection will bring him to the talk page to explain his rationale. His opponents have argued against keeping the names of these additional cast members and they say that WP:FILMCAST calls for their exclusion. It is up to consensus whether the additional names belong in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:IIIraute reported by User:Completeaerogeek (Result: Articles protected)

Page: Frank Whittle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Hans von Ohain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IIIraute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Frank_Whittle&action=history#

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:IIIraute

G'day Misplaced Pages mediators! I have attempted to correct 2 articles - Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain, which are interrelated. Given that the events described are seminal ones in aviation and world history, the entries should be corrected. The corrections concern Hans von Ohain's previous knowledge of Whittle's work and the incorrect use of the terminology 'operational' to describe a prototype of von Ohain's engine. Despite the user's source being generally reliable, the definition is not correct and I have cited both military and civilian sources to confirm this. It is a lay person's description that gives the impression that the engine was operationally ready which it never was. Further the updated information I have provided consists of several first-hand quotes from Ohain which clearly refute the generalised and frequently stated opinion that he was unaware of Whittle's work. Despite this being more recent information (from a published biography)than any of IIIraute's sources which use nonspecific opinions, he continues to remove the updates. The user IIIraute has reverted them repeatedly despite the fact that the information I have is more recent, a first person confirmation and properly cited. I believe there is a national bias here. I have included the links as best I know how and the conversation below. I have tried to discuss this with him but he simply reverts the work. He is reverting to older inaccurate sources. The adherence to outdated information to suit personal ends does not help Wiki's reputation.

I have invited the user to discuss this offline but he has not responded. In my job as a university lecturer (with a Master's Degree in this area) I have just this month had BSc students who have submitted papers containing this erroneous information by using outdated sources listed in Wiki. My attempt here is to correct the record so that accurate information is listed. It appears that the user in question would prefer to use sources from 1968 that say no-one has ever landed on the moon because it serves personal beliefs rather than documented evidence from 1969 of Apollo 11. Knowledge must be frequently updated as new facts come to light otherwise we have mythology rather than history.

I would be grateful for your help.

Cheers Completeaerogeek (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC) ____

__________________________________________________________________________ Comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:IIIraute Ohain and Whittle

Would you please explain why you reverted the changes to the article I edited?

I have provided citation.

The term 'operational' is not correct for Ohain's engine before Sept 1937. Operational in a gas turbine has a specific engineering meaning and means able to complete a Brayton cycle. Ohain's bench test was driven by an electric motor. It was not run under its own power i.e. was not 'operational' until September.

Even 'operational' is not entirely correct. An engine or aircraft is not technically operational until it has been cleared for service. (IOC) Ohain's engines were never cleared for service and in fact were technical dead ends that were never developed into an operational engine.

Completeaerogeek. MSC Tech (Aviation)

Further Ohain was aware of Whittle's work. He is specifically quoted as saying so. If you have evidence that this quotation is fabricated please offer it.Completeaerogeek (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Please "read" the reference before removing content, thank you. ⇒ The book you are citing is not news - other sources say different, for example → " He and Frank Whittle worked independently of one another, their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." --IIIraute (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Please read Ohain's own words at — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You cannot refuse a first person quote as reported by a reliable source on the basis of a generalised opinion. Mistakes can be repeated year after year and cross cited. Your point has no academic value. A generalized statement has no original source. I have quoted an original source. Unless you can prove it is a fabrication, a first person quote from Ohain trumps a thousand generalized opinions.

By deleting a verified piece of evidence both technically and on authorship you are accepting a far lower level of evidence. It's like quoting Wiki as a source. Not acceptable in any academic field.Completeaerogeek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss offline but if you keep removing my corrections I will lodge a dispute resolution. This is silly. The rules of academic evidence are clear on this. If you can refute Ohain's own words or if you can prove that his first prototype engine achieved 'operational status' under either of the technical definitions (or any other suitable engineering equivalent) I will withdraw my changes. The rest of your article is interesting and informative. It is a shame to see it spoiled by inaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop undoing my corrections. I have provided you with evidence. I have verifiable sources that meet a higher standard of evidence. I have provided cite3d definitions to support my corrections. Unless you can disprove or invalidate the evidence you are knowingly reinstating false assertions. I will provide this to the dispute resolution people. You do not own the information. When new evidence comes to light any good researcher will verify and then embrace it.Completeaerogeek (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I am filing a dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Completeaerogeek (talk • contribs) 07:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________

First of all, I have not violated 3RR, i.e not done more than three reverts within 24 hours. Secondly, I was the editor giving you notice (three times!) about your edit warring → , , , however you did choose to continue your reverts. You repeatedly removed long standing referenced content, in favour for your unreferenced changes, for example → , , .

Also, I did answer your talk-page message , telling you to read the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", as well as the "The Draper Prize" reference, before you remove sourced content.

I was the editor asking the admin "SlimVirgin" to protect the Frank Whittle article → - what the admin did.

I also have contributed to the Hans von Ohain talk-page → - what you did not.

What you seem to think is "news" is a book that was published more than twelve years ago - it isn't news at all. Furthermore, your claim is not supported by the source: "Margaret Conner, Hans von Ohain: Elegance in Flight (Reston, Virginia: American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics,Inc., 2001)" → WP:CHERRYPICKING - only when filing his patent, he came across something that "looked like a patent of an idea" (his patent attorney found it during a patent search, but that doesn't mean he started from that idea) → "Von Ohain began development of the turbojet engine in the 1930s while pursuing his doctoral studies at Goettinger University in Germany. He and Frank Whittle worked independently of one another, their designs serving as yet another example of simultaneous invention." This matter has been thoroughly discussed before → ,

A couple of sources, all published within the last three years (I can give you another twenty!):

"Heinkel's backing allowed von Ohain to progress rapidly, and by 1937 (though entirely unaware of Whittle's work, as was Whittle of his) he successfully tested an engine in his workshop." Kenneth W. Ragland, Kenneth M. Bryden, Combustion Engineering, Second Edition, 2011 - page 506

"Von Ohain and his patent attorney were unaware of Whittle's work and of Guillaume's 1921 patent, whose existence, as von Ohain later noted, “should have been the cause for the rejection of practically all further turbojet patents”..." Vaclav Smil, Two Prime Movers of Globalization: The History and Impact of Diesel Engines and Gas Turbines, 2010, page 92

"In 1930, Frank Whittle (UK) submitted patents for a gas turbine engine, which potentially offered much higher thrust than a piston engine. In 1935, Hans von Ohain (Germany) started work on a similar design while completely unaware of Whittle's work..." Thomas A. Ward, Aerospace Propulsion Systems, 2010 page xiv

"Meanwhile in Germany, unaware of Whittle's work, Hans von Ohain had developed his own theory of jet propulsion in 1933, while studying for a doctorate in physics and aerodynamics at the University of Göttingen." Adam Hart-Davis, Engineers, 2012, page 335

⇒ Sources on von Ohain being the designer of the first "operational " jet engine:

"Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain, (born Dec. 14, 1911, Dessau, Ger.—died March 13, 1998, Melbourne, Fla., U.S.), German designer of the first operational jet engine." Encyclopaedia Britannica

"While Hans von Ohain is considered the designer of the first operational turbojet engine, Frank Whittle was the first to register a patent..." J. S. Rao, ,History of Rotating Machinery Dynamics, 2011, page 37

"...Ohain, the 25-year-old Doktor Ingenieur was able to produce the world's first operational turbojet engine..." Sterling Michael Pavelec, The Jet Race and the Second World War, 2007, page 17

"...the first operational jet engine was designed in Germany by Hans Pabst von Ohain and powered the first jet-aircraft flight on Aug. 27, 1939." Robert Curley, One Hundred Most Influential Inventors of All Time, 2010, page 237

I would also like to ask you to refrain from personal attacks, such as mentioned above: "I believe there is a national bias here." and your other patronizing sarcasm. Thank you. --IIIraute (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Both articles have been protected until 3 July by User:SlimVirgin. If the war continues after protection expires, blocks are likely. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to both of you. Because of the complexity of this topic it probably needs a WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Faizan (Result: Kmzayeem warned )

Page

Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jul 1 2013 1:16 PM "/* Causes */"
2. Jul 1 2013 12:55 PM "Undid revision 562364109 by Faizan (talk) a non-involved editor should remove them after the disputes are resolved"
3. Jul 1 2013 12:33 PM "Reverted 1 edit by Faizan (talk): The unresolved issue is related to POV so the tags must be there unless the dispute is resolved, let's take it to the talk page. (TW)"
4. Jul 1 2013 12:06 PM "Reverted good faith edits by Darkness Shines (talk): There is another discussion below which is not mentioned in the RfC, needs to be resolved. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jul 1 2013 12:42 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jul 1 2013 12:38 PM "/* RfC: Should now the redundant tags be removed? */ re"

Comments:

An obvious rule violation. He has engaged in several edit conflicts on the same article. He restored the tags, which were removed by Darkness Shines after a clear-cut consensus at the RfC at the talk. Despite being opposed by several editors, he started reverting multiple editors, and violated 3RR rule. The number of reverts shall be decided by the admins, so there shall be no forum-discussion here about them. Please, User:Kmzayeem, let the admins handle the report, and don't cause inconvenience like you did at the previous reports. Faizan 09:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I've made only 3 reverts here and Faizan also made equal number of reverts. In the RfC, three out of the five participants were supporting Fiazan in the dispute. Moreover, Faizan himself started a new thread below in the talk page on a new dispute regarding POV which is still unresolved. Faizan, even after being involved in the dispute, continuously removing the tags and I've reverted them.--Zayeem 09:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your restoration of this puts you on 4 reverts. Perhaps a promise from you to stop warring in these tags and stick to the talk page would help you out here? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

One further comment, Faizan refers to a previous report. If that is in the time period 11-13 June it was an IP sock of Nangparbat and has to be discounted. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can promise but what about Faizan and his gang? They keep reverting me, they have removed the tags as well as my addition to the cause section, now what about that? I've always participated in the talk page, in fact when I reverted you in the first place, I replied in the article talk page as well as on your talk page, this could have been sorted between you and me, but Fiazan interfered and reverted me, starting the edit war.--Zayeem 10:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Warned--regentspark (comment) 22:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: )

Page: Template:Syrian civil war infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of similar revert (linking Kurds with Syrian rebels despite consensus against it on the talk page):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
He's been reverted by 3 editors and misrepresents sources too. He has been warned by two admins over Syria-related edits ( and ) Pass a Method talk 14:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you retracting this report and sticking to the talkpage. You made 4 reverts yourself - 5 when you include the fact that you self-admittedly made 2 reverts in one edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox&action=history Sopher99 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondly I believe a few of mine are not true reverts, as I simply used it to add reliable sources to reinforce the edit with context. Sopher99 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Also very smooth of you for warning me at 14:35 when my last edit on the page itself was at 14:15. Sopher99 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Just took a look at the difs you put - number 1 is from June 24. Number 2 is from June 25. Number 3 is from 12:30 June 30. Sopher99 (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 has twice reverted an edit that would add the USA flag to the "supported by" list corresponding to the opposition belligerent in the Syrian Civil War infobox using the same justification. Sopher99's justification for first revert is "12:36, 30 June 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,505 bytes) (-264)‎ . . (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323419604578569830070537040.html " plans to" - first paragraph) (undo | thank)". Sopher99's justification for second revert is "08:18, 1 July 2013‎ Sopher99 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,336 bytes) (-242)‎ . . (Guys please read more carefully, WSJ source says USA plans to -haven't yet http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323419604578569830070537040.html Also restoring collapsible list) (undo | thank)" Does Sopher99 think this argument is valid, clear, and does not need to be explained further? All three of these points are wrong.

First, the argument is invalid. Sopher99's argument is based on a fallacy. The process of arming the rebels proceeds in several steps, but for the purpose of this article, there are two steps: (a) move weapons to Jordan and (b) arm small groups. The source article indicates that (a) has started and (b) has been planned. Sopher99 argues that in order for the USA to be counted as supporting the rebels, (b) must have commenced, in other words, Sopher99 is arguing that the CIA initiating a two-part process, the purpose of which is to arm rebels, does not count as "supporting the rebels" because the arms are not in the hands of the rebels. This point of view is simply incorrect. The intent of the CIA is to arm the rebels, and the process encompassing (a) and (b) has started.

Second, the argument is not clear. Sopher99 has picked out two words from the source article and derives a conclusion which appears to be "US has not started supporting a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War". What is the intermediate reasoning? We don't know because Sopher99 has not explained. Sopher99 has this to say in support of his revert: "Anyway back to the point, belligerents are consistent combatants, not suppliers." This point is not relevant, for an explanation as to why it is not relevant, please see Talk:Syrian_civil_war#Why_USA_is_not_included_in_the_InfoBox_of_Rebel.27s_supporter.3F.3F.

Third, the argument needs to be explained further. Sopher99 needs to discuss the matter with the other editors. Without discussion, how can we reach consensus? How can the other editors gain greater insight into Sopher99's point of view?

In summary, by not discussing these reverts, Sopher99 is not following Misplaced Pages policy, specifically the policy that states that discussion is the process that is used to resolve conflicts per Misplaced Pages:BRD#Discuss. I don't see how this can go anywhere good without discussion. I hope that Sopher99 can reach a consensus with the other editors, but in order to do this, all parties must act in good faith and in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. These edits do not, by themselves, constitute edit warring (2 reverts an edit war do not make), but they are consistent with a pattern edit warring and with the charge of edit warring leveled by User:Pass_a_Method.DavidBrooksPokorny (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Antinoos69 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Blocked)

Page: Robert A. J. Gagnon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antinoos69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

7. on 2-Jul-2013
8. on 3-Jul-2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: on 29-Jun by me and on 30 Jun by Cullen.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See article talk page Talk:Robert A. J. Gagnon#Association fallacy

Comments:
User was blocked before for edit warring on this same article. - DVdm (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

User relies frequently on novel interpretations of WP:Primary policy. Intervention to help him understand better than the talk page has done is needed, if he's willing to learn, no matter the outcome of this. jj (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This editor rejects repeated attempts by several other experienced editors to explain various aspects of policy, insisting that he/she is right and that everyone else is wrong. The editor has stated a determination to continue adding disputed content against the clear consensus on the talk page. Cullen Let's discuss it 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This apparent WP:SPA continues to add unsourced and poorly sourced contentious material about a WP:BLP (Robert A. J. Gagnon) in breach of consensus on the article talk page; refused a compromise solution; will not listen to other Wikipedians at all; is seemingly incapable of being WP:CIVIL; and in spite of having been blocked once is apparently going to keep re-adding the contentious material until Hell freezes over. I must confess to being at a loss here. -- 202.124.88.20 (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The editor continues edit warring # Cullen Let's discuss it 15:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated wp:POINTY removals of content elsewhere: , , , . Edit warring on two fronts, so to speak. - DVdm (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

and jj (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC). Can we get this resolved?

He's been repeatedly told about this discussion on his talk page and refuses to participate so far. jj (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one week. Second block for edit warring on the same BLP article. Antinoos69 removed my compromise offer from his user talk then kept on reverting. As one editor predicted above, Antinoos69 is 'apparently going to keep re-adding the contentious material until Hell freezes over'. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Werieth reported by User:Evrik (Result: Both warned)

User being reported: Werieth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Page: :Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Werieth&oldid=562406515

Comments:

Clarification: This is not a report about 3RR, but is about Edit Warring. The editor in question claims that the reversions made fall under Misplaced Pages:Three-revert_rule#3RR_exemptions which says,

5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

However, the pattern and nature of this editors actions fall outside this exception.

This is an extension of a long-running debate on the use of non-free images on Scouting pages. Currently, there are three discussions about Scouting related images on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review. There is a pattern and practice of edit warring. In less than one hour, Werieth reverted me four times on two different pages. I stopped editing those pages to try and discuss it with Werieth, but the discussions seem to have gone nowhere..

Werieth has a habit of wikibullying. Many discussions get escalated. Early last month, I reported the same editor for edit warring on Scouting in Massachusetts and here. The response was to immeadiately report me and ask for a topic ban: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#Request for topic ban. I withdrew my previous report to show a willingness to work with Werieth.

Werieth also makes up policy: misquoting policy on non-admin closures, making up policy on image removal, not allowing similar discussions to be grouped, image removal policy again, etc.

I don't want Werieth blocked, but I want the combative behavior and 'making up policy' to end. --evrik  16:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you please READ THE POLICY? This user refuses to comply with NFCC. I am not making up policy, rather citing policies that evrik wishes didnt exist, and ignores hoping that they go away. Werieth (talk) 16:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

An example: Nothing in the policy says the images must be removed prior to the discussion being complete. This is Werieth's own interpretation. This contentious style of edting must stop. --evrik  16:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow way to ignore policy. Policy is to remove NFCC violations. Until this isnt a violation (per pending NFCR) it needs removed. Werieth (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The editors on the pages in question have all strived to meet every request you have set forth. They are editing in good faith, so Misplaced Pages:NFCCE#Enforcement should not apply. There is a disagreement on the interpretation of the policy. Please show me where on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content review or on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content it says that images displayed on an article page must be removed prior to the Non-free content review being complete when there is no consensus. --evrik  16:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFG states that galleries cannot be used, see WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8, (there are exceptions, but this is rare) WP:NFCC states the burden of proof lies on those who wish to include non-free media and not those who seek removal. The NFCR at this point is where exceptions/review of usage happens. The default action with NFC just like BLP is to remove until the burden of inclusion has been met. Werieth (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the editors are making good faith improvements, they have added sourced discussion about one logo. This is well within policy and I have said nothing about it. You however reverted re-inserting a gallery removing the sourced content, slapping everyone involved in the face. Werieth (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like to point out that in previous discussions we have debated this point to no resolution. I am willing to discuss the issue in a collaborative manner. I just want the edit warring to stop. Look at the history of this page in the last five days. I'm not the one who is editing against consensus. --evrik 

Im always open to discussion, however it seems that your POV is screw NFCC and Ill use as many non-free files as I want If you are willing to comply with NFCC I will gladly discuss things with you. Werieth (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight, you make up policy, threaten people, retaliate aginst people, make snide remarks in the edit summaries - and I am somehow to blame? --evrik  17:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I dont make up policy, I do give valid warnings, attempt to resolve an issue with a user who refuses to understand NFCC, and finally remove an invalid warning by a POV pushing edit warrior who things NFCC should be deleted. Your complete lack of understanding and refusal to follow NFCC isnt my fault. Werieth (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Evrik, much as I'm sure you feel it appropriate to gain an exclusion for scouting pages from the dictums of WP:NFG, one is not forthcoming. Given that, WP:NFG holds sway here. If you want to change that, I invite you to start an RFC at WT:NFC to get it overturned. In the meantime, WP:NFG is the law of the land here. Seeking to force placement of the images and then attempting to get an exception isn't how things work. You are in the wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• it's not about the policy, it's about the editors behavior and bullying. I have another example from Fællesrådet for Danmarks Drengespejdere on June 20:

Werieth is implementing the policy backwards. The NFCR page is a review page. It does not say images must be removed during the review. In fact, if this were the case, most if the images would be deleted before the review is complete. --evrik 

Again you need to review policy, I dont want to say you are lying, but its almost to the point where AGF is worn out. NFC policy is to remove violations on sight. If you want to create an exception to policy its not done. You cannot claim that something is an exception just because you say it should be (otherwise policy is void). I may be a little heavy handed, however often something needs to be done to get the point across to users who consistently miss the point. NFC actually has an exception in 3RR, which tends to re-enforce policy which states that non-compliance should be made compliant. (in most cases this is removal) Werieth (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please show me on WP:NFC where it says, "NFC policy is to remove violations on sight." This isn't about policy, but in the way you try to enforce it. This morning, I looked at the way the images were being added back in. Following that example. I added the other images back in, and within five minutes you reverted me again. --evrik  16:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You did not follow the example, you added the files back without meeting WP:NFCC. The previous files that where added also included sourced discussion about the files, all you did was throw them back in with a {{expand section}} and nothing else. As I said on the review case, justification comes first, not after the fact. Werieth (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually typically images are left in situ while they are under discussion, so editors participating in that discussion can see the context in which they are being used (or misused or overused).

Something particularly to be avoided is for images to be removed because they are "under discussion", if they will then be automatically deleted within a week for not being in use on an article page.

There are some cases where images should be removed on sight, but those are fairly narrowly delimited at WP:CSD, issues which are truly unambiguous where no qualitative assessment of any kind is required. If there is something to discuss, then the issue cannot be said to be unambiguous, and those speedy (or semi-speedy) criteria should not be applied. Jheald (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• I believe Werieth's actions fall outside the exemption. I don't want Werieth blocked, but I want the behavior to stop. --evrik  16:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Whereas edit warring against him, in direct opposition to WP:NFG, is somehow excusable on your part? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Werieth is clearly correct. Removing a de facto gallery of nonfree, undiscussed images is enforcement of basic NFCC policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Werieth is not correct, but even if correct choses to 'act like be a bully and an edit warrior. You can say that that a gallery of unfree images is against policy in NFG, but in that same policy there is an exception. The bigger point here is that instead of working collaboratively and allowing people to discuss the issue and work to a mutually acceptable solution, Werieth chooses to edit in a bullying fashion. I cited above an instance on the NCFR page where I was reveretd 2x because I tried to group similar discussions, and I also previously cited where I was reverted by Werieth because of a style issue. NCFR is not CSD, and yet that is how Werieth interprets it. --evrik  15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Please review WP:NPA. You said that there are exceptions, I agree with that. Where is the discussion requesting the exception for the article in question? Ill give you a hint, there isnt. Instead you decide that it should be exempt because you say so (that is not how policy works). Yes I reverted your grouping at NFCR because just like AfDs you dont combine them based of a commonality. Bulk AfDs tend to be a headache as instead of review each on a case by case basis, general brushes are used. (This does not work with NFCR) I am always willing to work collaborative example when the users are willing to follow policy. Your approach is wrong, if policy says only use 3, you start at 3 and argue for 3 or more. You should start at 0 and see if the article really needs the file or if its just there as filler. (90% of the time justification for additional images becomes more difficult with each addition.) You seem to have either not read, not understand, or have taken a stance to ignore the WP:NFC policy. Werieth (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I fail to see a personal attack, but if I have personally attacked you, I apologize. I do stand by my assertion that you tend to try and bully people into submission. Please show me on WP:NFC where it says, "NFC policy is to remove violations on sight." This isn't about policy, but in the way you try to enforce it. --evrik  16:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
• Result: Both parties warned. If either of you adds or removes an image, or makes another image-related revert on this article before a definite decision about it has been made on one of the copyright boards you may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

EyeTruth reported by Gunbirddriver (Result: Warned)

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

Here is a version of the article prior to the multiple reverts:

The editor in question contines to attempt to insert the term "blitzkrieg" into the article.

"Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel) was to be a classic blitzkrieg... "

Here are the links to the talk page discussions: here and here.

A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. The chief problem has been reverting edits despite consensus of opinion from other editors being opposed to his edit change. The reverts can be seen here, here, here and then here on 25 June. And again here and here. His tone on the talk page is condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You conveniently forgot to mention that it was on 11 June 2013, with THIS EDIT, that you began purging the article of the term "blitzkrieg" with absolutely no prior discussion. The term has always been there in the article for as long as possible, and fully supported by reliable sources (by reliable dudes). You came to your own conclusion that it doesn't belong in the article, and without any back up from any sources to dispute its inclusion in the article, you started cleansing the term off the artcle. There was not even any editor consensus to exclude the term from the article at that point. I added it back with THIS EDIT on 25 June. Later, you got a consistent support from two other editors, reverted it, and requested that I should discuss why I added it back. I added it back; and what did you expect me to say besides that I fixed a reliably cited content that has been tampered with. Ever since you've maintained that the support of three editors overrules the opinion of the various cited sources. But since the dispute over "blitzkrieg" has been submitted to the DRN, I will limit that discussion on here. EyeTruth (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

PS. There was a rather now obsolete discussion we had back in mid May (i.e. one month before your blitzkrieg-purging began). In that discussion after you pointed out that the many blitzkrieg usage in the article were misplaced, I simply concluded with: "I won't object to removing "Blitzkrieg" altogether, except that I wonder how difficult it would be to substitute the term without diverting the meaning of the passages from those of the various sources. If you think you can make it work, go for it. But if you mean wholly eliminating any passage in the article with "Blitzkrieg", then I doubt anyone will consider such a crusade acceptable." (Full convo is HERE). Either ways, you purged whole sentences and whole paragraphs of cited content just to cleanse the article of this "fiercely detested" term. EyeTruth (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As for the accusation of misconduct, why do you always have to distort your complaints? Seriously why? You've reported this before, HERE. It got you nowhere. Granted, I'm thoroughly dismissive of your original research/ideas, but I never talk to you in a condescending way. I don't know if it is the jocular style of my written speech is what you consider "condescending". I don't think, "hmmmn", "lol", "omg", "omfg", or stuff like "are you a gardener? because you're very adept with cherry picking (and distorting info)", are condescending in any way as you've made them out to be a few times now. Other times you've tried to accuse me of being insultive by referring to you as "dude", even though I meant absolutely no harm with its usage; nevertheless, I apologized. Other times, I misworded my intentions, but I quickly clarified them once I notice it has been misunderstood, for example HERE. You, on the other hand, have been launching very bold remarks ever since you concluded that my say no more holds any value. Now, you decided to distort your complaint even more and report it again. OK granted, I fell short of the MOS on wikilinks and even questioned others trying to correct me, but I learned my lesson and openly concurred. I'm seriously getting tired of all these wave after wave of desperate allegations of misconduct, bombardment of speculative inferences (a.k.a original ideas) and accusations of not cooperating with those inferences. This is becoming one gigantic joke. If you keep this up, you might get what you want: to send me packing from this mutual sandbox of ours – the Battle of Kursk article. EyeTruth (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As editors we have been challenged trying to figure out if the insulting nature of your comments had to do with a language difficulty, or was it just callous disregard for the other editors. The problem was pointed out to you by Sturmvogel 66 and myself on more than one occasion. Your response was to dismiss it, and to claim the other parties were taking things too personally. The attitude is one of a person who has no real interest in how he is being perceived. That means callous disregard is the driving principle in your responses, not failure to master the subtlies of English or poor insight into the subtext of what you had said. Okay. But you were a wuss when it came to dealing with a push back, so there you go. You are quick to offer statements that start with: "I don't think.." This is not the opening path to your understanding other people's perspective. They tell you how they percieve the manner in which you are commenting, and you respond by offering us all another look into what you think. That may be a marker of an underlying problem. Look at this non-sequitor: "Granted, I'm thoroughly dismissive of your original research/ideas, but I never talk to you in a condescending way." "I was thoroughly dismissive but I was not condescending." The statement itself fairly reeks of condescension. What is odd, is that given the fact that you are not a native English speaker, would it not seem highly likely that you are at a disadvantage and likely to be having language problems? Why just brow beat the other editors? Why would you not consider that there is a certain amount of awkwardness inherent in attempting to operate in a foreign language? It stikes me as indicative of a lack of insight and a reticence toward self-critique.Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

lol ok. You be the judge to decide who is a native speaker or not XD. I ain't got anymore time for this. BTW, I was speaking English when I was three years old or whenever it is ya all learn to speak it. I mean no harm. Cyaa. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As to the term "Blitzkrieg", no one is on a "Crusade" to eliminate the term, no one is "blitzkrieg-purging" wikipedia. But as to the Battle of Kursk, the term is non-desriptive and misleading, as I have told you many times before. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources don't think so. That's just your own opinion. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: EyeTruth is warned that he may be blocked if he continues to restore the word 'blitzkrieg' to this article unless he has found consensus to do so. The discussion at Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg seems to be at least 3:1 against him. You have the option of asking an uninvolved admin to close that discussion and judge the consensus. There is currently a WP:DRN open and it is wise for EyeTruth to listen to whatever result is found there. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, since there is a 3:1 editor vote against it, I haven't made any edits ever since the third editor joined the discussion. Besides, the blitzkrieg issue is primarily a content dispute and not the case of a user misconduct. So you can be rest assured I won't be editing anything until DRN settles it. EyeTruth (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/221.92.163.122 reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Semi)

Page

Boris Malagurski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

1 July 2013

• 22:2322:23, 1 July 2013 diff hist −491 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562436236 by Bobrayner (talk) Discussed and community agrees how ridiculous it is.
• 08:4808:48, 1 July 2013 diff hist −491 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562364272 by Peacemaker67 (talk) I wasn;t under the impression that Wiki was to be used as propaganda...
• 08:3508:35, 1 July 2013 diff hist −491 Boris Malagurski Then go discuss it. What a ridiculously irrelevant comment it is. Why that comment above all others, or that comment at all? Stick to facts and let people make up their own minds. Don't mislead.
• 08:2208:22, 1 July 2013 diff hist −491 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562362068 by Bobrayner (talk) Agreed. But best to keep personal opinions off completely and keep everything relevant.

19 May 2013

• 15:5915:59, 19 May 2013 diff hist +27 Croatian Spring →Legacy

13 April 2013

• 12:4012:40, 13 April 2013 diff hist +1 Dissociation (psychology) No edit summary

6 April 2013

• 13:3113:31, 6 April 2013 diff hist −52 Neda Ukraden No edit summary

28 March 2013

• 15:1015:10, 28 March 2013 diff hist +111 Talk:Ante Gotovina →New Picture
• 09:0609:06, 28 March 2013 diff hist +86 Talk:Ante Gotovina →New Picture

27 March 2013

• 07:1807:18, 27 March 2013 diff hist −206 Radomir Putnik No edit summary
• 07:1607:16, 27 March 2013 diff hist +225 Ante Gotovina Drawing attention to lack of image. Please insert image. Basic outline created for image uploaders. Thanks.

24 March 2013

• 07:2607:26, 24 March 2013 diff hist +588 Talk:Ante Gotovina →New Picture

18 March 2013

• 07:2407:24, 18 March 2013 diff hist −41 Mount Putnik →References: Outdated source. Competing sources for name's origin found.
• 07:2007:20, 18 March 2013 diff hist −121 Radomir Putnik →World War I: Bivouac.com is not a credible source. Provide more credible sources. Several sources give competing views on name selection. Find sources.
• 07:1707:17, 18 March 2013 diff hist −83 Mount Putnik Non credible sources. Provide more credible sources for actual naming of mountain, not just statements.
• 07:0907:09, 18 March 2013 diff hist +41 Ante Gotovina Undid revision 544471095 by CommonsDelinker (talk)

16 February 2013

• 11:3611:36, 16 February 2013 diff hist +71 Operation Storm true, however, the significance of the ruling requires mention, incl. legality. See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/16/croatia-war-crime-analysis?fb=optOut

4 December 2012

• 16:0016:00, 4 December 2012 diff hist +9 Joe Sakic No edit summary

22 November 2012

• 05:2205:22, 22 November 2012 diff hist +383 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Conflict of interest

20 November 2012

• 15:3615:36, 20 November 2012 diff hist −304 Luka Misetic No edit summary
• 15:3515:35, 20 November 2012 diff hist 0 Luka Misetic →Early life: clean up
• 15:3415:34, 20 November 2012 diff hist +2 Luka Misetic →Early life

18 November 2012

• 11:1211:12, 18 November 2012 diff hist +91 Operation Storm No edit summary
• 11:0911:09, 18 November 2012 diff hist +116 Operation Storm No edit summary
• 11:0611:06, 18 November 2012 diff hist +77 Operation Storm No edit summary
• 11:0311:03, 18 November 2012 diff hist +112 Talk:Ante Gotovina →New Picture: new section
• 11:0011:00, 18 November 2012 diff hist +127 Ante Gotovina →Acquittal on appeal

5 November 2012

• 06:4906:49, 5 November 2012 diff hist +642 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Controversy

4 November 2012

• 09:1309:13, 4 November 2012 diff hist +13 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Controversy
• 09:1209:12, 4 November 2012 diff hist +123 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Controversy
• 09:0709:07, 4 November 2012 diff hist +2,865 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Controversy: new section

3 November 2012

• 14:5014:50, 3 November 2012 diff hist +473 User talk:Opbeith →Compiling anti Boris Malagurski sources and references

2 November 2012

• 16:2316:23, 2 November 2012 diff hist +132 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 16:2216:22, 2 November 2012 diff hist +285 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 16:0816:08, 2 November 2012 diff hist −182 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 16:0516:05, 2 November 2012 diff hist +200 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:5715:57, 2 November 2012 diff hist +78 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:5415:54, 2 November 2012 diff hist +62 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:5115:51, 2 November 2012 diff hist +321 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:4815:48, 2 November 2012 diff hist +543 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:3915:39, 2 November 2012 diff hist +2 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:3015:30, 2 November 2012 diff hist +374 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:1415:14, 2 November 2012 diff hist +91 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 15:1315:13, 2 November 2012 diff hist +324 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 14:5614:56, 2 November 2012 diff hist +7 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 14:5614:56, 2 November 2012 diff hist +619 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 14:4014:40, 2 November 2012 diff hist +470 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 14:3414:34, 2 November 2012 diff hist +30 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Boris has been linked to Serbian extremists and chetniks and the article should reflect as such.
• 14:2414:24, 2 November 2012 diff hist +349 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager
• 14:2014:20, 2 November 2012 diff hist +276 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Response to UrbanVillager

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jul 1 2013 7:38 AM (as

3 July 2013

• 03:1803:18, 3 July 2013 diff hist −490 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562634466 by Peacemaker67 (talk)
• 00:5900:59, 3 July 2013 diff hist −490 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562624447 by Bobrayner (talk) Source is self-promotional. Might as well write everything he ever said. Stick to facts.
• 00:4300:43, 3 July 2013 diff hist −490 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562619192 by Bobrayner (talk) Maintenance.

2 July 2013

• 23:3123:31, 2 July 2013 diff hist −490 Boris Malagurski Undid revision 562613671 by Bobrayner (talk) Undid vandalism

1 July 2013

• 07:3807:38, 1 July 2013 diff hist −1 Boris Malagurski →The Weight of Chains: Reworded to better reflect film. Does not describe as facts, merely explores a different theory. Big difference.
• 07:3507:35, 1 July 2013 diff hist −490 Boris Malagurski Irrelevant. Agenda based comment that is self-promotional. Why this comment over all others? Stick to facts, not opinions.

12 February 2013

• 01:3101:31, 12 February 2013 diff hist +71 Operation Storm No edit summary

20 November 2012

• 06:2406:24, 20 November 2012 diff hist +888 Mladen Markač Acquittal
• 03:5303:53, 20 November 2012 diff hist +150 Ante Gotovina No edit summary
• 03:4803:48, 20 November 2012 diff hist +288 Ante Gotovina Acquittal
• 02:3402:34, 20 November 2012 diff hist +111 Talk:Ante Gotovina →New Picture
• 02:1302:13, 20 November 2012 diff hist +146 Talk:Boris Malagurski →Controversy
• 01:4601:46, 20 November 2012 diff hist −87 Ante Gotovina Undid revision 523940883 by Drmies (talk) Doesn't reflect present reality. See talk page for more details.
• 00:3400:34, 20 November 2012 diff hist +801 Talk:Ante Gotovina →New Picture

) "Reworded to better reflect film. Does not describe as facts, merely explores a different theory. Big difference"

1. Jul 1 2013 5:52 PM "Undid revision 562362068 by Bobrayner (talk) Agreed. But best to keep personal opinions off completely and keep everything relevant."
2. Jul 1 2013 6:05 PM "Then go discuss it. What a ridiculously irrelevant comment it is. Why that comment above all others, or that comment at all? Stick to facts and let people make up their own minds. Don't mislead."
3. Jul 1 2013 6:18 PM "Undid revision 562364272 by Peacemaker67 (talk) I wasn;t under the impression that Wiki was to be used as propaganda..."
4. Jul 2 2013 7:53 AM "Undid revision 562436236 by Bobrayner (talk) Discussed and community agrees how ridiculous it is."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jul 1 2013 7:19 PM "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

The IP has refused to follow WP:BRD, despite being asked to here and here.

Comments:

This IP is almost certainly being used by the same editor (122.20.16.89) that started the edit-warring on this article, both are editing from dynamic IPs in Japan. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate we have fewer admins to do more work these days. Could I please get someone to have a look at this, it continues, per , and . Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

and again . A little help would be appreciated, I have asked for pending changes (which was rejected), and have now asked for semi, but the behaviour needs to be addressed regardless. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. Since it's a war by an IP-hopper, any specific block would be quickly circumvented. The IP editor wants to remove 'personal opinions' from the article, and for that reason he is warring to remove a statement by the film-maker about his own film? EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Apparently. Thanks, Ed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright reported by 76.189.109.155 (Result: Declined)

Page: User talk:76.189.109.155 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I B Wright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here are all the relevant edits:

• 16:18, 30 June 2013‎ - How my talk page looked right before I B Wright's first edit

Revert 1 17:00, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright relocates a template on my talk page that I had placed lower on the page

Since this is my first edit, then by definition it cannot be a revert. 76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is therefore guilty of exageration if nothing else (but he did that at the ANI on him as well where he grossly exagerated the number of edits that I had made). I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• 17:02, 30 June 2013 – I move the template back to its original location

• 17:09, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright posts a comment

Revert 2 17:11, 30 June 2013 – IB Wright moves the template for the second time and says "I feel a block coming on"

• 17:11, 30 June 2013 – I remove I B Wright's comment
• 17:13, 30 June 2013 – I move the template (again) back to its original location and because of their edit warring, I say, "I B Wright, stay off my talk page" in the edit summary

Revert 3 17:43, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright moves the template for the third time and says "There is only one way to stop these posts and reversion a to your talk page and that is to ABIDE BY THE RULES"

• 17:43, 30 June 2013 – I move the template again

Revert 4 17:44, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright adds the template again, which is a duplicate of the one already lower on the page

No, that's only three reverts. Once again you prove that you cannot count. I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• 17:44, 30 June 2013 – I removed the duplicate template

• 17:48, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright posts a comment that says "And you have now exceeded WP:3RR so a block in now guaranteed."

• 17:49, 30 June 2013 – I removed I B Wright's comment

Revert 5 17:51, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright restores the comment I removed

That's not a fifth revert but a first revert of the edit in question. You cannot aggregate up different edits to try and construct a large edit war. I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Clearly, I B Wright was fully aware of WP:3RR because they alluded to edit warring and my potential block mulitiple times. And they also refuse to accept WP:NO3RR. I asked them to stay off my talk page, but they ignored that request by continuing the same behavior. Then at a subsequent discussion at AN, I B Wright posted the following comments regarding my alleged edit warring:

• 17:47, 30 June 2013 – I B Wright proclaims that I've violated 3RR: "In view of the continued edit warring. WP:3RR has certainly been exceeded"
• 19:09, 30 June 2013 - At AN, I reiterate 3RR and NOT3RR, explaining again that has the user who is actually edit warring is them, not me.
• 07:36, 1 July 2013 – I B Wright says I'm wrong and calls me "a liar": "An editor who cannot count. I only made seven (7) edits, and one of those was to remove a comment that somehow posted twice. At no time did I revert anything more than three times, so that makes you a liar. I may have reverted two different edits three times but that is not 3RR."

Intesestlingly, another editor, 155blue, who, as you can see, also edit warred on my talk page during the same time period at I B Wright, filed this AN/EW report earlier. I think this reply by Pburka effectively addresses the report. It was also explained there that there was a current AN discussion taking place, which partially included this issue. Remarkably, 155blue also reported my alleged edit warring at the vandalism noticeboard at the same time! That of course was quickly ignored and dumped by an admin.

For this report, what makes I B Wright's edit warring particularly disturbing is the fact that it was not done in an article, but rather in someone else's talk page. I don't know how many reports you get here about this type of situation, but it seems remarkable that a user would so aggressively edit war in someone else's talk page of all places. And of course nothing in WP:NOT3RR exempted any of the editor's reverts. The editor made it clear through their various comments that they were well aware of the edit warring guidelines, yet continued the flood of edits and reverts on my talk page, even after they were asked not to return. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. The tussle between these two editors is known at WP:AN and does not need to be brought here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23, you are the last person who should be handling this report. You of course are extremely involved and in fact are the editor who filed the AN. The AN is not about edit warring and doesn't even address if I've edit warred. So please remove the decline and allow an uninvoled admin to handle this. This isn't about a "tussle" with anyone. It's about I B Wright's edit warring on my talk page. So please revert your involvement here and allow this report to be handled on its own merits. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I B Wright's edit warring on my talk page may be "known" at that AN, but that is solely because I mentioned it there. But it most certainly isn't being investigated there, nor even discussed. I have filed a legitimate report here and I would ask that it please be evaluated and decided by an admin with no involvement in the situation at AN. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

This complaint is made out of nothing more than spitefulness. It is interesting to note that 155blue has made more edits and more reversions than I did and yet no complaint has been made. At the top of this very page it says, "Reverting vandalism ... is not edit warring." Removing the established vandal static IP address maintenance template is vandalism as it is prohibited by WP:REMOVE and therefore falls outside of edit warring as defined above. I B Wright (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's made out of proof, as shown above. You violated WP:3RR by a mile. And although 155blue was very annoying, she did not violate 3RR, although she certainly violated the spirit of it. Now all you need to do is understand what WP:3RR, WP:NOT3RR, and WP:VANDALISM are. You have just proven that you have no idea what any of them mean. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although long on accusation, you are very short in the proof department. At the top of this AN you claim 5 reverts. But you have not posted any diffs covering 5 reverts. You have one first edit followed by 3 reverts. You then have a second different edit followed by a single revert. No violation of the WP:3RR rule there then. As for what consitutes non edit warring, I merely cut and pasted the text from the head of this AN page. The only person misinterpreting anything around here is you.

But this is all accademic because this AN has already been declined (and declined almost immediately). It is very unlikely to be opened again because any admin can see that you are just trying to raise enough disinformation to try and help your lost cause. The fact that there is still no outcome at the AN against you shows that the admins are still considering what action to take against you - and it is fairly clear that some action is going to be taken. I B Wright (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, it will take someone else to educate you on these matters. And for the record, the current status of this report is "Declined", not "No Violation", which is the one used when the editor being reported did not edit war. See thread below. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone has just advised me that any edit that "correctly placed the template back at the top of the page" does not constitute a revert because your movement of it elsewhere was disruptive editing. The status of 'Declined' means that your rant is not even being given any consideration so there is no liklihood of any 'violation' coming out of this so it's as good as a no violation (but then you still have not posted any evidence to the contrary). I B Wright (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User: Randykitty reported by User:5thfloorlattimore (Result: No violation)

Page: Minds and Machines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Randykitty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

The text that is changed in these edits is: "According to Google Scholar, the journal is ranked 15th among the top 20 journals in philosophy, and" Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The discussion at Randykitty talk sums up the disagreement over whether to include reference to Google Scholar or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5thfloorlattimore (talk • contribs) 02:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Bringing User:Randykitty here is without merit. User:Randykitty has, in fact, intiated a discussion on the article's talk page, in which User:5thfloorlattimore has not participated , , , . Also, as can be seen by the diffs, consensus is against including material that User:5thfloorlattimore wishes to add to the article.

Additionally, despite the consensus, an anonymous IP added the material again , which was reverted by another user attempting to help resolve the issue , but who did not participate in the talk page consensus. I believe this is 5 to 1 against User:5thfloorlattimore, and 5 to 2 against if the anonymous IP is included. In any case, Randykitty has not engaged in edit warring by any means. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• No violation Randykitty sought consensus on the article talk page; the IP address, who I strongly suspect is 5thfloorlattimore editing while logged out, is ignoring that consensus. 5thfloorlattimore, if you don't want to be struck by the WP:BOOMERANG, then I suggest you start to respect the outcome of the discussion. WilliamH (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkingYouth reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:ThinkingYouth#Somnath Bharti

Comments:
The primary issue here is an image that has been re-uploaded to Commons after a prior deletion. As previously, there are copyright concerns - see - and ThinkingYouth has been exhibiting COI/POV tendencies when it comes to matters relating to this new political party and its potential election candidates. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment: I've seen ThinkingYouth try to edit-war an edit warring notice onto Sitush's talk page - they've posted it twice now, and had it reverted both times. Not a sign of a user that is here to improve the Wiki. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• TY has definitely made four full reversions today, so he has crossed the brightline rule. He keeps putting unsupported facts into a BLP. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• And they are now warring at Aam Aadmi Party also. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. The user broke 3RR and apparently violated copyright. He has been adding material to a BLP article which appears to have no reliable source. The warnings that were given to him seem to have had no effect. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush reported by User:ThinkingYouth (Result: No action)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk:Sitush#Somnath_Bharti

Comments:
The primary issue here is undue content removal by Sitush .Sitush contested the origin/authenticity of an image and later thy deleted date of birth of BLP article and other important info and wiki-links. Sitush has been exhibiting COI/POV tendencies when it comes to matters relating to this new political party and its members. - TY of 19:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why did you copy part of Sitush's statement about you? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)Comment I just looked at the article history and only see two reverts by Sitush. Might I ask why you are added unsourced content to a BLP ThinkingYouth. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Further comment, ThinkingYouth is now on 4 reverts on this article. I have asked him ot eslf revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• TY, how can I be displaying POV when I've supported you on quite a few issues at Talk:Aam Aadmi Party? I'm playing by the policies and guidelines, that's all. 3RR and copyright violation are pretty much bright lines, as is much of WP:BLP. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No violation. Only three reverts on July 2, and removing copyvios is exempt from 3RR. See WP:AN3#User:ThinkingYouth reported by User:Sitush (Result: 48h). EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

User:189.176.191.214 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Semi)

Page: Gary Weis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 189.176.191.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Note: After 3 editors warned him about edit-warring and 3RR, he appears to be attempting to game the system by continuing to revert some hours after 3X in 24 hours, and using an apparent sock-puppet to make the exact same 4th edit within the 24-hour frame.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:58, 1 July 2013
2. 14:06, 1 July 2013‎
3. 00:09, 2 July 2013‎
4. An apparent sock edit removing the exact same information occurred 04:05, 2 July 2013‎ Gweis
5. 21:55, 2 July 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: by User:Widr, by User:Pratyya Ghosh

Comments:
Consistent removal of properly sourced RS information, as noted by three editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. IP inserting nonsense. He has removed well-sourced information from the article for no apparent reason. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:108.246.88.27 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

Page: The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and List of Warner Bros. films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.246.88.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (Wizard of Oz)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Previous version reverted to: (List of Warner Bros. films)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After an explanation was posted at Talk:List of Warner Bros. films the IP did stop reverting on List of Warner Bros. films, but the underlying problem persisted on The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) and many articles related to The Wizard of Oz. Because of this most of my efforts were focused on contacting the editor on their talk page: . Either IP isn't aware of the messages I left or is ignoring them, but either way we are still left with the same problem of factually incorrect information being added to this group of articles. I think a block is the only option here, since the problematic behavior extends to many other articles. The only reason I have listed two articles is because this is were the 3RR violations occurred. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 72 hours. A blizzard of unsourced changes to articles, like the one about Warner Brothers producing the Wizard of Oz (1939 film). Warner acquired the rights much later. Here the IP replaces a working link to Glinda the Good Witch with a made-up redlink that goes nowhere. Hard to know what the motivation is, but this is disruptive. Cleaning up after this editor will use a lot of time. EdJohnston (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Maurice07 reported by User:Proudbolsahye (Result: )

Page: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Maurice07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. link
2. link
3. link
4. link

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: linklink

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The issue has already been discussed in addition to this, some user have told him to discuss it first. Evidently he has read the edit-summary and avoided taking it to the talk page here, since he responded directly to another users edit-summary.

Comments: This user has been blocked many times for edit-warring and has been warned many more times. He is already under WP:ARBMAC sanctions and has violated his ban many times. Generally, he/she will delete the warnings he/she receives and continues edit-warring. It is my distinct personal observation that the user continues to edit-war regardless of how many times he's been warned or blocked.

User:Montanabw reported by User:Shokatz (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I've contacted him or her on the personal talk page here

Comments:

Hello. I made a minor edit at the Lipizzan article linking countries in the infobox description there. After which Montanabw appears saying he is reverting another user due to picture being too-light or something. I restore my links and the said user appears again reverting my changes saying "No need to link all those countries either" . Now from my experience it is a common practice if you to link the country of origin in the infobox wheter it be a person, animal or whatever. This user appears again now claiming this is against WP:OVERLINK despite the fact nothing there is talking against this practice, nor is WP:OVERLINK "a rulebook" as the said user has described it. Now I have posted a warning template to his page that he has broken the 3RR rule to which he responded putting one on my page as well in retaliation . I have also went to his talk page asking what exactly is the problem here to which he responded again by accused me of "edit-warring all over the place" . He has also decide to hide my posts and the warning I posted at his talk page followed by the comments like: "Now go away..." and "Shokatz, get off my talk page and stay off." . Now I don't know exactly is the problem here this person has but this is certainly not a model behavior. I've tried to reason with this person over my edit comments and on his talk page but he refuses and is extremely offensive so due such rude behavior I have decided to report it here.

Comments:

I am about to be offline for some time due to the USA holiday and may have extremely limited access to defend myself in this situation. I actually only did 2 reverts within 24 hours, as the first was an undo of two previous edits, not just Shokatz, AND it was outside the 24 hour limit anyway. Even if you find the 3rd close to 24 hours, it's the FOURTH revert that a 3RR penalty kicks in, and we aren't there. Further (If more defense is needed) My position is that this individual is engaging in a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when I explained that per WP:OVERLINK there is no need to wikilink major nations. This particular article has been relatively stable in content for a long time, but is a frequent magnet for kiddie edits, insertion of trivia, but also an occasional flare-up of edit disputes between people who edit articles on Eastern European nations versus Austria (There was actually a lawsuit in the EU between Slovenia and Austria over the breed name "Lipizzan") But in short: The first reversion on July 1 was intended to be to a swap of a photo, reverting the immediately preceding edit. I missed seeing Shokatz' edit. my edit summary makes it clear I was going after the photo (and assumed good faith). It was a simple good faith error. Next, Shokatz reverts me, pointing out my error. Therefore, I fixed the image and overlinking problem together, and thus this is NOT part of the 3RR concern). Nonetheless, Shokatz takes offense, I revert, citing policy (and yes, getting a bit testy), Shokatz says IDINTHEARTHAT, and I revert and remind him of BRD. At this point, Shokatz templates me, I'm seriously pissed by now and template him back, and he comes running here. I've been on WP over seven years and just did my 50,000th edit this week, have a totally clean block record and this ranks as the lamest thing for which I've ever been dragged to the AN board. Someone else explain WP:OVERLINK to this individual, please. Montanabw 20:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there was technically a 3RR vio here, in that the four reverts were made in over 24 hours. Page protected I've protected the page for three days in hopes of promoting discussion on the talk page. I'd like to emphasize that this is a minor issue, perhaps go to WP:3O for resolution? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, Mark Arsten. Your comment above went up as I was writing the tl;dr response above. I am glad to discuss the issue at article talk or elsewhere. Montanabw 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

  • • Looks like the person submitting this was just as guilty, so prot is a good solution here. PumpkinSky talk 21:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Montanabw is female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jc37 reported by User:BrownHairedGirl (Result: Stale)

Page: Category:People by city or town in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jc37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 3 July 2013
2. 3 July 2013
3. 27 June 2013
4. 21 June 2013
5. 15 June 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

In a nutshell, this is a strange case of a closing admin edit-warring to uphold a decision which he made subsequent to a CFD closure, and which which was neither mentioned in the closure nor supported by any participant in the CFD discussion. In the subsequent discussions, no other editor has supported the closer's actions.
Discussions at:

• Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 12#Category:People_by_city_in_Ireland (permalink)
• User talk:Fayenatic london#Ireland_categories (permalink)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#RFC:_Categorising_Northern_Ireland_under_Ireland (permalink)
• User_talk:Jc37#Category:People_by_city_or_town_in_Northern_Ireland (permalink)
• User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Note (permalink)

If this was simply a case of a contested closure, where discussion with the closing admin had not produced agreement, I would have gone to WP:DRV. However, in this odd case, the closing admin is edit-warring to uphold an edit which is unsupported by his own closing statement, which means that there is nothing for DRV to examine. So 3RR seems like the best place to go. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Comments:

• I think it's Stale for now, but a block is in order if he reverts again. Pinging Jc37. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

1. "Google Scholar's top publications in Philosophy".

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring