Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive194

User:131.217.255.209 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: Protected)

Page: Liberal Party of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 131.217.255.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 06:43, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 507962969 by Timeshift9 (talk)")
2. 06:44, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
3. 09:23, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "")
4. 10:00, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508589195 by Timeshift9 (talk)")
5. 11:25, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Consensus sought")
6. 14:35, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508612946 by Frickeg (talk) No, it is correct, Howard is no liar.")
7. 23:46, 22 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508698693 by Frickeg (talk) Analysing the content page shows the consensus is this, not the wrong information.")
8. 01:18, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Authoring a bunch of pages on Wikipedia and saying "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" apply to so and so does not make it so. Timeshift9 is the originator of this content and is redefining what the party's ideology against PM Howard.")
9. 01:26, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Correcting incorrect content in accordance with talk page consensus.")
10. 01:40, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508712951 by Timeshift9 (talk) Vandalism")
11. 01:44, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Correcting the wrong information is not vandalism. This is ridiculous. Look it up anywhere. It is not correct.")
12. 05:34, 23 August 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 508731023 by Timeshift9 (talk) Unexplained reversion of content.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Other users violating 3RR on that page:

• Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Diff 1

  Diff 2

  Diff 3

  Diff 4

  Diff 5

• Frickeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  Diff 1

  Diff 2

  Diff 3

  Diff 4

A certifiable mess. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, sorry I overstepped 3RR there - I had no idea, considering they were two entirely separate issues, one a pretty uncontroversial one, on a fairly busy page. Nonetheless, mea culpa. Frickeg (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

As I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian politics I won't action this, but I think that full page protection is the best response. There's nothing to be gained from blocking Timeshift9 and Frickeg, both of whom are highly experienced and very sensible editors. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. Will leave a note on the article talk page. Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Steelbeard1 reported by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Result: Page protected)

I came to CBS Records by following an incoming link and was surprised that the article was about the 2006 incarnation of the company, so I tried to add the missing information.

Page: CBS Records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [1] I add list of presidents and he reverts back to his original version.
• 2nd revert: [2] I add references and reword the lede and he reverts back to his original version.
• 3rd revert: [3] I add more references and add sections on the two incarnations of CBS Records as a compromise and he reverts back to his original version.
• 3rd revert: [4] I change back to the dual RCA Records version and point out all the incoming links are to the earliest incarnation of the company, and he reverts back to his original version, then the article is locked. There are ~1,500 incoming links for RCA Records (1962-1988) and maybe 4 or 5 for RCA Records (2006). He insists the 1,500 links belong to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records which are other business entities with relationships to RCA Records (1962-1988). Sony Music Entertainment bought RCA Records in 1988 and gained ownership of the Columbia Record label and the Epix Records label.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

• There are two incarnations of CBS Records as a business entity and there are 1,300 internal links to the article for CBS Records (1962-1988). Steelbeard1 insists that only the 2006 business entity should be in the article and reverts any and all changes to the article back to his version despite the addition of a half dozen references in the article from the New York Times and Billboard to the CBS Records (1962-1988) company with its own president. He insists that the CBS Records (1962-1988) version should be called Columbia Records despite the business news referring to it as CBS Records. Business structure is complex so we have to go with what the reliable sources use. If the New York Times says Clive Davis is the president of CBS Records and doesn't print a retraction, we have to assume that business entity existed and that is the correct name for it. For instance the New York Times reports: "Mr. Yetnikoff was instrumental in the sale of CBS Records to Sony in January 1988 for $2 billion. At the time, he signed a multiyear contract that was believed to have included a $20 million bonus. Mr. Yetnikoff was made president of CBS Records in 1975. Before that he was president of CBS Records International, which he took over in 1971. He had joined the company a decade earlier as a lawyer." All these internal links are to the earlier business entity and have nothing to do with the 2006 version of the company. If he wants to create a separate article called "CBS Records (2006)" he is welcome. That will take care of any links that may belong to the new business entity and save the hundreds of incoming links to the old entity. Here is my version of the article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That material belongs in the Sony Music Entertainment article. Once again, this incarnation of CBS Records was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment in 1991. All material regarding the pre-1991 CBS Records company belong in the Sony Music Entertainment article and all material regarding the pre-1991 CBS Records label belong in the Columbia Records article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sony Music Entertainment is a conglomerate that owns Columbia Records, Epic Records, RCA Records, Provident Label Group, Verity Gospel Music Group, Legacy Recordings, Columbia Records UK, RCA Label Group (UK) as businesses merge we don't make one massive article and redirect the older companies, we preserve previous business entities. None of the incoming links are to the 2006 business entity. We still have articles on all the companies that were bought by General Motors and by Volkswagen and by Ford. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

BEFORE CBS Records changed its name to Sony Music in 1991, its label portfolio included Columbia Records, Epic Records, CBS Records UK (now Columbia Records UK) and Legacy Recordings. After Sony Music merged with then acquired BMG Music, it added RCA Records among other labels. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute in which Richard Arthur Norton is inserting erroneous material involving the current incarnation of CBS Records. The 2006 incarnation of CBS Records is unrelated to earlier incarnations of CBS Records. In 1988, CBS sold CBS Records to the Sony Corporation and gave only a temporary license for Sony to use the CBS name. So in 1991, the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records and the CBS Records company was officially renamed Sony Music Entertainment. The allowed later CBS parent CBS Corporation to form a new CBS Records in 2006. So besides the hatnote to direct the reader to either the Columbia Records article or the Sony Music Entertaiment article as well as the brief mention in the CBS Records article, all material regarding the former CBS Records entities belong in the Columbia Records or Sony Music Entertainment articles. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hundreds of incoming links are to the pre 1988 CBS Records. Reliable sources in GNews all refer to a business entity called "CBS Records" prior to the new incarnation in 2006. Clive Davis was president. CBS Records is not a synonym for Sony Music Entertainment or for Columbia Records. Business subsidiaries are complex so we have to rely on what the reliable sources say. If the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Variety and Billboard all refer to "CBS Records" prior to 2006, we have to go with the reliable sources even, if an editor says the truth is that CBS Records did not exist prior to 2006 as a business entity, and is just a synonym for Sony Music Entertainment and/or Columbia Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not the HUNDREDS of links which Norton refers, to. The link in the Talk:CBS Records page number more in the dozens so they are being corrected one by one. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)\

Here are the first 500 links here are the second tranche of 500 links here. Here is the third tranche of 391 links here for a total of 1,391 incoming links or which maybe a dozen are administrative links and not article links. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, on January 1, 1991, the CBS Records company was renamed Sony Music and the CBS Records label was renamed Columbia Records so any article from 1991 on which mention CBS Records are erroneous. See the news article at [7] Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would also like a ban on Steel from delinking the ~1,300 incoming links in other articles until the issue is settled. He is currently changing the CBS Records links to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. Business and legal entities are complex, and by changing the link you are changing the meaning of the content. If a reliable source says the group is signed to CBS Records we should not be changing it to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records. We need more reliable sources and less "truth". When you change the link you are making a subtle distortion from what the reliable source says is the correct business entity a group has signed with, they are not synonyms in either plain English or in the business world or in the legal world --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That leads to misleading errors so the corrections must be make. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You are misleading readers when you link to Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records when the reliable source says the business entity is called CBS Records. At Wikipedia we go with what the reliable source says and not what the editor feels the truth is. "Sony Corp., which acquired CBS Records Inc. in 1988, will change the music company's corporate name to Sony Music Entertainment Inc. under the terms of the aquisition agreement, the company announced Monday. CBS Inc. had agreed to allow Sony to use the CBS Records name for three years. The name change will take effect Jan. 1, 1991, but it won't affect the company's domestic record labels, which are Columbia, Epic, Associated and WTG." The business entity of record is CBS Records and the subsidiary labels are Columbia Records or Epic Records. They are not synonyms, so stick to what term the reliable sources use, and not what you feel the truth is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Source, please. Since January 1, 1991 the official business entity of the parent company of Columbia Records and Epic Records is Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude, no one is arguing with that. The 1,300 incoming links are to the business entity known as CBS Records that existed from 1962 to 1988 and that business name was used by Sony until 1991. Changing the article over and over to your version of the truth doesn't override how reliable sources use the name. The business entity is CBS Records from 1962 to 1988 and is not synonymous with Sony Music Entertainment or Columbia Records or Epic Records. Business entities are not synonyms, you can't use the subsidiary in the place of the larger business. We have to stick to the term the reliable source uses, so as not to cause semantic drift away from the original meaning. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Steel is speeding up his changes to articles that link to CBS Records since I posted the request for it to be stopped. Can I have a decision by an admin person to put the changes on hold while consensus is forming. Steel is causing Semantic drift in the information by linking the corporate name CBS Records to one of the subsidiary labels which is not the correct legal entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Norton is STILL in the wrong here. The CBS Records article is strictly about the 2006 incarnation. There are already hatnotes directing the reader to the correct former CBS Records entity. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the reason for that is because you stripped all the other information from the article and reverted it to your version 4 times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If Norton bothered to read the hatnote on the top of the CBS Records article, it reads: This article is about the record label founded in 2006. For the earlier CBS Records label, see Columbia Records. For the earlier CBS Records company, see Sony Music Entertainment. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In essence we have 1,300 votes from reliable sources that CBS Records (1962) is the proper landing page and not CBS Records (2006). Columbia Records and CBS Records and Sony Music Entertainment and Epic Records are not interchangeable synonyms. It is also bad-faith editing to continue to make changes to links while an Administrators' noticeboard notice has been posted and not been resolved. You are changing the 1,300 incoming links before a decision on consensus has been made. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The proper landing place for the 1962 CBS Records is Columbia Records as the CBS Records label was officially renamed Columbia Records in 1991. The intro mentioned the 1962-1990 CBS Records label at the start of the Columbia Records article and the history section begins with the 1960s subsection of the Columbia Records article which shows the "walking eye" CBS Records logo. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected by Beeblebrox. Take your content dispute to the article talk page. This page is not the place for it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Page: Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Guanxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

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

Addendum

• 6th revert: diff

Suggestion When showing diffs, it is very helpful to put them in chronological order.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10] [11]

Comments:
This editor doesn't have a lot of interest in discussion, he seems mainly interested in pushing through his changes over the objections of other editors. He wants to remove material on the basis that information from Reuters and the NY Times isn't reliably sourced, but when it suits him he sees nothing wrong adding coatrack material based on hearsay about a person's Facebook, even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the article. Unfortunately, racking up 5 reverts in 20 minutes makes this situation impossible to deal with without admin intervention. Belchfire-TALK 05:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you can see plenty of discussion and compromise on my part, as well as purely constructive edits going back a long way.

• Some of the edits Belchfire cites could not possibly be mistaken for reversions. Some even advanced Belchfire's POV.
• The only thing I reverted (without violating 3RR) was from an editor who declined to provide an NPOV RS citation for his statement. He asserted that the organization's own website and a Wikipedia page were sufficient (but still didn't cite them in the article). If you look at the talk page and his user talk page, I tried to help him and even offered to post the cite if had reached the 3RR limit.
• The last edit Belchfire cites was changed, by me, moments later, to attempt to compromise with Belchfire. Unless something has changed since I last looked, Belchfire has offered no compromise.
• This complaint seems like an waste of my time and this page.

guanxi (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that Belchfire claimed all of the edits were reverts to [12], but that's clearly not the case. Would Belchfire please identify what version he believes each one is a revert to? Otherwise, this case should be thrown out due to false evidence.

I'd also like to point out that this article is under WP:BLP, so we should not be including material unsupported by citations. That's precisely the issue with the "social welfare" claim. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A ludicrous claim if ever I saw one. The BLP exemption only applies to material that is potentially libelous. If there is anything of the sort going on here, it is to be found in diff #5, above, where such material was added by way of edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

What's ludicrous is that you apparently didn't read WP:BLP. We do not get to insert uncited material in BLP's. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:3RR. Purely for your benefit, since I'm quite sure everybody else understands it, here is the exemption: "7. Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." Since this is the EW noticeboard, anything else about BLP you would like to discuss is irrelevant here. I hope that helps. Belchfire-TALK 06:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to note again that what are incorrectly listed as reverts 2 and 5 are not actually restoring http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special_Operations_OPSEC_Education_Fund&diff=508881140&oldid=508879554, the way Belchfire claimed. It's not clear what, if anything, they're reverts to, and it's not our job to guess. Belchfire has to do his part in making the case. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is clear at this point. Note that when the other editor (mentioned in my second bullet point above) eventually provided a valid citation, I not only supported it on the Talk page, but repeated his/her statement and cite elsewhere in the article: [13] [14]. I'm going to move on to other things now; hopefully I'm no longer needed on this noticeboard. Thanks. guanxi (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's even clearer than that - 6 reverts in 75 minutes, over the objections of other editors and mostly prior to any meaningful discussion. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear at all: reverts to what? Your report falsely claims they were all reverts to a single version. Fix your report or close it down. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To the same article. And the issue is not even close - for a BLP exception the edit must clearly relate to a single person or small group of people -- to call an organization a "social welfare" organzation is not a BLP violation, and can not be used to excuse a revert on that basis. Guanxi is a "proper cop" here, despite jis opinion that this page "is a waste of time." The idea of WP:EW is to get folks to listen to the rules -- and the doscourse here by him (essentially "I don't care") is singularly unimpressive. Collect (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To what version? Belchfire has made a false claim. I'm giving him the chance to correct it by specifying, for each revert, what it's reverting to. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if "reverts" 2 and 5 were not real reverts, that still leaves 4. And, you (at least) still don't understand the meaning of "revert" for 3RR: A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. The report may not be properly formed (and it would be helpful to note, at the least, for each "revert", which edit was being (partially) reverted), but there's probably enough meat there for the closing admin to determine the facts of the matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that StillStanding-247 has a history of edit warring and has been blocked for such behavior, this is not surprising. --Mollskman (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The history is messy, but let me see if I can make some sense of it. I see five clear reverts of different material, but two were made consecutively (with no other users' edits in between).

• Reverts adding the text "...has taken extreme positions against President Obama..." that had previously been removed here:

[15], [16].

• Reverts removing the words "social welfare" that had previously been added here:

[17], [18], [19].

The first revert in each series were made in the same string of edits, and thus count as one revert, which gives us a total of 4RR.

Additionally, as best as I can tell, it looks like User:ViriiK and User:StillStanding-247 were both at 3RR, User:Belchfire was at 1RR or 2RR (depending on whether you call the first edit a revert or a bold edit), and User:Kenatipo, User:Arthur Rubin were at 1RR. In other words, protecting the article was a smart move.

In summary, the 6RR report was inflated, but there was a 4RR violation. That said, a block at this point would probably be more punitive than preventative, and I don't have an opinion on whether one should be issued. I commented because things seemed to be getting confused here so I thought I'd jump in and try to clear up the picture. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do Belchfire's work for him. Still, I'm pretty sure I was at 2RR, since that's my voluntary limit, but you're right that it doesn't matter so I won't dispute it. In the first place, it's not as if Guanxi was acting much differently than other editors, and now that the article is protected, blocking him would be punitive. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

StillStanding-247, 4rr, 3rr, 2rr, it doesn't really matter since you are still edit warring and have a history of doing such and have been blocked in the recent past for the same. Keep using the talk page. --Mollskman (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, I'm not. It's entirely normal for edits to include reverts even when you're not edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by The ed17 (talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just getting back to this ... I didn't realize 3RR applied to the whole page or I wouldn't have violated it; I thought it was just for reverting one edit. I'll know next time. So many rules, so little time ... I wish people would just focus on finding constructive agreements, as we did with the "social welfare" wording. guanxi (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Opn800 reported by User:Sionk (Result: 31h)

Page: User talk:Sionk (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Opn800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26][27]

Comments:
I'm not sure where else to ask for help. Opn800 has been resorting to personal abuse for several hours on my Talk page, following disagreements with a number of editors about changes to articles he has created. I (and another editor) have removed snide/sarcastic comments from my Talk page but these have been repeatedly reverted by Opn800. I have asked him to desist and explained it will be impossible to engage in constructive discussion until he does so. He is already aware of 3RR rule because of his actions on 'his' articles today. He has also received a formal warning from another editor about 'vandalism' to my Talk page. Sionk (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours for general disruptive editing. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: Protected)

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mollskman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28](for all but last)

• 1st revert: [29]
• 2nd revert: [30]
• 3rd revert: [31]
• 4th revert: [32]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:
While we'd be entirely within policy if we blocked him, I recommend page protection, instead. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that Still did not report ArdenHathaway which he's now at 6RR+'s reinserting the same off-topic content. I would suggest that the page is to remain off page protection or at least PP without the offending off-topic material. ViriiK (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Read up on page protection and you'll see that you don't get to demand that the "right" version is frozen in place. I didn't report Arden because he's obviously new here, so it would be punitive. Besides, he's actually more willing to use the Talk page than Mollskman. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So you conveniently ignored the rules on 3RR in order to accept ArdenHathaway's 6RR+ violations? You warn me and other users consistently of breaching 1RR and yet you are giving a pass to this edit-warrer? Did you even warn him that he broke the 3RR rule? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

And also unlike Mollskman, Arden engaged in personal attacks against other users. User_talk:ArdenHathaway#August_2012 ViriiK (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Still how can you make this statement Besides, he's actually more willing to use the Talk page than Mollskman. when anyone can go to the talk page and see it to not be true. Arden has made two comments on talk, Mollskman has made 9 (as of this comment). Arzel (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Not only that, Arzel, he used the talk page to attack other editors who were opposed to his inclusion on the basis that they are all paid PR flacks. ViriiK (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is all interesting, but how does it relate to protecting this page? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. ArdenHathaway blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring and for personal attacks. Mollskman warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the drama and I will try not to repeat this. --Mollskman (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:ArdenHathaway reported by User:ViriiK (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ArdenHathaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]
• 6th revert: [41]
• 7th revert: [42]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44] This was the user's only response to the talk page and he used a personal attack to accuse other editors of being paid PR flacks against Kathryn Bigelow. I am not a participant to that conversation. I did not edit there and I do observe that this user is edit-warring to reinsert the same contested material over and over again without even coming to consensus for insertion. ViriiK (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

There's a massive, ongoing edit war here. Rather than single out this editor, I suggest page protection. I suggested it when I reported another editor, and I've also formally requested it.[45] I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not so massive as you make it out to be. An admitted Kathryn Bigelow fan is edit-warring to reinsert the same offending material over and over again. As per above, you failed to warn him, knew he was edit-warring thus ignored his edit-warring habits and also he did not discuss on the talk page as you claimed him to have done so but instead used personal attacks claiming those who were opposed to his insertions were "Paid PR flacks". Mollskman has been a more active participant in the talk page unlike ArdenHathaway. ViriiK (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As the article has already been protected, a block would be inappropriate. If ViriiK's allegations are correct, a warning would be appropriate. An extension of 3RR to ignore the time the article was protected, for the purpose of defining "24 hours", might be appropriate, although I don't recall that ever having been done before. And I believe I've edited the article, so my opinions here are not as an admin, but as an interested editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but exactly one of the editors was blocked. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:74.14.85.152 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 24 h)

Page: First Indochina War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.14.85.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]
• 5th revert: [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. De728631 (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User: Dr.K. reported by User:Cinque stelle (Result: No violation)

Page: Tenedos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]

User was warned on the Tenedos talk page, the history page, as well as my own talk page where he threatened to block my account. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [59]
• [60]
• [61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

Comments:Dr.K. continues to make edits and reverts in violation of WP:TPYES. Guidelines state that editors should: "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page." Dr.K. attempts to shift the discussion to speculate about WP editors. His activity is disruptive of the community attempt to find a solution to the name Tenedos/Bozcaada page name dispute.

Cinque stelle (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

No violation. This is a problem with the reporter refactoring other editors' comments on the Talk page. I have advised the reporter accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbb23 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [63]

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66]
• 4th revert: [67]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68] (see comments for earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [69]

Comments: While this is not a cut-and-dry 3RR violation in 24 hours, it is clearly edit-warring. DanielUmel does not display a significant capacity to assume good faith and act in a collegial manner. Even when he brings up discussions on talkpages, he opens them with bad-faithed, accusatory headings [70] [71] and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him in textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. Note the accusations of "vandalism" in all of the diffs presented above. He was blocked for 2 days earlier this month for sustained edit-warring, but clearly has not taken a clue from that at all, even after I reprimanded him not to do so. See also his behaviour at his own talkpage: reverts an edit-warring reminder and calls the editor who posted it a "troll" again again same thing but to a different user. While removing warnings &c. on one's own talkpage is permissible, the "troll" name-calling and the fact that all removals were of EW notices is telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules is when someone make 4 reverts in 24 hours in the same page, not in 38 hours. If else, I can easily name 5 other person who did more revert than me on this page. I have not broken the 3RR rules, so the report is pointless and baseless. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to break 3RR in 24 hours to edit-war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point still fail. My addition was completely sourced and was turned down simply by "I don't like it". I am not entitled to respect bad faith reverts and as I don't break the 3RR rules, all is fine. You are just upset that I called your revert vandalism, as it was deletion of sourced content and without any explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread your posts, dammit. There was an unresolved discussion on the talkpage as to whether or not to include the content. Merely having sources is not a free pass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged in a long discussion, but someone just tell that he does not like it because it hurt his feeling that one category has more item than another, I can't talk anymore. I have took time and numerous posts to resolve the issue. But talk don't work when you bring all the proofs, all the source, and someone resort to I don't like it. I have talked more than it was reasonable to do. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

10 messages, 14 days, and the person who initially had the objection admitted his mistake. I don't think a single editor can hold out for months against multiples sources.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread. Your. Freakin'. Posts. Your "discussions" generally are laced with bad faith and condescending digs at other editors. Don't be surprised when you fail to reach your desired consensus when all you have to offer is vitriol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am always discussing, as I have opened a lot of talks section on diverses page and I have not broken the 3RR rules. So I am not edit warring because I am always open to talk on the issue and as I do not break the 3RR rules. But there is a limit when the other person show pure bad faith in the talk page.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have previously tried to warn this user about edit warning and nearly breaking the 3RR, and they just deleted it off their talk page and called me a troll. I have taken no part in edit war myself, and I mentioned in my warning that both sides were continuing it, not just DanielUmel, but they wouldn't really listen. To be honest I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and calm down, and come back with a level head. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - User:DanielUmel is still engaging in low intensity edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo article. He is totally ignoring talk page consensus and reliable sources. DanielUmel is a persistent problem user with only two modes; huge problem user and lesser problem user (the latter behaviour being only when he is the subject of a noticeboard incident like right now, this being the third such incident that I know of). Action needs to be taken. حرية (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Goal difference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [72]

This is a long- running edit war, so I'll only provide the most recent diffs :-

• Revert by Gussss: [73]
• Revert by Dr. Vicodine: [74]
• Addition then reverted by Gussss: [75]
• Then reverted to current version by Dr. Vicodine: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning -

• Gusssss - [77]
• Dr. Vicodine - [78]

Diff of attempt by users to resolve dispute on user talk page: [79]

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but still a long-running edit war. At the time of writing, Dr.Vincodine is the only one to revert after warning. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Dr. Vicodine of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had trouble formatting it, and forgot completely *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Dr. Vicodine has never edited the article talk page, and the edit war has been running for almost 2 months (started June 28). Pakaran 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Dr. Vicodine was advised by another admin to self-revert and discuss the content issue. I gave Dr. Vicodine some time to respond to that constructive advice, but, despite making three edits post-advice, he did nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Statesman1 reported by User:Dailycare (Result: Needs to go to WP:AE )

Page: Six-Day War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Statesman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]

User advised in 2009 to discuss on Talk rather than "continually reverting": [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

Informed user of this report: [86]

Comments:

This article is under 1RR, however this report isn't a 3RR or 1RR report as such, rather this involves general edit-warring behaviour.

This account has been sporadically active since 2009, this year largely in the article in question here. The issue involves the "Background" section of the article, which was discussed on the talkpage with an eye to making it shorter. User:Statesman1 has repeatedly (four times, see diffs above) inserted information in this section: 1) that a UN resolution was vetoed (i.e. not adopted), and 2) that Egypt prepared to perform (but did not perform) attacks in Israel. No sources have been provided to the effect that either event would have been key or central to the unfolding of the events leading into the Six-Day War. To the contrary, User:Statesman1 has removed from the section text stating that border provocations were actually done, which is identified in an academic source as an important factor in the deterioration of the situation toward war.

Therefore it seems very much that the motive in this edit-war is the pushing of an agenda, rather than an attempt to identify the most relevant material to include. As the editor has refused to engage in the Talkpage concerning this content, I feel that a sanction is in order, for example a block regarding the Six-Day War page only. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined I'm declining this solely for procedural reasons, and am not saying that there was or was not edit warring. Since this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA, this really should be handled as a request for arbitration enforcement. This is important because edit-warring in this area generally results in more serious consequences, needs to be understood in the context of other people's actions, and needs the eyes of admins with experience in the enforcement area. Apologies for making you go through another step, but if the report is valid, it's likely that stronger sanctions need to be placed than a short block, and a topic ban is really outside the remit of this board. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Goal difference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [87]

This is a long- running edit war, so I'll only provide the most recent diffs :-

• Revert by Gussss: [88]
• Revert by Dr. Vicodine: [89]
• Addition then reverted by Gussss: [90]
• Then reverted to current version by Dr. Vicodine: [91]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning -

• Gusssss - [92]
• Dr. Vicodine - [93]

Diff of attempt by users to resolve dispute on user talk page: [94]

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but still a long-running edit war. At the time of writing, Dr.Vincodine is the only one to revert after warning. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Dr. Vicodine of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had trouble formatting it, and forgot completely *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Dr. Vicodine has never edited the article talk page, and the edit war has been running for almost 2 months (started June 28). Pakaran 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Dr. Vicodine was advised by another admin to self-revert and discuss the content issue. I gave Dr. Vicodine some time to respond to that constructive advice, but, despite making three edits post-advice, he did nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Scientiom reported by User:Lionelt (Result:protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [95]

• 1st revert: [96] changed "practicing homosexuals" to "LGBT people"; which is a revert of this [97]
• 2nd revert: [98] changed "practicing homosexuals" to "gays and lesbians"
• 3rd revert: [99] added quotation marks to "practicing"; this is not a minor change: the scare quotes change the meaning of the word and represent a legitimate POV issue
• 4th revert: [100] is a revert of [101] which re-added the disputed "Demar/SPLC" item

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Demar/SPLC discussion

Comments:

Editor was blocked a couple of months ago for 48 hours for edit warring [103] on Marriage. The subject relating to the 4th revert (Demar/SPLC) is currently the focus of a 2 day old edit war that had just subsided. The issue is currently under discussion and the revert was extremely poor judgment. The discussion is barely a day old! Why try to restart an edir war? Why not wait until consensus is reached?

I alerted Scientiom to the problem but they refused to do the right thing. I wrote on Scientiom's talk page: "You are at 4RR at American Vision. This is your lucky day. Editing has slowed down, and if you hurry back there, you might just be able to self-revert..." But unbelievably they did not take the chance to self-revert. Instead Scientiom responded "I'm at 1RR not 4RR." When it was pointed out that Scientiom was over 3RR at another article (YCRBYCHI) they personally attacked me writing "stop the lies." – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Scientiom of this report; I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Scientiom, but I'd like to suggest that you might want to look at the history of this article. The people reporting the edit warring are themselves quite guilty of edit-warring. You could block them all, or you could protect the page. I politely recommend the latter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. I reported the the 4RR violation and I am not edit warring. You statement is completely erroneous. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did say "people". You're not a people, you're just one person. There are a bunch of people -- many of whom are members of your WikiProject Conservatism and others who are followers or fellow travelers -- who are edit-warring. You're filing this on behalf of your people because your hands are cleaner, but their hands are not. This is a common pattern. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are on very dangerous ground with these accusations, StillStanding. To say that Lionel is "filing this on behalf of his people" is an absurd claim that should be withdrawn immediately. StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which part is absurd? That you, ViriiK and some of the other people reverting against Scientiom are all associated with Lionel's project? That Lionel has a habit of doing the filing? That he's not at likely to revert as his people are? Which part of this is false? As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply explaining what "people" means. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm a part of his project? News to me. Drop the accusation game now and retract your crap. ViriiK (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not part of his project either. StAnselm (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing is, do you see me reverting any of Scientom's edits? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that many of the recent reverts were by Belchfire, who is an official member of WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody imagine the hue and cry if somebody were to make this same allegation against members of Wikiproject-LGBT? Belchfire-TALK 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because WikiProject LGBT doesn't act anything like WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't play admin and decide they're edit-warring. It is pretty clear that Scientom is edit-warring but don't be passing recommendations to the admins here. They can decide for themselves on the appropriate steps to take. Meanwhile, you are basically accusing him of conducting a WP:BATTLEGROUND which is clearly not the case per the talk page of that article. ViriiK (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't need to be an admin to recognize edit-warring. I'm also pretty sure there's nothing wrong with asking admins to look for themselves and decide if they also recognize edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am outraged and incensed at this unwarranted and unprovoked personal attack. I categorically deny this outrageous falsehood. I did not file this report on behalf of anyone. I did not coordinate my editing with anyone. I am not a meatpuppet. I have 30000 fucking edits. Why the fuck would I be a fucking meaqtpuppet????? I don't need to coordinate with anyone. I have been here 3 years. I know what the hell I am doing. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is crazy that we are all putting up with this bullshit. I just can't believe how many editors he does this to and NOONE does anything about it.' WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?!?!?!? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have 3 bronze stars 3 green plusses over a dozen DYKs and a page full of barnstars. I always edit my own pages when I want to edit them and noone ever tells me what to do ever. I do not need anyone to HELP ME or DIRECT ME to edit ANYTHING.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am "not likely to revert" because unlike you I HAVE A CLEAN BLOCK RECORD and I do not edit war.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What really pisses me off is that I had no intention of even filing this report. I literally pleaded with Sciention to SELF REVERT. But he foolishly chose NOT TO. I told him he was at 4RR. I told him he had time to self-revert. How is any of this my fault????? So chose not to self-revert. He had his chance. At the end of the day we're here to build an encyclopedia------NOT TO EDIT WAR. So he gets reported. Not my fault.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 06:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no personal attack here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You accuse me of filing a report for someone else IE MEATPUPPETRRY and you have the unmitigated gall to say "no personal attack"??????? All of these editors here just told you it is a personal attack and still have the audacity to write "no personal attack"? We have a serios serious problem here. You do not comprehend our policies. You do not know or do not care when you violate our policies. When you are told you are wrong you just don't care. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Scroll up to where I said, "As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything." Clearly, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

REALLY? REALLY? Do you think we are that stupid? Do you think that you can manipulates us so easily? ANYONE reading this thread will immediately see the personal attack when you wrote "You're filing this on behalf of your people". That is a personal attack!!!!!! We are not falling for this "you may think that this is an attack but in reality it is not a personal attack" bullshit. No. The fact that you are even trying to deny it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of the entire community. Your behavior is deplorable and unacceptable. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just looked up WP:MEAT, but I'm not sure how it applies. It doesn't say anything about filing. Instead, it talks about recruiting people to do things for you. I don't think anyone recruited you; why would I? Like I said, as far as I can tell, you have not violated any policy here. Therefore, saying I'm personally attacking you by claiming you violated a policy just doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry about your distress, but I assure you that nothing I said was intended as a personal attack or could be mistaken for one by an objective third party. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a post directly on Lionel's talk page.[104] I'd like to move any discussion of perceived insults off this edit-warring notification page, as it doesn't seem like the appropriate place. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) One problem with this article about an organization primarily based on religion, possibly not free from controversy, is that it is labelled on the talk page as being part of WikiProject Conservatism. Multiple senior administrators have pointed out in the past that labelling like that can cause problems: the appearance, possibly unintentional, of a project trying to watch over certain articles. In this case things are not helped by the fact that the discussion on the talk page and here seems to have become too emotionally charged and personalized. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? Belchfire--a brand new member--has been there a few days, and I have what looks like 1 or 2 edits. How is that ownership? This paranoia about WPConservatism ownership is bizarre. We're not taking over Wikipedia Mathsci Scout's Honor.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussions concerning WikiProject Conservatism are a matter of record on wikipedia. Your wikifriend Anupam added the WikiProject banners on this particular article.[105] Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What has led all of the conservatism team to the American Vision page? I'm not surprised to learn the edit warring is over the Southern Poverty Law Center either. The request seems a bit stale, I see no current edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's been over 24 hours since the last time Scientiom edited this page. A block would be punitive. I'm not even sure that page protection would be in order, since there's productive editing going on right now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was User:Insomesia's idea of starting a political RfC there.. I first edited the article in October 2011, and have had it on my watchlist for ages - but then, I'm not a member of the "team". StAnselm (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, the edit warring here is pretty widespread, with multiple parties on both sides. No doubt the version I protected is WRONG. As there are concerns about reliable sources and BLP, I think it would be wise to consider heading for one or both of the relevant noticeboards. In any case, I would love to see us find a way to resolve this dispute through discussion. Then again, given that this year is divisible by four, maybe I would get better results trying to ride a flying pig through a snowball fight in hell. Anyone care to join me in that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You want those pigs saddled or bareback? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:88.104.16.200 (Result: Both parties warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [106]

• 1st revert: [107]
• 2nd revert: [108]
• 3rd revert: [109]
• 4th revert: [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] (edit summary)

Comments:While adding some details/corrections to the article page, my edits were reverted by user: MarnetteD. S/he claimed to do this because the edits I made did not include sources. I responded and said I was in the midst of adding the details and then as I was starting to add the relevant sources, s/he reverted again without waiting. Despite the interference, I eventually added the sources, but s/he reverted my edits again claiming them to fail WP:VERIFIABLE, which is not true. Two of the sources I added were from a leading British newspaper (The Guardian), which included budget and release details for the film at the time of its release. Another source (The-Numbers.com) is similar to Box Office Mojo.com, but gave US release date information that was not already in the article (it was released on Wednesday December 8th 1982, not December 10th). Another source (in70mm.com) highlighted the fact that the film received a royal premiere in London, and a fourth source (Princess-Diana-Remembered.com) actually showed a press clipping and photographs of the London premiere itself, attended by Princess Diana in 1982. All of these sources support the information I added to the article and are all valid, and I informed user:MarnetteD accordingly. Assumingly s/he thinks that The Guardian newspaper cannot be used as a source because there is no direct online link to it, but WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE state that sources do not need to be available online (although The Guardian archives are actually available online via proquest.com). I restored the details again stating this and giving a warning about edit warring to user:MarnetteD, but s/he simply reverted again (the 4th time), this time claiming that the sources I provided does not give the information I say it does (which is not true). My warning to him/her against edit warring was simply dismissed with flippancy.

Looking at the edit history before today, user:MarnetteD has shown considerable article ownership on this article for a long time, which is counterproductive towards Wikipedia's aims. Despite his/her claims, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sources I have added to this article, and MarnetteD is simply edit warring to keep his/her preferred version of the article (which has an American emphasis for something that is not even an American film) intact. As 3RR has been broken, the user should be blocked for his/her behaviour. According to the block logs, the user has been guilty of similar behaviour in the past. 88.104.16.200 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't you used the talk page to discuss your edits? If we had more editors like MarnetteD reverting unsourced edits, Wikipedia would be a highly respected and reliable source, so I support her work. On the other hand, she should have also contributed to a discussion on the talk page. The fact is, MarneteD has been revering vandalism to this page for some time[112] and your edits could be construed as vandalism since many sneaky vandals change content in a way that looks legit, but without sources turns out to be vandalism. So next time, add sources while you are editing, not after. And go to the talk page to discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't MarnetteD use the talk page either since she's the one who had the problem with the material being added? I've just had a look at this, and IP 88.104.16.200 added valuable information and corrections to the article and backed them up with valid sources. At first it might have appeared that MarnetteD was simply reverting because no sources were added in the initial edits by IP. However, once the sources were added (and they are perfectly fine sources) then MarnetteD still reverted the page to her chosen version, for no good reason. She simply wiped out all of the work that the IP user had done, despite his edit summaries providing sufficient reason to include the sources. MarnetteD didn't want to make alterations or discuss it, she just reverted the whole lot, first claiming it to be unverifiable (which is wrong) and then claiming the sources didn't include the details given (which is also wrong because I just checked them). I have noticed in recent months that more and more non-admins are getting trigger happy with wikitools and making reverts here there and everywhere because they feel it gives them power. However, this appears to be nothing short of edit warring and MarnetteD has crossed the line by breaking 3RR. As the IP user says, she's done it before and been blocked for it. She should be held accountable this time too. MassassiUK (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I said, "On the other hand, she should have also contributed to a discussion on the talk page". Did you miss it? I think she was editing in good faith, and she was not edit warring in the traditional sense, but reverting to prevent perceived harm to the encyclopedia. Most of her edits to this article consist of reverting vandalism, and she was acting in that role. I don't see how a punitive block will help. We want her to continue reverting vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is clearly not the case. Even after sources were added she continued to revert. It clearly wasn't in good faith and reverting adequately sourced details is vandalism. This is a clear case of edit warring and another punitive block will show her that this kind of behavior is still not acceptable. MassassiUK (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Sources were added, yes, but they didn't support the content. The previous version was accurately sourced whereas the new version added by the IP was not. See for yourself:[113] This could be viewed as vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The new sources do support the new details because I have accessed them all. The film's budget in British pounds sterling (which is relevant because Gandhi is a British film) is included in The Guardian's review of the film, the royal premiere date of Dec 2 1982 in London is also included in The Guardian's entertainment listings for that day as well as the 70mm.com source and the Princess Diana source. The Numbers.com makes it clear that the film was released in the US on Dec 8 1982 and gives its five day opening gross, as well as dates in which the film went from limited to wide distribution. All of this information is pertinent to the article and the sources the IP user added back it up. MarnetteD had no business reverting it. MassassiUK (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. Please scroll down to the changes indicated in the "Box office performance". To start with, the cited source[114] added by the IP does not support the information he added, whereas the previous version ("box office mojo") does. In other words, MarnetteD was reverting what looks like vandalism. Please take a moment to correct your errors before you reply again. I fully support MarnetteD's edits and we need more vigilant editors like her. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. I've got The Numbers.com source open right now and it gives all of the details you are claiming it doesn't in the article's Box Office Performance section, including the date it opened in the US (8 Dec 82), the film's final US gross ($52.7 million), the film's opening 5-day week gross ($181,583), the date it went into wide release and its first wide weekend gross (21 Jan 83, $2,324,871), and the details of its widest release after the Oscars in April. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that source so I would like you to explain how it is wrong. It seems to me you are obviously just supporting your pal here and trying to smokescreen the issue. MassassiUK (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken for a third time, and evidently you did not review the changes. The source does not support the material. The Numbers source does not say the film was "followed by a wider release in January 1983" as the IP claims in the "Release and reception" section. The interpretation of the wide release remains that of the IP's and contradicts established sources. There's nothing in the source about the "success at the Academy Awards" as that was added by the IP. It is also doubtful that the film opened on a Wednesday as the IP claims. We have good reason to believe that the film opened on Friday, December 10, 1982, and was widely released on Feb. 25[115] like most opening films. I can go on and on and on and on. The source doesn't say any of this stuff, the IP is making his own interpretations, and the claims and added source contradict the best sources on the subject. Not an improvement by any stretch of the imagination, and reverted appropriately. You're either a troll or blind. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all films open on a Friday and it is ludicrous to suggest they do. For example, none of the Star Wars films opened on a Friday. The Numbers page has a table that includes a complete list of the film's weekend grosses. The table shows that the film started off in only 4 theaters and remained in limited release until Jan 21 1983 when it was released in 350 theaters (its first wide release). The table then shows that on April 15 1983 (four days after the film's huge success at the 55th Academy Awards which took place on April 11 - AND the IP user included a wikilink to it) it went into its widest release of 825 theaters. It's all right there on the The Numbers page. Box Office Mojo is not a superior source to The Numbers. In fact, BOM's weekly chart data for this film isn't even complete, whereas The Numbers is. It's obvious that you are simply trying to swamp this issue, so if you have nothing constructive to add then get off this noticeboard. MassassiUK (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned, both parties. I really don't think anything is going to be gained here by handing out blocks. Both parties are to blame for the problem here, so I will post a note on each of their talk pages. The anon should not have continued to add the material after it was challenged, and moved the discussion to Talk. MarnetteD should have been more careful to educate and inform the user instead of creating an edit war situation. We don't hair-trigger revert people just because they're editing anonymously. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:168.70.7.2 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Blizzard Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 168.70.7.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]
• 5th revert [121]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [122]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [123] and [124]

Comments:
IP editor keeps adding material without RS and violating NPOV. In his/her edit summaries (s)he calls editors censors and accuses, without evidence, people of having a COI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Blocked for 72 hours by Toddst1. Electric Catfish 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Soniarangel reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Article protected)

Page: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soniarangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [125]
• 2nd revert: [126]
• 3rd revert: [127]
• 4th revert: [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [130]

Comments:

No comment on the edit warring per se, but I've protected the article for three days just for its stability. If this is resolved sooner, please unprotect. Thanks. GedUK  11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Closing, since article is currently protected and additional sanctions would be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: No 1RR vio; referred to unblocking admin re: violation of unblock conditions)

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

My initial edit: [131]

• 1st revert: [132]
• 2nd revert: [133]

Altetendekrabbe is under 1RR. No attempt at discussing his reverts was made on the article's talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Those reverts are three days apart. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am not familiar with 1RRs. Does this mean Altetendekrabbe was allowed to do the revert even though he did not abide to the rest of his unblock agreement, namely to "use appropriate talk-pages, administrative noticeboards and seek outside help rather than getting into fights. " Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See also this series of five reverts by A. at another article:

[134], [135], [136], [137], [138]

- Ankimai (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

comment this is the most ridiculous and spurious filing i have ever seen on this noticeboard. gunpowder and ankimai should get banned as wp:boomerang applies here. please also note that gunpowder is trying to add a "segregation"-section to the islam-in-europe-page. clearly, he has no intentions to contribute in a balanced way.-- altetendekrabbe  15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that there are three days between the reverts, I'm not willing to block for them. I do think there's a serious concern that Altetendekrabbe isn't abiding by the second part of his unblock agreement, namely to use the talkpage and other dispute resolution appropriately rather than getting into fights. That's a bit outside the scope of this board, but I will refer the question to Bwilkins, the admin who unblocked Aletendenkrabbe, for additional input. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: 24 hours)

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

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

Article is subject to WP:ARBPIA remedies and is under WP:1RR.

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]

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

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

Comments:
Ankh, I don't think you provided the right diffs - it just goes to the revision history. Anyway, here are the 3 diffs:

• 1st revert - [141]
• 2nd revert - [142]
• 3rd revert - [143]

--Activism1234 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clear 1RR violation; blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not as well-versed on general sanctions as I probably should be, and I'm not familiar with this particular user and their history, but it looks to me as if the user may have been improperly warned. They seem to have been editing in good faith, and first edited the article today. As far as I can tell from the user's talk page, they were only warned about the 1RR restriction four hours after their last edit, and a half hour before they were blocked, making it implausible that they would be able to self-revert. (Of course, I could be way off base here, as it's possible that they knew about the sanctions and chose to ignore them when editing this article.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:MastCell (Result: 31h)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:28, 26 August 2012

• 1st revert: 15:47, 27 August 2012
• 2nd revert: 22:13, 27 August 2012 (two consecutive edits; undoes this preceding edit)
• 3rd revert: 00:46, 28 August 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 4th revert: 16:11, 28 August 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 5th revert: 17:45, 28 August 2012 (partially undoes this preceding edit, undoes this preceding edit, restores "what they viewed as" language from here)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:RightCowLeftCoast#Edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See last several threads at Talk:You didn't build that

Comments:
There's a clear 3RR violation in reverts #2 through #5. I included revert #1 to show that there's also a pattern of additional reverts just barely outside the 24-hour time limit, per WP:EW (Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation). MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this. I am happy to defend myself here. I stand that my edits were not strait reversions, but some where substantial edits to the article. Others are tag teaming to advance a change that advocates the increased weight of some POVs over other POVs in violation of WP:NEU. Additionally, by doing so they are gaming the system to decrease the neutrality of the article. What should have occurred was WP:BRD, and if I am a party as well as others in engaging in edits that contradict others than they should be hauled to this noticeboard as well. Perhaps the best solution is to lock the present article, allow the discussions to occur, and reach a consensus as to how this article will be moving forward.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The first edit clearly neither added nor removed anything at all -- it appears to have been at most a "moving" of content within the same section of the same article while retaining all of the content and adding no content. The Wikipedia definition of reverts requires that something be added or deleted -- which is not the case for the "first revert" on which the entire complaint depends. In short -- tempest in a political teapot for this complaint. And the definition of revert says It can involve as little as one word which is the problem - zero words were changed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you're completely incorrect. A revert is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". There is no requirement that something be "added or deleted", and I'm not sure where you got that idea. The first edit reversed the action of the preceding editor, by rearranging the article and thus changing its emphasis. That's a revert - always has been, always will be. If you're not sure, please re-read policy. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am notifying relevant WikiProjects of this conversation, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no "relevant WikiProjects" to notify of the fact that you've been reported here for edit-warring - that's an odd understanding of the purpose and scope of WikiProjects. And I guess part of me thinks it's odd that you notified WikiProject Conservatism but not, say, WikiProject Barack Obama, which is equally relevant to the article at hand but contains a potentially less sympathetic mix of editors. But whatever; the diffs speak for themselves. MastCell ^Talk 21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. Fairly straightforward report (apart from the notifying WikiProjects part, which is frankly bizarre). Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Strike2216 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: No vio)

Page: List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Strike2216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [144]

• 1st revert: [145] 22:03, 18 August 2012‎
• 2nd revert: [146] 02:58, 19 August 2012‎
• 3rd revert: [147] 22:59, 19 August 2012‎
• 4th revert: [148] 17:53, 26 August 2012‎

The reverts center around the constant un-bolding of the list entry for "Johnny Damon".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149] 06:23, 20 August 2012‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150] 07:13, 16 August 2012‎

Comments:
The editor has made over 400 edits with 0 in the talk namespace. Preventative action is needed to make the user aware of the value of discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• No violation The problem with slow moving edit wars (these diffs are across more than a week) is that even if a short block is issued, it makes little difference. I would suggest taking this to DRN? Or if the editor continues to revert without discussion, perhaps ask for the page to be protected until they engage. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FYR:Protecting the page, recommended by a 3O editor who denied 3O, was recommended and later denied. Zepppep (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Widescreen reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: Pages protected)

Page: Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

Comments:

• Page protected for both. Both of you are equally guilty of edit warring, and you would've been blocked along with Widescreen had I decided to go that route, Diablo. However, seeing as there's no 3RR violations, I've fully protected both pages in their current state instead as you're obviously unable to discuss your proposed changes without edit warring. I would strongly advise you both to take the next two days to continue to try to resolve this, as further edit warring of any kind will be grounds for a block. Swarm ^X 05:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:DanielUmel reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: [151]

• 1st revert: [152]
• 2nd revert: [153]
• 3rd revert: [154]
• 4th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156] (see comments for earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments: While this is not a cut-and-dry 3RR violation in 24 hours, it is clearly edit-warring. DanielUmel does not display a significant capacity to assume good faith and act in a collegial manner. Even when he brings up discussions on talkpages, he opens them with bad-faithed, accusatory headings [158] [159] and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him in textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. Note the accusations of "vandalism" in all of the diffs presented above. He was blocked for 2 days earlier this month for sustained edit-warring, but clearly has not taken a clue from that at all, even after I reprimanded him not to do so. See also his behaviour at his own talkpage: reverts an edit-warring reminder and calls the editor who posted it a "troll" again again same thing but to a different user. While removing warnings &c. on one's own talkpage is permissible, the "troll" name-calling and the fact that all removals were of EW notices is telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules is when someone make 4 reverts in 24 hours in the same page, not in 38 hours. If else, I can easily name 5 other person who did more revert than me on this page. I have not broken the 3RR rules, so the report is pointless and baseless. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to break 3RR in 24 hours to edit-war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point still fail. My addition was completely sourced and was turned down simply by "I don't like it". I am not entitled to respect bad faith reverts and as I don't break the 3RR rules, all is fine. You are just upset that I called your revert vandalism, as it was deletion of sourced content and without any explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread your posts, dammit. There was an unresolved discussion on the talkpage as to whether or not to include the content. Merely having sources is not a free pass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged in a long discussion, but someone just tell that he does not like it because it hurt his feeling that one category has more item than another, I can't talk anymore. I have took time and numerous posts to resolve the issue. But talk don't work when you bring all the proofs, all the source, and someone resort to I don't like it. I have talked more than it was reasonable to do. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

10 messages, 14 days, and the person who initially had the objection admitted his mistake. I don't think a single editor can hold out for months against multiples sources.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread. Your. Freakin'. Posts. Your "discussions" generally are laced with bad faith and condescending digs at other editors. Don't be surprised when you fail to reach your desired consensus when all you have to offer is vitriol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am always discussing, as I have opened a lot of talks section on diverses page and I have not broken the 3RR rules. So I am not edit warring because I am always open to talk on the issue and as I do not break the 3RR rules. But there is a limit when the other person show pure bad faith in the talk page.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have previously tried to warn this user about edit warning and nearly breaking the 3RR, and they just deleted it off their talk page and called me a troll. I have taken no part in edit war myself, and I mentioned in my warning that both sides were continuing it, not just DanielUmel, but they wouldn't really listen. To be honest I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and calm down, and come back with a level head. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - User:DanielUmel is still engaging in low intensity edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo article. He is totally ignoring talk page consensus and reliable sources. DanielUmel is a persistent problem user with only two modes; huge problem user and lesser problem user (the latter behaviour being only when he is the subject of a noticeboard incident like right now, this being the third such incident that I know of). Action needs to be taken. حرية (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Stale. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Tm011g6433 reported by User:Yerpo (Result: 24h)

Page: Aisling Bea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tm011g6433 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [160]

• 1st revert: [161]
• 2nd revert: [162]
• 3rd revert: [163]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [164]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

Comments:

Not 3RR, but edit warring nevertheless. It's a silly issue over an apostrophe signifying possessive. An anonymous user (not me) tried to correct it to what I also think is right, which Tm011g6433 reverted with a rude comment in the edit summary to go with. I saw that by chance in Recent changes, and reverted it back, with admittedly a borderline uncivil (or over the border, I'll accept if mine is also considered uncivil) sarcastic comment to Tm011g6433. To that he simply replied by reverting again with trying to boss me around, and an irrelevant example, all in the edit summary space. My second revert was accompanied by a call for discussion to which I got a rude reply on my talk page. Tm011g6433's argument had some examples that I feel are irrelevant. I tried to explain - again, admittedly with a sarcastic tone, but only got more examples of the same argument and more rudeness. The rest of the "discussion" went similarly, until today when the article was again reverted by an anonymous, assumingly Tm011g6433 who wasn't logged in. This time, the edit summary was extremely insulting to me. I won't argue with this person anymore, nor will I continue editing the article in question, I'd just like a comment on what should be done, ideally from a person that can provide a clear explanation on whose version is correct. If it helps, I appologize to Tm011g6433 for my initial sarcastic comment, but I was irked by his horrible attitude towards an obviously well-meaning anon. Thanks, — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, with an aggravating factor of edit warring back to a grammatically incorrect version. Sheesh. Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Can someone please correct the article now? I won't edit it again as I promised, and an uninvolved editor's action to the same effect might be more convincing. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Rtc reported by User:Yobol (Result: 3RR violation by Rtc, but no block due to staleness)

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

• 1st revert: [166]
• 2nd revert: [167]
• 3rd revert: [168]
• 4th revert: [169]
• 5th revert: [170]

This editor is edit warring against multiple editors who object to their edits.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171]. Per their block log, they have also been blocked for edit warring before.

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

Comments:

I think rather that User:Yobol should be blocked, for he is trying to enforce his opinion in a content dispute by trying to get me blocked, just because I am against his POV edits. User:Yobol also is guilty of what he accuses me. --rtc (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Two of those edits are not reverts, but edits to satisfy objections, but I have self reverted my last edit to even avoid the appearance of a 3rr violation. Yobol (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the third wasn't a revert, since someone else reverted then, and, as you say you merely further edited to satisfy objections. --rtc (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't look now, but you two are talking. I don't suppose you would agree to discussing disputed edits on the article talk page after you're reverted once? That would be my preferred solution. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clear 3RR violation by Rtc (talk · contribs). If I had reviewed this report yesterday, I would have blocked Rtc. However, since the most recent revert is >24 hours ago and Rtc is now participating on the talkpage, a block at this point is probably unduly punitive rather than preventative. That said, Rtc dodged a bullet here and I suspect that if this editor resumes edit-warring, it will likely be looked on unfavorably. MastCell ^Talk 17:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Lysozym reported by User:Nasir Ghobar (Result: Remanded to WP:SPI)

Page: Hazara people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Pata Khazana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to: [173]

• 1st revert: HP
• 2nd revert: HP

• 1st revert: PK
• 2nd revert: PK

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [175]

Lyszym is Tajik (talk · contribs) who was placed on 1RR by the Arbitration Committee. [176] He has a very extended history of getting blocked for various violations. [177] He refuses to talk normal with other editors and forces his sometimes wrong opinions on everyone, and is fighting with everyone. [178] [179] He calls everything what others present to him as nonsense, and judges scholars based on nationality/ethnicity. His actions are very annoying and disruptive. I'm not sure but Alefbe (talk · contribs) may also be connected because all of a sudden it began reverting to Lyzosym's verion. [180] [181] If he's behind that then he's abusing multiple accounts also.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nasir Ghobar is just trying to divert attention from the actual problem: that he is just another sockpuppet of User:Lagoo sab. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_sockpuppet_abuse. I was just reverting POV edits by a banned user who is once again evading his block by using (yet another) sockpuppet. --Lysozym (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It's you who is trying to do that because now you're exposed. You are the problem maker, not only did I report you but so did others. I have no reasons to use multiple accounts because I don't do much edits. You have violated your 1RR and now pay the price like everyone else.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Who else reported me?! *sigh* See this comment by admin User:EdJohnston. It is obvious that you are another of the many sockpuppets of banned User:Lagoo sab. --Lysozym (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

This report here is about YOU breaking 1RR and edit-warring with everyone. Explain why are you still engaged in edit-wars when you are on 1RR? I just have one name and I'm using that right now, I have no reason to use multiple accounts. Stop it now. It is normal that sometimes 2 or more editors may do things similar but that doesn't mean it is the same person.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• This situation is a bit too complex to handle on this noticeboard. The appropriate response here depends on the resolution of the sockpuppetry allegations. On the one hand, Lysozym did violate the terms of his 1RR restriction. On the other hand, if Nasir Ghobar is in fact a sockpuppet of a banned user, I'm not going to penalize Lysozym for reverting him - such reverts are exempt from 1RR/3RR/etc. I would suggest the following: a) Lysozym files a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations detailing his belief that Nasir is a sockpuppet of Lagoo Sab; b) in the meantime, until that question is settled, Lysozym should not revert Nasir's edits more than once/day. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mziboy reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result:Mziboy banned per discussion at ANI )

Page: Black science fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mziboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [182]
• 2nd revert: [183]
• 3rd revert: [184]
• 4th revert: [185]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [186]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [187] (user was repeatedly encouraged to discuss on talk page, and ignored feedback)

Comments:
Comment from Mziboy: the entry Ken Sibanda has exited for months. They are trying to stop Mr. Sibanda being mentioned in black science fiction because they want to have the Ken Sibanda page deleted. thanks, M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Mziboy in light of the ban discussion at ANI, this report which clearly reflects edit warring, and the continued unfounded accusations of racism. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Settdigger reported by User:I Jethrobot (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [188]

• 1st revert: [189]
• 2nd revert: [190]
• 3rd revert: [191]
• 4th revert: [192]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [193]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [194]

Comments: No major comments on the violation of 3RR here. The user was warned when they were at their limit. While the user has been discussing the changes over the talk page, the discussion has not been entirely constructive. The user does not seem to discuss matters in terms of policy. It's possible the user may be able to edit the article or related articles more constructively, but despite being warned, the user insisted on their additions despite a lack of consensus.

Note. You neglected to notify Settdigger of this report; I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip off Bbb23. And general apologoies insofar as I have not been dipped in the Ichor of Wikipedianess as of yet. Perhaps, before I die of a ripe old age, I will be so blessed by your high priests. If, in the event, the USA is mongrelized into the States of Coca-Cola, McDonalds and Wikipedia, I hope that California goes with the third option and my new citizenship can be constructive.

Ahhhhh. Constructiveness. So many ways to build things. It's like Jenga. And it's like kingergarten. Some wise person once pointed out that Kindergartners have to be really good at compromise becuase they're all small. Being small, no one kindergartner can physically impose his will on the others. They have to actually talk about it.

I look forward to any all discussions of the polite war over history inevitably a part of this unique communal historical document.

Cheers- Settdigger (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments, here and in other WP forums, may amuse you but they're not necessarily constructive to improving Wikipedia articles, which is the only thing you should be here for. You could skip some of the self-indulgent whimsy and the sarcasm and just focus on content AND on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Bottom line: do you understand WP:3RR, and do you understand that you violated it? I resisted blocking you because you hadn't been notified of this discussion, but now here you are, and it's not clear what your position is on the policy and your conduct (forget everything else). So, please clarify it for me, concisely and without the rhetoric.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23. First, please don't change history, either in the broad sense, or on the Talk pages of Wikipedia pages, as you did on the talk page of Direct Congress. If you don't like what I wrote, tell me. Don't delete my comments. I was not aware of the bright line rule for 3 edits in 24 hours, but as with the laws of the state of California, ignorance is no excuse. I accept any sanctions deemed necessary. Where would we be without sarcasm? As to rhetoric: guess what, dude? Language itself is rhetoric. It's basically what it is: how we construct reality. A more direct and more honest version of your "don't use rhetoric" suggestion is "shut up." Because as soon as a human opens his mouth, he is using rhetoric. Cheers Settdigger (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and other disruptive editing. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:124.83.59.41/User:124.6.169.76/User:122.144.108.68/User:122.144.109.96 reported by User:ChasterUnit0 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Charice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.83.59.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 124.6.169.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.144.108.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.144.109.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [195]
• 2nd revert: [196]
• 3rd revert: [197]
• 4th revert: [198]
• 5th revert: [199]
• 6th revert:[200]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [201] and [202]

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

Comments:
These IP editors which obviously is just one person, is persistently trying to delete some of the genres without posting an explanation in the talk page where there's a discussion going on about it to reach a consensus. Me and another editor who disagrees with the deletion keeps trying to undo his edits but he keeps reverting them back without any attempt to discuss his reverts.ChasterUnit0 (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that the IPs are dynamic, I've semi-protected the page, which should address the problem. MastCell ^Talk 17:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Ellerochelle reported by User:Scjessey (Result: 31h)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ellerochelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [204]
• 2nd revert: [205]
• 3rd revert: [206]
• 4th revert: [207]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [208]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A (no discussion took place and I was not involved)

Comments:
-First time editing, so I didn't know you were supposed to go to Talk page instead of reverting. Got it now. -ElleRochelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellerochelle (talk • contribs) 16:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(See duplicate report immediately below, by me). You were warned before the final two reverts, and specifically advised to use the talkpage to avoid being blocked. MastCell ^Talk 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

... and are refusing to self-revert, because you're convinced you're Right even though the 3-revert rule has been explained. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. Straightforward violation of 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Ellerochelle reported by User:MastCell (Result: already blocked)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ellerochelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:47, 30 August 2012

• 1st revert: 16:01, 30 August 2012
• 2nd revert: 16:11, 30 August 2012
• 3rd revert: 16:18, 30 August 2012
• 4th revert: 16:40, 30 August 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:16, 30 August 2012 (preceding the final 2 reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive discussion at Talk:You didn't build that

Comments:
Straightforward 3RR violation; 4 reverts in <1 hour despite warning. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

(See duplicate report immediately above by Scjessey). MastCell ^Talk 16:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Declined Duplicate report. Use the earlier one.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • See above. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

User:128.30.64.21 reported by User:72Dino (Result: No violation)

Page: List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 128.30.64.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [209]

• 1st revert: [210]
• 2nd revert: [211]
• 3rd revert: [212]
• 4th revert: [213]
• 5th revert: [214]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [215]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [216]

Comments:IP editor has changed the figures for the endowment. At first there was no reference. Then a reference was added that included non-endowment funds in the number. Editor refuses to discuss on their talk page or article talk page. 72Dino (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. This is a slow edit war (no 3RR breach) about content, and Dino is as involved as the IP.Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wasn't sure of the best way to handle an editor inserting incorrect information (per source) but refusing to discuss edit. Thanks for reviewing, though. 72Dino (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Blocked for 72 hours)

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

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

This article is under 1rr restrictions in accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Further remedies

• 1st revert: 12:04, 30 August 2012 which reverts this edit.
• 2nd revert: 08:19, 31 August 2012 which reverts this edit.
• 3rd revert: 10:49, 31 August 2012‎ Removed content and an expired link easily available elsewhere

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor was blocked on 28 August 2012 for violating 1rr at the same article.

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

Comments:Editor was blocked 3 days ago for violating the 1rr restriction at the Rachel Corrie article and the restrictions were fully explained to him.

First, AnkhMorpork's previous blocking request was lifted upon appeal.

Secondly, I do not think that I have made three reverts. I am of the understanding that I am just editing and improving the page in good faith. I have made no undo. If "a revert means undoing the actions of another editor." then I have only undone one sentence in a 24 hour period. Again AnkhMorpork has NOT even attempted to initiate discussion on the talk page but instead has just reported me here. That doesn't seem like good faith nor constructive editing. Plus I have actually attempted to discuss this with him/her. Therefore I think it is AnkhMorpork themself who is edit warring and thus I request that AnkhMorpork be blocked for that and for disruptive behaviour. I have explained the reason on the talk page for removing that which AnkhMorpork keeps reinserting, and my removal of it was not in the same 24 hour period as previously. His/her first reply is not clear as to which of the three points he/she was referring to? I therefore maintain that the reinserting of misleading and biased information, and without an explanation or discussion is the 'warring'. Plus reporting me here with inaccurate claims is disruptive. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is the slow-burn, edit-warring pushing the disputed "vegetation clearing” as if of fact and without attempting discussion:

• Diff of 1st edit: [217] at 18.00, on 28 th Aug
• Diff of 2nd revert/editwarring after attempting to get me blocked: [218] at 17:00, on 30 August

Here is my attempt at resolving this through discussion:

Its titled: NPOV issues - avoiding this becoming an edit-war for the Israeli court's view. [219]

And then here AnkhMorpork is getting somebody else to do changes on the article on their behalf:

• Diff of surrogate editing [220]at 11:17, on 31 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)

False charge: I have now had more time to look at the diffs provided by AnkhMorpork against me. I don't see how the second alleged revert is a 'revert'. Its just improving the article and making changes consistent with wording elsewhere in the article.

Also the alleged third revert makes no sense to me either. I removed information that had no working citation and and for which no neutral source has yet been produced. A quick search reveals that reputable reliable sources have no dispute over the evidence Rachel died at the hospital. The claim "Accounts vary as to whether she died at the scene, in the ambulance on the way to the hospital ..." etc., appears to me to have no reputable source and may well have been sourced at many online sites from here at wikipedia. Which is my concern with the accuracy of this page and its use as a possible host for misinformation. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was WP:copyvio - it doesn't count as 1RR. Also, I removed one of your violations already that Ankh pointed me to another one thats all.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion this report shows an obvious WP:1RR violation by Mystichumwipe. My attempt to convince them of this fact on their talk page was not successful. The admin who issued their last unblock mentions their 'undertaking to abide by 1RR.' EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You just needed to answer my simple questions. I'm a reasonable person. If its not so clear-cut what constitues a 'revert' as you intimated, then you would have to look at the examples given by AnkhMorpork. Subtly changing a word to coincide with usage elsewhere in the article for consistency I argue is not a revert. Likewise removing unfounded claims that have no reputable source and had no operative citation source is not reverting someone elses edit, but is cleaning the article. Verfiability is the very core of Wiki and should trump disruptive accusations to protect a NPOV-violation. The only revert then left is outside any 24 hour period infringement and again is cleaning the article of a NPOV-violation--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mystichumwipe does not appear to understand what the word "revert" means. He/she has clearly been reverting, but does not think that reversing the effect of someone else's editing counts as "reverting" if doing so is justified in the view of the person doing it. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Scientiom reported by User:Little green rosetta (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: California Proposition 8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scientiom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [221]
• 2nd revert: [222]
• 3rd revert: [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [224]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [225]

Comments:

A discussion was opened on the articles talk page, and a consensus was formed. Scientom is claiming 3-2 is not consensus (and I would submit it is 3-1), but we aren't even voting. The arugments made by Scientom amount to WP:OWN in that we have to put something in an article because, well, thats the way he/she wants it. I should also note that Scientom's desired addition would effect neutrality of the article. At least one other editor agreeed that the consensus version was neutral. I have left the version prefered by Scientom in place until this matter is settled.

I'm not claiming Scientom is breaking 3RR, but they are edit warring against a consensus edit (albeit it one they disagree that consensus has been formed).  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out, you are trying to push across a change which is not endorsed by WP:Consensus as you purport - as clearly outlined in the policy page, consensus is *not* about some tiny margin in favour or against a change - it's about proper discussion and compromise building. I reverted per WP:BRD - you made a bold change, I reverted it, and it is up to you to discuss it - it can only be implemented if there is an *actual consensus* - again, not 3 to 2 margin. Finally, your edit is in violation of both WP:Lead and WP:Weight, because the text you seek to place in the lead is barely, if at all, properly discussed in the body of what is a fairly large article. --Scientiom (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Additionally, in your recent history on the article you've engaged in edit-warrior behavior, with other editors as well: [226], [227], [228] - refusing to even acknowledge or recognize the concerns or objections of other editors. --Scientiom (talk) 14:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Furthermore, as evidenced on the talk page of the article, you have not properly been reading the policies you cite - everytime I point this out to you, you either come up with an excuse of sorts, or even simply flat out ignore it. --Scientiom (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Both of you had 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. If you go just a bit beyond the 24-hour window, you each had additional reverts. More important, both of you were edit-warring, regardless of any technical breach of 3RR. And neither of you, as evidenced by your comments above, seem to get it. You don't war in the article. You continue to discuss the dispute(s) on the talk page and leave the article alone.Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust and User:184.173.180.3 reported by User:Spc_21 (Result: Both editors blocked)

Page: Ronnie O’Sullivan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 184.173.180.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments: The IP sounds confused but has had ample warnings. Armbrust has broken the 3 revert rule once more. Armbrust knows better but continually engages in edit warring - 7 reverts made in 30 minutes....... Spc 21 (talk) 15:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:3RRNO "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." is a 3RR exception. (Also how is it you can't fill the correctly if others can?) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for your final comment. I only report users who deserve to be reported. You have just come off the back of a block for the same reasons (as are all your blocks). Definitely not libelous, biased, unsourced either. Nobody is allowed to make 10 reverts in a few minutes, you know better but never learn......Frankly it's embarrassing you're willing to revert that many times and ignore the rules that everybody else follows. Spc 21 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's poorly sourced to an unreliable website, maybe blog too. I also think this could be your IP address or are you stalkin me? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 15:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't even be bothered to reply to those accusations. O'Sullivan is on my watchlist and I saw you were entering one of your edit wars. Maybe just stop engaging in them? Spc 21 (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of Armbrust for 2 weeks; IP for 24 hours. Claiming the BLP exemption for a change to the number of "century breaks" is absurd. Armbrust just came off a 2-week block for 3RR.Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:‎92.24.144.9 reported by User:SlartibErtfass der bertige (Result: no violation)

Page: Gray wolf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

The article is beeing changed, there seems to be a conflict between UK and US EN, grey or gray wolf?

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:
The article is beeing changed, there seems to be a conflict between UK and US EN, grey or gray wolf?

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Consecutive edits count as one single revert. And next time, please add the relevant edit differences to your report and notify the editor who is being reported. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Graviton4 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: 72h)

Page: Iron Man 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Graviton4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [229]

• 1st revert: [230]
• 2nd revert: [231]
• 3rd revert: [232]
• 4th revert: [233]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [234]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [235]

Comments:
Graviton4 has been persistently added POV and original research to the Iron Man 3 article by changing the casting order in the article. He was warned about adding the same POV/OR listing, only to ignore the advice. Unfortunately, he has also personally attacked Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) and was warned about it. What is the best possible solution to deal with this matter? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for edit warring along with a personal attack accompanied by a threat. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:JasonnF reported by User:One Night In Hackney (Result: page protected)

Page: List of libertarian political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JasonnF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [236]

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

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

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

Comments:
The 4th revert came 3 minutes after the reply to the warning, so it was obviously read. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protected for 1 week as an alternative to blocking both editors for warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:Bignole (Result:)

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

Previous version reverted to: Original

• 1st revert: [243]
• 2nd revert: [244]
• 3rd revert: [245]
• 4th revert: [246] - This is a partial revert and a partial blanking of the information out of spite.

• Warning: [247]

• 5th revert: [248] - Stripping all photos again.

This began because the user in question decided they wanted to add another image to a section that already had 2 images. The edit was reverted and it was explained to the editor that the image created a clutter (as there were 2 images, one below the other, that was forcing text down the page). The editor continued to revert even after a second editor explained this to him. Eventually, the editor decided to remove one of the other images and then place their image further down the section, no where near the text it was being used for (which is an MOS issue). The editor also decided that they were remove all images and put in a non-free image as a "replacement". When the page was restored the editor (after being warned both on their page and in an edit summary) decided to remove all images completely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

They were removed so we could strike some sort of compromise as i felt it was a tad biased. Now this inquiry is no longer necessary as it's being discussed and no furthur actions were made. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 01:17 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still have issue with you removing ALL images because 2 people did not agree with the image you wanted to include. It comes across as pointish, because you're basically saying, "If I cannot have my image then we're not going to have any image until we agree to use mine." So, that does not negate the fact that you warned about reverting again.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

175.113.153.131 reported by User:Aeusoes1 (Result: Stale)

Page: British English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.113.153.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [249]

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

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

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

Comments:
Anonymous user keeps removing a request for clarity on an image description. Despite what the user says, the requested information is neither in the article history nor at the source website. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. Please re-report if the issue persists. Swarm ^X 05:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Muslim Online reported by User:Justice007 (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Yusuf Estes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muslim Online (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: thisdiff preferred, link permitted

On 30.08.2012.

• 1st revert: [253]

• 2nd revert: [254]

• 3rd revert: [255]

• 4th revert: [256]

On 31.08.2012.

• 5th revert: [257]

• 6th revert: [258]

• 7th revert: [259]

• 8th revert: [260]

• 9th revert: [261]

• 10th revert: [262]

On 01.09.2012

• 11th revert: [263]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [264]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: this and user's talk page:here

Comments:

As I am not familiar to report here in the proper way, I and involved editors George Custer's Sabre and Lord Chamberlain, the Renowned are powerless to stop the User:Muslim Online, being violating WP:3RR, which he has done twice and is still busy to disruptive edits. Is any solution for that guy?. Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 09:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User:65.94.133.250 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: IP blocked 24 hours )

Page: 9/11 Truth movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 65.94.133.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [265]

• 1st revert: [266]
• 2nd revert: [267]
• 3rd revert: [268]
• 4th revert: [269]
• 5th revert: [270]
• 6th revert: [271]
• 7th revert: [272]
• 8th revert: [273]
• 9th revert: [274]
• 10th revert: [275]
• 11th revert: [276]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [278]

Also, my comment after initial edit and revert on the user's talkpage [279]. They removed "ostensibly", but that's about all. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
IP is a fringe POV-pusher, nothing more. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Added three more reverts. User needs to be blocked immediately, eleven reverts in three hours is unacceptable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 24 hours. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Page: Illinois Family Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [280]

Preceding reverts leading into a set of four

• [281] 12:08, August 29, 2012
• [282] 21:53, August 29, 2012
• [283] 00:02, August 30, 2012
• [284] 00:06, August 30, 2012
• [285] 11:42, August 30, 2012

Set of four identical reverts in 24 hrs 1 minute

• 1st revert: [286] 21:15, August 31, 2012
• 2nd revert: [287] 22:29, August 31, 2012
• 3rd revert: [288] 05:21, September 1, 2012
• 4th revert: [289] 21:16, September 1, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [290] 00:08, August 30, 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Illinois Family Institute#RfC Should SPLC "hate group" designation be in the lead?

Comments:
There is a discussion on the talk page about what to put in the lead section, a Request for Comment that is going against the preference of StAnselm, and several editors have been moved to act upon the developing consensus. StAnselm has reverted each time. The fourth revert of the same material is 24:01 after the first; the one extra minute can be seen as gaming the brightline rule.

Leading up to this series of four identical reverts in a 24:01 period, StAnselm had been edit-warring to remove negative article content which he did four times in a 12-hour period beginning on August 29. He was warned against edit-warring at that time. He reverted once more eleven hours later, then a day after that initiated the series of four reverts in 24:01. This editor is harming the development of the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• OK, well I've just come back to the computer after a few hours away - at least I haven't been blocked yet. It will take me a few minutes to formulate a response. StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is my response:

1. It is very hard to see this as a good faith nomination when User:Binksternet says, in "the only thing wrong with it will be fixed when StAnselm is blocked."[291] It sounds like "block this editor so I can have my way."
2. I have been blocked for edit warring once before (almost a year ago), and I thought I'd learned my lesson. I was not attempting to game the system - though I realise the 24 hours + 1 minute is not a good look. Rather than gaming the system, when I realised I was up to my third revert in 24 hours, I posted a request at WP:RPP.[292] Inasmuch as this was an edit war, it was one I was always bound to "lose", being up against three different editors.
3. I am annoyed that this was posted here without me receiving a prior warning. The warning diff listed here was from three days ago, and was for a separate issue, though on the same page. There were serious BLP issues involved in that edit war, and I was the one who started a thread on the talk page about it. [293]
4. In fact, there are BLP issues with the the clause over which this edit war was being fought. I acknowledge I did not claim a BLP "exemption" in my edit summary, but I was very unhappy with the name of a living person being used in the lead.[294] The name has since been removed.
5. I object to the flagrant disregard for Wikipedia processes that some editors are demonstrating here. A clause was being added to the lead, when there was an RfC open on the subject. User:StillStanding-247 was one of those who added the offending text.[295] He or she had requested that the RfC be closed,[296] and that request had been denied.[297] So regardless of what the consensus of the discussion might turn out to be, (and whether or not it is "going against my preference") it is clear that it had not been achieved yet.
6. Needless to say, I am standing down from this edit war, and backing away from the article. StAnselm (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment As far as "prior warning", in addition to the 3RR warning listed in this report, StAnselm received a previous 3RR warning just 7 days before that one -- see [298] Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, and I backed off after the warning. But I do want to point out that I made two reverts in that time period,[299][300] and so did you.[301][302] StAnselm (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I have found StAnselmnter t's revert first then discuss methods to be counter to collegial process. I find it very frustrating to have to edit it the atmosphere that it leads to. Particularly with anything having to do with the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate group designations across a handful of articles. We are generally forced to do formal RfC's to make the smallest of edits. Insomesia (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about "we", and I don't know about "forced to". You started an RfC at Talk:Illinois Family Institute without any prior discussion - are you now complaining because I wanted the RfC to be respected? StAnselm (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: since I am not editing on the page any more, I want to point out that User:Insomesia has just now added a reference to the article from a blog,[303] which is quite clearly contrary to WP:SPS. Would an uninvolved editor be able to take a look at it? Certainly, the urge to revert is very strong, but I will restrain myself. StAnselm (talk) 03:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

StAnselm was due for a block some time around 12:00 UTC on August 30 when he had broken the 3RR brightline rule with four reverts, was formally warned, and a half day later reverted one more time at 11:42 on August 30 to make 'five reverts. The fact that he was not blocked for that led to the set of four additional reverts on the next two days. This is very clearly the mark of an edit warrior harming the project. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I was, of course, claiming an exception to 3RR per WP:NOT3RR #7: Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP).[304]

Even you were not certain; you wrote "potential BLP violation" rather than an absolute BLP violation. The BLP policy is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is not like Italians blowing their car horns during which anything is allowed on the road. The notional BLP violation turned out to be nothing because the SPLC Intelligence Report, a scholarly journal, published it. In fact, that cite was already in the article when you reverted: Evelyn Schlatter, "18 Anti-Gay Groups and Their Propaganda" Southern Poverty Law Center. There was never a BLP violation, only you wishing to call upon one. Binksternet (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The BLP violation was very real, and it did not turn out to be nothing. It was never about the Intelligence Report reference - instead, it was about "Hatewatch", which is merely a blog. And which comes under "poorly sourced contentious material". I am sorry I used the word "potential" - there was never any doubt in my mind that there was a violation. StAnselm (talk) 05:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. None. It is sourced to hell and back again, quite reliably. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SPS? Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. StAnselm (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That means from Joe Schmoe's blog, not CNN's blog or Fox News' blog or SPLC's blog, the White House blog. Let's buy a clue here... Binksternet (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think it means Joe Schmoe's blog, you are missing the plain meaning of the text. I don't think there's much more I can say here - I think we need to let a neutral admin judge this. StAnselm (talk) 05:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User:EdelweissD reported by User:Zepppep (Result: 24h)

Page: List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EdelweissD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [305]

• 1st revert: [306] 13:53 1 September
• 2nd revert: [307] 13:57 1 September
• 3rd revert: [308] 20:16 1 September
• 4th revert: [309] 20:19 1 September

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 200 career wins#List entry criteria

Comments:User has also been invited to comment on consensus and warned of their behavior at User talk:EdelweissD.

Zepppep (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 05:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Family Research Council reported by User:Insomesia (Result: Page protected)

Family Research Council Family Research Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
multiple users who should know better

There is an RfC on the talk page but some experienced eyes to take a look may help as there seems to be a lot of edit reverting. This may not be edit-warring, please feel free to disregard if this is premature. Insomesia (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Comments:

Please review comments at Talk:Faithful Word Baptist Church.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of three days. One user blocked for disruptive editing. Swarm ^X 06:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

User:JonFlaune reported by User:Shrike (Result:JonFlaune blocked 24 hours for 1RR violation )

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

• 1st revert: [310] revert of this edit [311] which of course wasn't vandalism.(So this probably violation of WP:NPA
• 2nd revert: [312] of this revert [313]
• 3rd revert: [314] which reverted this edit, and falsely claimed consensus. (Added by AnkhMorpork Ankh.Morpork 15:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC))

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JonFlaune&diff=prev&oldid=510440138

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are currently ongoing discussion on talk page.

Comments:
The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under 1RR.Moreover editor reverted additional edit and described as vandalism when its clearly not.[315](This maybe a POV push but not a vandalism)

--- This is a disruptive bad faith report by a POV pusher, and neither of these edits are reverts of any kind but normal editing and a revert of obvious vandalism earlier in the day. An SPA with only 2 edits changing the first sentence to "was an American Pro-Palestinian" (and very probably the same person as the IP who just moments before had made this edit) is a clear cut case of obvious vandalism which would also have been a BLP vio in an article on a living individual, and reverting that as simple vandalism has nothing to do with being involved in an edit war. Changing activist to peace activist in a different edit has nothing to do with reverting anything, she is listed in the peace activist article, and it's a completely new edit and not a revert of any previous edit. Trimming and editing a section I have never edited before has nothing to do with being involved in an edit war. I suggest User:Shrike is sanctioned for disruption. JonFlaune (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC) 

Note:BLP can't be justification as she is already dead.Moreover the user didn't said that when they reverted.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The edit removing "human rights activist" from the lead was certainly not "vandalism." This is an extremely contentious article, and I can see that some editors will disagree with certain weasel wording in the lead, which would be best to discuss on the article's talk page. I can see why someone would revert it, but it certainly is not vandalism.

I would add to Shrike's list of reverts this important edit, changing a crucial wording of my edit here (revert is anything that undoes, whether in whole or in part, the work of another editor - this is a significant change of the wording of my edit). It's a pretty major change, as it's changing the ruling of a court to just a "claim" on a contentious article. Now, courts make rulings when it fits your POV, and when it doesn't, they only "claim" and their opinions are "fringe."

Please further note that while JonFlaune discusses POV pushing, he agrees with a statement by an IP that Wikipedia is "filled" with "pro-Israel trolls" and it's "ridiculous" to think that Israeli courts located in cities are "independent" and that Israel is a country based on Apartheid. Feel free to think that, but do we need to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to air these views, and edit this contentious article to conform to these views? --Activism1234 16:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the third diff that was inserted, with the false claims of an agreement or consensus, see the talk page discussion here as proof - only 2 editors agreed, and the original editor who had an issue with the wording didn't even get a chance to respond before JonFlaune put it into the article saying "new agreement" and consensus. --Activism1234 16:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There are no reverts on my part, only POV pushing on the part of User:Activism1234 and User:Shrike. Changing the first sentence to "is a Pro-Palestinian" is vandalism for everyone except clearly disruptive users. JonFlaune (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's the output of 3rr.php for John Flaune's edits at Rachel Corrie. Groups of successive edits have been combined and only the final edit summary is shown in each group:

1. 18:02, 1 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 510305720 by 68.81.39.6: rv vandalism. (TW)")
2. 18:36, 1 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
3. 20:34, 1 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by AneCristals (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Quick and Dirty User Account. (TW)")
4. 02:37, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* See also */")
5. 02:38, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
6. 02:38, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
7. 02:41, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
8. 02:46, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
9. 02:52, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
10. 03:03, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
11. 03:03, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "new agreed upon wording per talk")
12. 03:17, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
13. 03:18, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
14. 03:54, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
15. 04:02, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
16. 04:41, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
17. 14:48, 2 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* In Israel */")

I suspect that anyone who looks at this series will see a violation of WP:1RR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks after editor continued EW after release from 24 hour block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:86.40.109.132 reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: 31h)

Page: Rick O'Shea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.40.109.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [316]

• 1st revert: [317]
• 2nd revert: [318]
• 3rd revert: [319]
• 4th revert: [320]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [321]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [322]

Comments:
User is placing 22 article improvement tags on this page - everything from "lead rewrite" to "peacock" to "contradict." During my first revert of his changes, I made note of all the tags and asked that the IP discuss this in the talk page, which IP did not. The second also implored IP to use the talk page. Most of IP's responses are on User talk:86.40.109.132, where only vague responses were given as to why any tags were present on the article (e.g. no specifics as to what the contradictions were, etc.) Even after another editor stepped in and reverted his changes, he reverted right back again. Pretty clear case of edit warring. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Swarm ^X 05:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Kajalagarwal78 reported by User:Krzna (Result: 31h)

Page: Kajal Aggarwal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kajalagarwal78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [323]

• 1st revert: [324]
• 2nd revert: [325]
• 3rd revert: [326]
• 4th revert: [327]
• 5th revert: [328]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [329]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [330]

Comments:
Two editors tried talking with the user. Following was the edit summary posted by the user, "I think there is to many bad guys editing this". Please look into it. Thanks, krZna (talk) 09:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. Obvious 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Widescreen reported by User:Widescreen (Result: no action )

Page: Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [331],

• 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:

Well, I'm sure I did somth. wrong by reverting the user again. But that doesn't mean the revert wasn't necessary. I've read the rules two or three tims. But I'm not sure if my revert was allowed. So I report myself. So an Admin can take a look at it. Maybe also at the diskussion. I think this discussion is a joke and the user is obstinate. But I'm sure these nonsens shouldn't be present in our articles. --WSC ^® 12:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Huh? No diffs, user reporting themselves, don't waste our time please. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. This user reported an edit war a few days ago (I protected the pages as there was no 3RR vios.) It looks like they have reverted yet again and are reporting themselves in good faith, but there's clearly no 3rr violation here. Swarm ^X 22:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Mollskman reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: 31h)

Page: Zero Dark Thirty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mollskman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [332]

• 1st revert: [333]
• 2nd revert: [334]
• 3rd revert: [335]
• 4th revert: [336]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [337]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [338]

Comments:
This one is straightforward. I'm not sure whether to recommend a block or a page protect, so I'll leave it up to you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Note. Mollskman violated 3RR. They didn't receive a warning until after violating 3RR, although given the history, a warning shouldn't have been necessary. After they violated 3RR, they were advised to self-revert as a gesture of good faith. Unfortunately, it's not clear they've seen that sound advice as they haven't edited anything on Wikipedia since. I'm disinclined to lock the article - although I threatened to on the talk page - because some new editors have entered the picture, and I'm hoping progress can be made to sort out the content disputes. As of right now, I'm taking no action. Any other admin, though, is free to act as they see fit.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, but I will briefly express my concern that, in the absence of at least a warning, Mollskman will continue to edit war in the future. I'm not out for blood -- I think blocks are generally a bad idea -- but I think this article and others would benefit from a less martial approach by him. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. Not only this, but a triple revert on another article within the last two days and a suspicion of tag-teaming on this one not long before the 4RR. Editor is not a newbie and should know better. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Nomenclator reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: 72h)

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

• 07:07, 3 September 2012
• 15:55, 3 September 2012 (almost wholesale revert)
• 16:48, 3 September 2012 (wholesale revert)
• 17:10, 3 September 2012 (wholesale revert)

Comments

This is a report for edit warring, not 3RR.

Nomenclator is an occasional editor who was blocked three times for 3RR violations on Veganism in 2007. That he is aware of the rules is further evidenced by his counting of his reverts in his summaries.

He has suddenly returned to the article to add quite a bit of OR. This includes his opinion that the definition of veganism must follow that of the British Vegan Society, namely that a "vegan" is someone who avoids all animal products, and not someone who simply doesn't eat them. That is, he wants the article, and in particular the lead, not to include a definition of "dietary veganism," though the definition is reliably sourced.

He has been reverted by two editors, and three editors have objected on talk (217.147.94.149, Victor Yus, and myself; see this section). I have left a warning for him, [339] and I also invited him to revert himself, [340] but he has not responded. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Although this user hasn't been blocked since March 2007 and a standard 24 hour block might seem reasonable after all this time, I find their behavior anything but—four blocks for edit warring on the same article (within only 369 article space edits) is simply not acceptable at all. In addition, these edits mark the first time this user has attempted to edit Veganism since March 2007! They're apparently unable to edit this article without causing disruption, thus I've elected to increase the block duration. Swarm ^X 22:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Belchfire reported by User:StillStanding-247 (Result: withdrawn)

Page: Corporate welfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Dishonorable Disclosures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [341] and please note the next edit[342]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [343][344]

Comments:
I am reporting Belchfire for edit-warring, not specifically a 3RR violation, so I'm omitting the specific diffs and instead asking that you look at recent history for the overall pattern of repeated reverts. (Depending on interpretation, he may or may not have exceeded 3RR, but I don't want to base the report on this because it's debatable.)

I'm concerned that he has either avoided discussion or has been belligerent and uncooperative, all while repeatedly reverting to keep his version in place. The actual edits he makes all seem to have the same basic pattern, which is that they favor the conservative political POV (he is a member of WikiProject Conservatism).

These are not the only articles he's edit-warring over at this moment, but they're among the clearest cases. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• This report is clearly simple harassment by this user. He's been following me around all over Wikipedia for the better part of two months, doing his best to frustrate anything and everything I do, without regard to reason or sanity. In this case, he's seized upon some edits by this indeffed user User:Orvilleunder, which he then decided to adopt as his very own [345] [346], clearly for the express purpose of creating a confrontation. Admins should note that StillStanding never edited either article prior to today, but simply saw the opportunity to generate fodder for this report. I'm not going to spend the time necessary to dig up all of the diffs, but this is merely the most recent episode in a long string of similar abuses. I would urge interested admins to look carefully at his contribs to evaluate whether this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)This is ridiculous. In both of the articles you linked to, he reverted a sockpuppet [347] [348]. Are you looking for a boomerang?. Hot Stop 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)Reverting a blocked sockpuppet's contributions is explicitly listed under WP:3RR as not counting. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore the sock puppet revert. That's the one that I said was arguable. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For example, on Corporate welfare, he deleted some material and has reverted everyone's attempt to restore it for days now. He gets exactly one free pass for the sock puppet, but the pattern remains. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The two articles today are not isolated occurrences. Here are a few other recent examples of StillStanding following me to a diverse selection of articles for the express purpose of reverting my edits: [349] [350] [351] In each case, he never edited the articles before, but suddenly found them interesting once I had touched them. As one might imagine, this gets old, and it makes it difficult to avoid the guy. Belchfire-TALK 08:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• What StillStanding doesn't understand is that Orvilleunder, Belvbelv and both of the IPs are the same indeffed sockmaster. All of the edits coming from the 216.81.*.*/28 IP range are the same disruptive user with multiple blocks to his credit. Not a single one of those reverts count towards edit-warring. Belchfire-TALK 08:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In both of these articles, Orvilleunder is identified as a sock only in the second to last revert. Was he known as a sock before this? If so, why aren't the edits commented with that information? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You knew it was a sock and STILL decided to reinstate his edits on multiple articles. How come? Belchfire-TALK 08:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to withdraw this report, unless you want to be blocked as well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur that the report should be withdrawn, but I take issue with "as well". There is no basis to accuse me of edit-warring here. Nada. Belchfire-TALK 08:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Read: "if you want... as well" :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I'll withdraw, but anyone who reverts a sock because they're a sock needs to say so in their comments. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

thx Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I find Belch's explanation a tad questionable. Only one of the accounts was identified in any way as a sockpuppet from what I can tell and Belch clearly reverted most of those instances on the basis of a content argument, rather than sockpuppetry. Accusing Still of filing a bad faith report on the basis that these were all reverts of sockpuppets is thus inappropriate. However, Belch neglects to mention that the initial revert removed long-standing material. The sockpuppet defense doesn't quite add up given that the material was not recently added by such a user.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that similar circumstances apply with regards to the Dishonorable Disclosures article as the material was inserted by AzureCitizen and only later did a sock restore that material.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

User:178.36.78.138 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 24h)

Page: America's Next Top Model, Cycle 19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 178.36.78.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 07:48, 3 September 2012

• 1st revert: 08:51, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")
• 2nd revert: 15:32, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")
• 3rd revert: 19:51, 3 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")
• 4th revert: 07:45, 4 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Photo shoot guide */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute on editor's talk page:

• 11:32, 3 September 2012
• 15:52, 3 September 2012

Comments:
I was asked to do some work at the America's Next Top Model articles,[352] and when doing so I noticed many instances of MOS non-compliance so I put all articles on my watchlist. Most recently, User:178.36.78.138 made changes, some of which were not compliant with MOS:CAPS and WP:OVERLINK so I cleaned them up.[353] When the IP restored the edits, I again fixed them and left a message on his/her talk page.[354] When they were again restored I asked the IP if there was anything in what I wrote that they did not understand,[355] but I didn't revert at the time - the ANTM articles seem to be plagued with unresponsive IPs and I fully expected any change I made to be reverted, so I just couldn't be bothered getting into an edit war over such a trivial issue. (The changes were later reverted by another editor.[356]) However, the next time the IP restored the changes, I left a warning on the IP's talk page[357] and conducted a more thorough, but still incomplete, cleanup.[358] Despite this, the IP has again partially restored the changes, breaching 3RR in the process. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm ^X 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

User:2.222.145.203 reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: 31h)

Page: Fong Sai-yuk (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.222.145.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [359]
• 2nd revert: [360]
• 3rd revert: [361]
• 4th revert: [362]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2.222.145.203&diff=510735232&oldid=510735185 ]

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

Comments:
This user has been at it for months and returns under various IPs, usually editing wrestling and martial arts film articles. Never replies, just changed genres and adds UK dvd info without any citations. I've tried to discuss with them, but they just keep editing this one and many many other articles. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Discospinster. Swarm ^X 19:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)