Page

Peter III of Aragon (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Diffs of 3RR warning

• [1].
• [2].
• [3].
• [4].
• [5].
• [6].

Comments:
User:Srnec violated the rule of three reversions and this is not the first timethat he do it.--EeuHP (talk)11:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarks: In defense ofSrnec , just checkthe history onPeter III of Aragón. I suspect that the IP88.21.38 is the same as the party reporting this incident who is bent on imposing his criteria. See also discussion page of the respective article on an attempt to reach a consensus. --Maragm (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC) pd. Perhaps a checkuser can confirm or disavow my suspicions. --Maragm (talk)12:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

You can suspect all that you wish, but I know that I'm not the IP. AndSrnec violated the rule by third time and it's time for him to be apperceived.--EeuHP (talk)12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article so that the IP can no longer disrupt the article before consensus is reached on the talk page.DrKiernan (talk)12:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And with regard to the violation of the rule of three reversals?--EeuHP (talk)12:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection will prevent further disruption. Any further action would be punitive rather than preventative.DrKiernan (talk)13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but this is thethird time that this user violate the rule. Three violations and zero warning is a very bad example.--EeuHP (talk)13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remarks The above user has been blocked several timesfor edit warring.--Maragm (talk)13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The reported user has a clean block log and has not technically breached the rule since there are no more than 3 reverts in each 24-hour period. The IP, however, has broken the rule.DrKiernan (talk)13:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the rule say this but also sayAny appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Let's see his recent history.

Peter III of Aragon. January 2014

• 19:14 - 25 January
• 19:45 - 25 January
• 21:06 - 25 January
• 04:58 - 27 January
• 03:53 - 28 January

Petronilla of Aragon. October 2013

• 19:14 - 6 October
• 20:59 - 6 October
• 21:46 - 6 October
• 02:47 - 7 October (have not been 24 hours)

Considering how certain things are overlooked, it is normal for some users to have clean records.--EeuHP (talk)14:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The time difference between 21:06 25 January and 04:58 27 January is obviously more than 24 hours. Besides which, Srnec undid his own revert anyway[7], so there is no violation. On the Petronilla example, as you were told when you reported it in February 2014, that matter is stale[8][9]. Besides which I see you reverting at 14:32, 20:53, 21:40,and 21:51 on 6 October 2013‎ and 13:38 on 7 October 2013‎: 5 reverts in 24 hours, immediately after you came off a block for edit-warring on Nicholas II. The matter is closed, move on.DrKiernan (talk)15:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. Three reversions in 24 hours (with the help of others users of his gang that replace him in the reversal task when he approached the limit) and other after the limit. When the offense is clear, it is not seen and expires. When the offense is interpretable, it is interpreted in his favor. The strong language is not necessary. This situation speaks for itself.

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." --EeuHP (talk)16:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note It's certainly worth noting that the OP just came off of a 3 month block for edit-warring on thevery same article.Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}18:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have blockedUser:EeuHP for six months for continued disruption during and after expiration of their last block, including probable sock puppetry, the filing of retaliatory reports on this board, personal attacks, and false claims.--Bbb23 (talk)19:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Halloween (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Minor phrase words edits"
2. 19:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 19:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Maybe in the United States but not in Europe"
4. 20:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610836483 byEvergreenFir (talk)"
5. 20:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Inaccurate claim maybe in the United States but not in Europe."
6. 20:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610838825 byEvergreenFir (talk)"
7. 20:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Inaccurate claim maybe in the United States but not in Europe."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule onHalloween. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edit warring over lead sentence */ new section"

• Note. Overlapping administrators. I was troubled by what appeared to me as an edit war by both users and was about to say that here. At the same time, another user (probable sock of the reported user) came along to support the probable master. Not quite prepared to block both accounts, I locked the article. MeanwhileFavonian blocked both accounts as sock puppets, a reasonable conclusion. I've since unlocked the article as no longer needed, which puts it back in PC 1 status.--Bbb23 (talk)21:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:User talk:Soffredo#October 2013

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:User talk:Soffredo#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox of Elizabeth II;Talk:Elizabeth II/Archive 29#Niue and the Cook Islands in the Infobox;Talk:Elizabeth II#Number of realms

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of72 hoursSpike Wilbury (talk)12:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Doctor Who (series 8) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610926448 byG S Palmer (talk)Please just trust me. I'm not lying or trying to create arguments. If you don't believe me then you can buy DWM. It is a good read and has my proof"
2. 13:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610925152 byDonQuixote (talk) I have previously stated that I got this quote from Doctor Who Magazine Issue 474. I'm sure you are aware that I cannot directly cite a magazine"
3. 12:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "I can quote: "the new episode, which is written by Peter Harness and will air as the seventh story in this Autumns run", "recording on the other episode of Block Four - Episode 8 written by Jamie Mathieson - also took place in May"."
4. 11:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "It is fairly obvious that I cannot directly source a magazine. Buy it for yourself if you don't believe me, it's only £5. Just trust me that this information is 100% correct because DWM is licensed by the BBC."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of36 hours.G S Palmer, next time please warn the IP of edit warring. The only reason I'm blocking is because they reverted after you filed this report and notified them of it. In addition, it would have been constructive to talk to the IP, either on their talk page or on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk)14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[19]

Comments:

User is holding firm to his preferred phrasing of "Macedonian (Greek Latin)" as the identification of Simona Halep's ethnicity, as opposed to how others have identified her as being "Aromanian". Even after I provided a source where it is clear that she self-identifies as Aromanian he still reverts back to his preferred identification. Additionally, he has been rather abusive on the article talk page, with statements such as "Be CALM and RESPECT the OTHERS!! You are not the Master of Europe and the wiki-romanians dont have the right to command the people's name in the ENGLISH language". And just to note: I havezero connection with the Romanian Wikipedia.Tabercil (talk)17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, situation has changed. I'd placed the warning here about his edits as I was the other party involved in the warring and wanted a fresh set of eyes to see what has occured. But since then the user has made additional edits elsewhere which were purely disruptive in an attempt to make his point (namely moving the articles onAromanians,Aromanian language,Greeks andRomanians). That makes it a different matter altogether.Tabercil (talk)18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hours.Tabercil (talk)18:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Page:The Lego Movie (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:NiamhBurns10 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:My post on the editor's talk page that was quicklyremoved. User proceeded to move the postto my talk page, before addingthis.

Comments:

Editor has behaved immaturely and argued against valid points with no valid reasoning. Though unrelated, editor has also been warned for vandalism twice, which can be seen onthe editor's talk page. While the editor initially appeared to be working ingood faith, his/her manner of dispute resolution is not in keeping with our standards.Corvoe(speak to me)19:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. BlackKite kite(talk)19:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Page

Brand.com (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Remove unsourced information from intro. Also removing information on paid Wikipedia. They no longer appear to offer it and cannot use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia. Also made last paragraph more neutral."
2. 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Except you must not have read the refs beford you reverted. Also, as Diva is an editir being paid to destroy tbis page, there is definite a COI. Sorry, but yiur bias is focused in the wrong editir."
3. 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "If yiu want a consensus, you need to revert article to BEFORE you staeted editing. That's 2, please read up on the 3 revery rule."
4. 23:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Youre rught. i wont revert, i will just roll back to a week agi before Diva destriyed the page. We can both duscuss there and see if a consensus can be reached."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Harassment of other users onTalk:Brand.com. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit byBeloyiseBurron (talk) to last revision by GenuineDiva. (TW)"

It was actually 3 reverts from 2 different editors before this report. My "reverts" are being used as a way to block me from commenting on the issues with the page. The 3rd edit that I did was not a revert of a previous editor. It was restoring edits so that a consensus can be made. Please check talk page and COI noticeboard. --BeloyiseBurron (talk)23:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

1. 23:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC) on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard "Signing comment byBeloyiseBurron - "/* Brand.com */""

Comments:

Came across this in recent changed. Editor seems to be asingle purpose account singularly for editing this article. Was warned to not violate 3RR and did so regardless.♥ Solarra ♥^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷_{♀ 投稿 ♀}23:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

An SPI reverting and restoring exits of another SPI who is trying to weigh too heavily on what he thinks instead of what they say. As stated, we can discuss on talk page, but leaving the bias content of a SPI while not letting another SPI weigh in simplyis not in the spirit of the 3RR policy .— Precedingunsigned comment added byBeloyiseBurron (talk •contribs)23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added as much as is necessary to the talk page of the article and WP:COIN, I leave it to smarter people than I.GenuineDiva (talk)23:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

AccusingGenuineDiva of being asock puppet when it isnot true is a serious offense and can be considered apersonal attack.♥ Solarra ♥^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷_{♀ 投稿 ♀}23:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be. My apologies as I meant SPA not SPI --BeloyiseBurron (talk)23:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hours. This block is for a breach ofWP:3RR. However, I am troubled by what appears to be impliedWP:OUTING by the now-blocked user.--Bbb23 (talk)00:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Poverty in Poland (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Piotrus (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),Volunteer Marek (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Piotrus:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]

Volunteer Marek:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]

Comment: these two users constantly revert a sourced version to an unsourced version and justify it with OR comments at talk. Edit warring is unacceptable and so is removal of information based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT only. Nasty edit summaries likethis are totally unacceptable, too.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[32],[33]

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

Comments:

Riiighhht. A user account created a week ago with about ten edits, who knows about NPOV, Wikiquette, 3RR, and to go running to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports to get their sketchy edits restored. And oh yeah, named "Patriot Donbassa", which is mangled Polish. Whose talk page comments and edits appear to be intended to start fights between people.

It's an obvious sockpuppet created for the purposes of trolling.Volunteer Marek (talk)10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Patriot Donbassa (Патриот Донбасса) means 'Donbass Patriot' in Russian. Neither Polish nor mangled, my friend. One should take a closer look at Volunteer's edits accross Eastern Europe topics. He's constantly edit warring and being disruptive:[34],[35],[36]. How long can this circus go on?Patriot Donbassa (talk)10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

...who quickly found (failed) AN/I reports. No. Not a sockpuppet. Can't be. Not here to cause trouble and disruption. Gosh no. Please.Volunteer Marek (talk)10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

SeeAnd you are lynching Negroes. The amount of disruption you're causing in each and every su8bject you touch is a whole magnitude more serious than any problems I've caused with my 20 or so edits, all well sourced and neutral.Patriot Donbassa (talk)10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

...and not even bothering to deny it. And arguing about "old stuff".Volunteer Marek (talk)10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What Volunteer Marek said. It's clearly a case of a trolling sock. First, this report has no merit (3RR rule was not broken). I became aware of this when on the article I created (poverty in Poland) I saw a problematic edit summary[37] that clearly implies that the editor's sole reason for reverting was that he followed another editor with the intent to undo his edits (the followed editor was Volunteer Marek). I reverted that inconstructive edit, and repeated it twice more as Patriot Donbass did not provide any reasonable argument for restoring it (I agree with VM that the edit is problematic, as I explained on talk). His edits to that article and talk page seem to fit the description of VM as being disruptive and aiming at creating battleground atmosphere; his edits there are neither neutral or well sources (after running out of reverts, he added another baiting, non-neutral edit -[38]). Further indication that Patriot Donbass is not an innocent newbie can be gleamed from the fact that less than 25 edits and in about one week since creating his new account, this user knows how to file a proper 3RR report, is familiar with the template warning system to issuea {{uw-ew}} warning (in his 22nd edit ever), and shows further familiarity with Wikipedia policies ([39]) as well as (and that's a clincher here) indicates familiarity with my edit history at least as far back as Feb/March when I stood for adminship. I think this is enough to see that we are dealing with a disruptive account, a sock of a more experienced user, in all likelyhood a banned one (or one created to avoid getting the puppetmaster account banned). I'd suggest blocking this account, and if one needs to look for a specific bureacratic justification, please note that this sock is primarily active in topics related to Eastern Europe, thus falling withinWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}10:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

My edits to the Ukrainian topic are all neutrally worded and explained at talk. Unlike Volunteer Marek's, that add loaded language and biased claims. Compare:[40],[41]. It's clear who's following NPOV and who's adding cheap agitprop. And as far asstalking is concerned, it's Marek, who's following my edits, such as the ones I made toNew Russia Party. Gubarev was a communist party member before founding the New Russia Party - what kind of a clown would seriously call him a 'far-right figure' anno 2014? It's stupid and I removed it, after a filter had prevented me from arguing the point at talk.Patriot Donbassa (talk)10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Ukrainian topics are not relevant here; we are talking about you following Volunteer Marek topoverty in Poland article, edit warring there, and adding baiting, disruptive content to the article and its talk.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) SeeNational Bolshevism. Yes there's a faction of "Communist neo-Nazis" in Russia. And that's in the article. And it's well sourced. And you're removing well sourced info to push a POV. And you probably already know all this. But all that is beside the point.

BTW, in regard to that edit filter thing preventing some of your edits - you don't happen to be using a proxy to edit are you? That's what could be causing you problems.Volunteer Marek (talk)10:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: The content I added toPoverty in Poland was not disruptive. It was and is adequately sourced. If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today[42], then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him. But I stand by my words that Marek's edits to Ukrainian topics are practically all highly one-sided. An experienced user should really have at least a pretense of following NPOV.

@VM: where is the source saying Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine is 'national bolshevik' or 'far-right'? Riiight. There aren't any. at least in the respective article. Avoiding emotionally loaded labels in disputed topics is really elementary. And no, I'm not using proxies.Patriot Donbassa (talk)10:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Btw, it's getting besides the point here, but yes, national Bolshevism does exist but it is exactly what it is called: National Bolshevism. It's not fascism. And it's not 'far-right' either. Calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi or a fascist or far-right is a cheap rhetorical trick.Patriot Donbassa (talk)11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

"If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today, then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him" - I don't think this admission of stalking needs further clarification. Wikipedia is not a place were editors are invited to operate using the attitude "if you leave my articles alone I will not disrupt your articles". If you have disputes with VM on some Ukrainian articles, discuss it there, DO NOT follow him to others just to revert him because you have a dispute with him somewhere else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm a newby and I made a mistake. A single mistake, as I got angry. How about asking VM politely not to follow dozens of his perceived enemies around Wikipedia, too? Did you see e.g. complaint by B01010100:It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources or by Joe Bodacious:Within minutes he followed me to another article. Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them /.../ I believe that this may be an example of WP:HOUNDING. Or by Lokalkosmopolit:Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article he had never edited before. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?.
What about that? Shall you discuss the issue on Gadu-Gadu?Patriot Donbassa (talk)11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for even-handedness let us include the other reverts:

• 09:43, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
• 09:06, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
• 08:56, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Volunteer Marek
• 23:44, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek
• 23:40, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek

--Toddy1 (talk)11:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, no-one is blameless here. For the record, VM's two reverts against me on an article unrelated toPoverty in Poland:

• 10:26, 1 June 2014
• 10:36, 1 June 2014‎

I explained the problem with those reverts above in detail.Patriot Donbassa (talk)11:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another revert, this time atAlexander Prokhanov.

• 1 June 2014. ES: ″rvt sockpuppet/stalker/troll″

My previous ES explaining my changes:fixed lead - Zavtra is: stalinist, nationalist, antisemitic. in a word - right-wing is misleading. Republican Party is right-wing. PiS is right-wing. Are they close to Zavtra (toilet) paper? Nope

VM chose to revert blindly an obvious improvement.Patriot Donbassa (talk)11:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The reference by Patriot Donbassa to "discussing on Gadu-Gadu" (a Polish IRC client) as well asthis edit summary (that whole comment is an obvious troll) are both thinly veiled references to stuff from long time ago and Wikipedia history. One references an ArbCase from something like 2007, the other one the fact that MyMoloboaccount and Piotrus have known each other on Wikipedia for a long time (it's from Goethe's "Sorcerer Apprentice"). So this Patriot Donbassa person is NOT JUST sockpuppeting, trolling and stalking, they actually WANT certain editors (like myself and Piotrus) to KNOW that they are a sockpuppet and that they're engaging inWP:HARASSMENT by making these thinly veiled references which are not immediately obvious to uinvolved editors.

His little "no-one's blameless here" schtick above is just another way of saying "sure, block my throwaway account I just created a few days ago, what do I care, just please block these people I don't like to". It's a cynical piece of dishonesty. I'm sure whatever differences MyMoloboaccount and I have about the articles in question we can work them out fine without their pouring of gasoline on the fire. Note that the issue was already being addressed anyway asthis discussion on my talk indicates (note the involvement of outside parties, including at least one admin)

Can someone please block this jerk already?Volunteer Marek (talk)11:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the trolling is obvious to us. But for an uninvolved admin, it would require at least a few minutes of investigation. Not something that is likely to happen. I recommend asking for a block at AE or ANI citing the above policies and rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protectedCallanecc (talk •contribs •logs)11:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • User:Callanecc: Would you mind rethinking this? This is not a case of an edit war between two parties who are not talking to one another and need to be forced to talk; it's the case of a trolling sock with <50 edits disrupting an article. Me and Volunteer Marek have between us something like 300,000 edits, fifteen years of Wikipedia editing experience, and thousands of articles created, many of them on the topics of Polish economy. In other words, when we call an editor a trolling sock, which I, for once, don't do often then every two or three years, there's a chance we may know what we are talking about. Would you do us the courtesy or looking at our arguments, presented above, a bit more closely? This article doesn't need protection, it needs a single disruptive troll who started edit warring there not to improve it but to harass another editor banned from it (if not blocked from this project entirely). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm also not happy with the result, but protecting a page in case of a content dispute for settling the issue is common practice. I would appreciate if Callaneck took a look at all those diffs concerningVolunteer Marek (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) user conduct. At least 3 users have recently claimed Marek was harassing them, I presented diffs of VM revenge edit warring against me on a number of articles today. I have justified my edits in the Ukrainian/Russian topics, see:Talk:New_Russia_Party,Talk:Alexander Prokhanov. Marek just reverts his perceived enemies until you're blue in the face. It's him trolling, not me! Just read my arguments at those 2 talk pages! I'm not the only one complaining about his daily misconduct.Donbass Patriot Man (talk)13:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • One of those three accounts you are saying had concerns about VM editing has been indef'ed (Lokalkosmopolit (talk ·contribs)), so it appears VM was quite right in his view of them. 95% of contribution of another one is (this year at least) limited to discussion space and AN(I), a good sign of another troublemaker. Not the best character witnesses you could call upon... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, I noticed that Local was banned for comments concerning Islam. VM and Local however had disputes concerning the Ukraine/Russia matter, so VM was hardly correct in 'prophesying' Local's problems. The fact is: VM is the real troublemaker in Eastern European topics, Ukraine/Russia in particular and should be banned from editing this topic. And drop please those edit count things, shall you? Editcountitis can be fatal. No-one has the right to treat constructive users like garbage just because they edit WP less often.Donbass Patriot Man (talk)13:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Patriot Donbassa - you probably do not know this, but making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against Wikipedia policies and goals. Unless you have specific evidence that Marek has "enemies", you should not be making such statements. please readWP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.--Toddy1 (talk)13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I provided 3 diffs from 3 different users (I admit that I don't know them personally of course!) that had recently demonstrably (diffs available!) complained of harassment by a user, whose today's conduct I also characterized as harassing me and disrupting totally constructive work I was doing in Ukraine/Russia-related articles. Diffs are there. Explanations are here and at talk pages. How is that not 'evidence'? What else is needed?Donbass Patriot Man (talk)13:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
            • If you search through any long-standing and very active editor's history you can easily find complaints about him/her. This is especially true if you accept at face-value complaints from editors who were later blocked as a result of their conduct. My perception is that Patriot Donbassa is clutching at straws.--Toddy1 (talk)13:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
              • All right, let us concentrate on today and leave the older complaints aside, as I have neither the time nor desire to dig myself into all those details. What VM was doing today can be seen here ([43]) and here[44]. He reached the first of those by following my edits (no previous edits by him to this article). He initiated an edit war against totally legitimate improvements in terms of BLP, NPOV and encyclopedic style. I explained my views ingreat detail. VM was unable to offer any explanation for his revert warring, any substantiated objection to my edits. And now he claims I should be banned ASAP! Also, his lastedit (revert of Lokalkosmopolit's months old edit) is similarly 'illiterate' from the political science/NPOV perspective. I'm willing to explain this really minor but telling thing in detail, but what's the point? None of you wants to get your hands tied by reprimanding a user whose block log looks like it does but who has lots of powerful allies on-Wiki.Donbass Patriot Man (talk)13:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
                • This edit that Patriot Donbassa referred to above certainly was not a legitimate edit. The information was an accurate reflection of what the source said, and Patriot Donbassa changed it to say something quite different.--Toddy1 (talk)15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Iggy Azalea discography (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "What's the point of including countries with no chart info? UK R&B is more relevant than France, Germany and Austria considering the album/singles didn't chart there.... Most urban artists HAVE the R&B/hip-hop charts listed on their wikipedia discography,"
2. 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Updated US album sales, some singles peaks w/ sources and removed countries with no chart information."
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */ Updated sources for current positions."
4. 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 20:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

ConnieGB has been blocked recently for edit warring and I have warned89.155.180.224 about violatingWP:BADCHARTS. He hasn't listened. I recommend 72 hours for 89 and a week for Connie.Launchballer17:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Launchballer}} Thanks for notice me. The user anom was revert for other editors, see[45]. Please, can you explain to the user that only countries can be on the tables according to the format. Thanks. Regards.Connie (A.K) (talk)17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

{{Launchballer}} hasn't existed since 2009, you meanLaunchballer. I have explained to the user on his talk page - he didn't listen, and that's why we're here.--Launchballer17:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)17:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Iggy Azalea discography (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "only countries can be there. Fix"
2. 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""words to watch"WP:NPOV 10 countries completed"
3. Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "undid edits by 89.155.180.224 unexplained changes"
   2. 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "m."
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "undid to last version by Mayast"
   2. 20:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "update"
   3. 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "not entry o media control"
5. 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "WP:NPOV, don't add charts irrelevants please. Just countries on the table"
6. Consecutive edits made from 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "not entry on media control"
   2. 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "fix"
7. Consecutive edits made from 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
   1. 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "undid"
   2. 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "updates and a chart"
   3. 18:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "change, not used"
   4. 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "+"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Blocked – for a period of5 days.--Bbb23 (talk)17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Steven Beitashour (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

Bowser2500 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Restoring full name"
2. 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610857214 byWalter Görlitz (talk) Seetalk"
3. 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610865781 byWalter Görlitz (talk) "Made-up"? Easy with your accusations there, bud. Seetalk"
4. 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Citation added"
5. 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Possibly a more reliable news outlet"
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Beitashour&curid=26913715&diff=610872554&oldid=610869372

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates onSteven Beitashour. (TW)"
2. 01:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */ Verify credibility"
3. 01:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule onSteven Beitashour. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Moving from my talk page and responding"
2. 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Full name */ Not RSes"

Comments:

Editor is new and does not seem to understand discussion.Walter Görlitz (talk)01:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Didn't mean to start edit warring, & the reverted edits were before the recent ones where more constructive edits have been made by both Walter and I. Sources have been added and comments have been left onSteven Beitashour's talk page.--Bowser2500 (talk)02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So, how exactly areboth not edit warring, Walter? --Spike Wilbury (talk)12:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Declined Filing party didn't respond to query, edit war has ceased.Spike Wilbury (talk)13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps when asking for information from another editor, you could actually{{ping}} that editor, use feedback, or inform them of the question in some other way.

I was edit warring, but did not go past three reverts. My reverts were all done withing editing guidelines. When I realized that I might break 3RR, I started added templates to gain consensus from a larger community: no reverting there, which were removed, which is clearly disruptive editing. I started the discussions to attempt to resolve. I sought input from the football project to seek greater discussion.Walter Görlitz (talk)21:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Another instance where an editor reverts five times, clearly breaking 3RR and it's declined because some bureaucrat decides some question is more important than editing guidelines.Walter Görlitz (talk)21:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I assumed you would keep an eye on your own report and not have to be pinged to go back and answer a question. And yes, getting questions answered is often pertinent before just handing out blocks. I would have declined it anyway, because you were both edit warring no matter how you paint it. Better to protect the page and allow for discussion, which can't occur at all if both parties are blocked. I'm not sure what you wish to accomplish by calling me names. --Spike Wilbury (talk)22:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Misandry (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Snuffie18 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47] - manual revert of an edit from a prior day
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion atTalk:Misandry#Relevance_problem

Comments:
EWing User is anWP:SPA set toWP:RGW.Ian.thomson (talk)20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)WP:RGW andWP:SPA, while relevant essays, are not policy. I acknowledge that the user edit warred and that's what this discussion is primarily about. I have left a notice on their talk stating for themselves to self revert, at the advice ofWP:3RR, in a move to hopefully have the reviewing admin become more lenient on them.Tutelary (talk)20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing on misandry or related topics in the nearby future. (Snuffie18 (talk)20:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

@Snuffie18: It's not so much that you're editing them that's the problem. The reason of this noticeboard is foredit warring, and breaking of the bright line ofthree revert rule, which states that an editor should perform no more than three reverts on an article, no matter if they were different content, per day. Why I noticed on your talk page for you to self revert, is that self reverting, even though you're already on the noticeboard, demonstrates that you acknowledged that you broke the rule, and are hoping for leniency from the reviewing admin as it shows that you understand what you did wrong, and won't do it again. It doesn't guarantee a non-block, but it will be acknowledged and put into the equation on whether this behavior merits a block. As well,being a single purpose account doesnot mean you're not allowed to edit those topics. In fact, as long as you don't edit war, performNeutral point of view contributions, and act with civility, among abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to edit those topics.Tutelary (talk)20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion politics should be kept as far away from information and facts as possible. That's what led to the frustration with the misandry page in the first place, because I felt there it was pushed away from npov by two users. And that's why I won't edit on it for at least a while, nor on anyhting related. As for the 3 revert rule, I believe that I didn't make more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. (Snuffie18 (talk)21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC))

• Note. The article has been fully protected four a month byMike V.Snuffie18, I'm not going to block you, but I srongly urge you to readWP:3RR carefully. You in fact made four reverts in 24 hours as revert is defined in the policy. Your first edit at 7:47 UTC is a revert. The other three are obvious.--Bbb23 (talk)22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:LogFTW (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. At 11:49 the user reverted an edit made at 10:45 by another user[52]
2. At 12:18 the user reverted an edit made at 12:07 by me[53]
3. At 17:52 the user reverted an edit made at 13:08 by another user[54]
4. At 21:16 the user reverted edits made at 19:03 and 20:08 by both another user and me respectively[55]

This page is under 1 revert rule protection, so any 2 of these diffs is a violation.

Furthermore the user has already received 1 revert rule sanctions warning on his talkpage.Sopher99 (talk)01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. PerWP:SCWGS, LogFTW has been blocked for 48 hours. Sopher99, who violatedWP:1RR, has been topic banned for three months.--Bbb23 (talk)08:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Union, Progress and Democracy (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611068419 byValenciano (talk) These translations are incompatible according to the explanation, included in the article, about the party name meaning."
2. 18:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611110189 bySfs90 (talk)"
3. 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611132074 byValenciano (talk) Ridiculous excuse to revert my edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Constant edit warring on the page. The user was warned on their talk page about WP:3RR and are fully familiar with it, since they posted a 3RR warning onUser_talk:Sfs90#Union.2C_Progress_and_Democracy_2. The i.p. is also single mindedly focused on the name of the party, a concern they share with blocked sockmasterUser:Javier93h. There is a good possibility that these accounts are one and the same.Valenciano (talk)12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hoursCallanecc (talk •contribs •logs)13:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Page 1:Peoria Charter Coach Company (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Page 2:Lincoln Land express (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Users being reported:174.152.185.161 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),174.146.29.31 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log),User-multi error: "174.146.5.102" is not a valid project or language code (help).

Previous version reverted to:

For Page 1 (Peoria Charter Coach Company):[56]

For Page 2 (Lincoln Land express):[57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

For Page 1 (Peoria Charter Coach Company):

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

For Page 2 (Lincoln Land express):

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not given, since it's not a 3RR yet and is unlikely to become one, because the same person seems to be reverting from different IPs, so no single IP is likely to violate 3RR. I, however, have reverted the IPs twice already, and will soon be in violation of 3RR if I continue reverting.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, since I don't understand how it is a BLP issue, and the AfD template was malformed, without any deletion rationale. Also, I have a CoI with Suburban Express, so I would rather not engage directly with this person and let others deal with this.

Comments:

A series of IPs (174.146.29.31,174.146.5.102,174.152.185.161, maybe others), likely block-evading socks of ArbCom-blockedUser:Arri at Suburban Express, the owner ofSuburban Express, are edit-warring on the articles of competitorsPeoria Charter Coach Company andLincoln Land express, and also editing theSuburban Express page. AnSPI has been filed byUser:Gulugawa. ‎AlmostGrad (talk)15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Some people are rverting the changes of this page which is highly nonconstructive and disrespectful to this man Dr.Ambedkar who is the father of Indian institution.

The Father of India Constitution (Dr.Ambedkar's page).

First Law minister of India - Dr.Ambedkar . (Is Indian Lawyer a better name?) It should be Jurist. Father of Indian Constitution (Largest Indian Democracy) - Dr. Ambedkar . (Is this line to be removed?) Philosopher - He wrote several books on Buddhism such as Buddha or Karl Marx, Buddha and his Dhamma etc., Riddles in Hinduism etc. (Words were removed)

Barack Obama praised him when he came to India. Noble Prize Winner Amartya Sen calls him his father in Economics. (Economist) The Table concering his writings and speeches were removed without any proper justification.Siddheart (talk)20:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this page it apears that the only personin breech likely to breechof the 3RR rule appears to be yourself. Agree it needs looking at but it appears you might haveshot yourself in the foot here.Amortias (T)(C)20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Also can someone move this into the correct format as it appears t have been added to the previous article instead of a new section - im unsure on restricitons for reordering this page myself.Amortias (T)(C)20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Siddheart for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Joni Ernst (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Tiller54 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tiller54 telling others to stop edit warring:[69]

Comments:
Tiller54 and Cwobeel are tag teaming anyone who disagrees with their edits to the Joni Ernst article. They just revert and tell people they are wrong.--NK (talk)23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. So many editors in the battle, and they probably should all be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk)00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Page

Roosh V (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

Cla68 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "This is a BLP and pejorative labels are thus avoided. The citations don't support putting this pejorative a label on this person."
2. 22:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611298952 byPearlSt82 (talk)remove BLP violation as explained on talk page. 3rr doesn't apply when protecting a BLP"
3. 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611302403 by31.205.21.96 (talk)reverting pejorative label, per WP:BLP. 3RR does not apply"
4. 02:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611316214 byEvergreenFir (talk)revert of pejorative term from a BLP. 3RR does not apply"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Roosh V */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Sex tourist */"

Comments:

User is asserting BLP protection despite the term not being overly pejorative, sourced, and in the article from its creation. User refuses to engage in dialogue.EvergreenFir (talk)02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Result -Page protected (full) for three days. Can folks please lay out their arguements on the talk page andplease seek a broader input - BLP noticeboard etc. as a priority?Cas Liber (talk·contribs)02:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NB: if anyone reverts without a developing consensus after three days, would strongly consider blocks at that point.Cas Liber (talk·contribs)02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to this.EvergreenFir (talk)02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to lock article - locked now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs)02:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Thomas Piketty (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:66.185.200.1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:03, 3 June 2014‎
2. 12:11, 3 June 2014‎
3. 12:28, 3 June 2014
4. 12:40, 3 June 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[71]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Thomas_Piketty#Reception_section

Comments: The proposal to include the misleading statement regarding the FT article has been soundly rejected on the BLP.Hipocrite (talk)12:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked the IP address not so much because of the edit-warring at the article (where they seem to have made no more than three reverts –this edit does not appear to be a revert), as their actions atUser talk:Hipocrite (where they violatedWP:3RR unambiguously, and as part of what seems to have been a harassment or intimidation campaign – see[72],[73],[74] and others).SuperMarioMan(talk )15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit you link to is, in fact, a revert - it reverts[75].Hipocrite (talk)15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a gap. Thank you for the clarification.SuperMarioMan(talk )16:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Useitorloseit (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[76]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not an article, removing irrelevantWP:BLP-violating material from a discussion regarding the editor's behavior (including, among other things, edit warring)

Comments:
Content being removed violatesWP:BLP, editor has prior blocks forsingularlyaxe-grinding on aWP:BLP. Topic ban discussions are ongoing, but they'd be easier (and probably better for him) without him.Ian.thomson (talk)01:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I am the user. My response to a post on ANI asking for me to be topic banned keeps getting edited by those opposed. I think this is just vandalism. I should be allowed to write my own reply, without those opposed trying to delete it. 3RR doesn't apply to obvious vandalism to your own replies by involved, opposing editors.Useitorloseit (talk)01:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

SeeWP:NOTVAND. You are not allowed to violateWP:BLP in a discussion onyourtendentious behavior.Ian.thomson (talk)02:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You are just engaging in vandalism.Useitorloseit (talk)02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No, but you just made a personal attack.WP:NOTVAND excludes "Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under the biographies of living persons policy."WP:NPA does include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."Ian.thomson (talk)02:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm closing this thread to put out aForestFire; handling it atWP:ANI rather than here. --Floquenbeam (talk)02:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Page:Whitehouse Institute of Design (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Surturz (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 05:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 03:58, 4 June 2014(edit summary: "Undid revision 611353170 byThe Drover's Wife (talk) rv -WP:RECENT vio")
2. 05:23, 4 June 2014(edit summary: "rvWP:RECENT vio - see talk")
3. 05:46, 4 June 2014(edit summary: "Undid revision 611484449 byAlans1977 (talk) rv -WP:RECENT/WP:EVENT concerns. Please address those concerns on the talkpage")

• Diff of warning:here