Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. 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. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Djjazzyb reported by User:Michig (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Tanya Stephens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Eminem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Djjazzyb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was edit warring on the Eminem article, repeatedly adding a logo where a text name should be:

• 1: [1]

This was removed in line with infobox guidelines, followed by several reverts by User:Djjazzyb:

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

• This was followed by edit-warring on the Tanya Stephens article:
• Initial edit changing surname to Stephenson: [6]
• 1st revert: [7]
• 2nd revert: [8]
• 3rd revert: [9]
• 4th revert: [10]

• User: Gimmetoo explained why the use of the logo was inappropriate: [11]
• User: Djjazzyb continued to revert and was warned for edit-warring

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning for edit warring on the Eminem article

• He then proceeded to edit-war on the Tanya Stephens article.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Several attempts have been made to reason with this edoitor and explain what they are doing wrong: [12], [13], [14], [15]

Comments:

In the past couple of days I have also had to revert edits by this user such as removal of project tags from an article talk page, changing the name in an infobox against established consensus on the talk page, and removal of an AfD notice while the discussion was still open. --Michig (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

How about this: both of you stop reverting each other and discuss these changes. Michig, you have been just as active a participant in these edit wars as Djjazzyb has. Based on the history of Tanya Stephens, you could both easily be blocked for edit warring. --Chris (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You should probably acquaint yourself with our policy on biographies of living people - the Tanya Stephens article is a BLP and the removal of reliably sourced information and its replacement with unsourced and poorly sourced information is not something for debate. In the Eminem article I reverted once in line with the guidelines for the template, so how am I edit-warring on that article exactly? --Michig (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, 1st, Tanya Stephens' real name is Stephenson, I have provided numerous references, checked the inlays for her CDs, hell I talked to her personally through facebook, it cannot be disputed. 2nd, The Eminem logo, how come you're not having a go at User:fijipeace? After he did the same to the Game (rapper) article, that made me want to do it to some articles to. That said, I have already resolved this matter with User:Walter Görlitz on the Skillet (band) page. So, honestly is there any real problem here? Or are you just finding flaws with nothing at all? That's all I've got to say on the matter for now. I'm out. K. (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Michig, BLP tends to focus more on contentious material, especially negative or controversial. While Djjazzyb's version of the article was not very well sourced, I have a very hard time believing that all of the added material was contentious. It certainly did not warrant a war between his edits and the stub. Effort would have been better spent helping look for better sources. --Chris (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

user:Djjazzyb has other problems here.[16] Kerfuffler (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I blocked Djjazzyb because they clearly exceeded 3RR. However, I think there are some competency issues that need to be addressed as well. Michig, your one comment on the article talk page was helpful, but I think more could have been done to educate Djjazzyb. I understand it might not have been successful, but it would have been good to try. Perhaps you can tackle that after the block expires or even leave a note on the editor's talk page during the block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I must say that Djjazzyb's initial reaction to the block doesn't bode well for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nor his second.[17] Kerfuffler (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose I'm the only person to get pissed off and go reckless, right? K. (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:FurrySings reported by User:Hirolovesswords (Result: No violation)

Page: United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FurrySings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

• 1st revert: [19]
• 2nd revert: [20]
• 3rd revert: [21]
• 4th revert: [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

User:FurrySings has tried to WP:CENSOR United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 by removing well-cited material that is unfavorable to Elizabeth Warren without a consensus. The user has stated on the article's talk page that he/she will continue to remove this material without a consensus, even though he/she has not proven that this material violates any policy. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation Stale (and no violation even then), no notification of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Lassoboy reported by User:Mephistophelian (Result:no vio)

Page: Dangerous World Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lassoboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following a recent altercation, the article is presently identical to the version dated 12:53, 6 September 2012.

• 1st revert: 17:07, 8 September 2012.
• 2nd revert: 17:08, 8 September 2012.
• 3rd revert: 17:08, 8 September 2012.
• 4th revert: 21:48, 8 September 2012.
• 5th revert: 21:48, 8 September 2012.
• 6th revert: 10:54, 9 September 2012.
• 7th revert: 10:54, 9 September 2012.

Within the last few hours, I issued warnings to J.P.Rallizgard and Lassoboy regarding the continuation of the dispute and the possibility of preventative blocks.

Previous entries at Talk:Dangerous World Tour and User talk:J.P.Rallizgard suggest that Lassoboy did not attempt to resolve the dispute with their counterpart directly prior to reporting at WP:ANI, and demonstrate Lassoboy's presumption of ownership of specific articles, including Dangerous World Tour. Whatever the individual faults of a contributor, I don't believe that anything merits this sort of incivility: 'If you are going to fuck up these articles again, I will write to the moderators and ask them to block you from Wikipedia', which establishes the antagonistic nature of the numerous full and partial reversions in the subsequent months.

Comments:

After the initial report of edit warring at WP:ANI, I determined that the involvement of Lassoboy and J.P.Rallizgard in the dispute is recent and merits intervention. Their previous encounters suggest a long-standing pattern of reversion and edit warring, especially where Lassoboy infringed the WP:3RR on multiple occasions during August. Mephistophelian (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

I am sorry for being so tyrant, but it was at the time necessary, because this user violated this article in my eyes. There have been numerous other edits from other users, but I have agreed with these, because these were constructive edits. So, in overall, I think I have been fair in editing this article. And it was completely impossible to communicate with this user. He/She has never answered to my letters. Period. Lassoboy (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I herein admit that I am not the author of this article and not the guard of this article. I am just an editor, who next time will try to be a little bit more polite in my actions. And I hope that J.P.Rallizgard will not do no more unnecessary, meaningless and pointless edits in the future. Lassoboy (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• No violation; the first three diffs are consecutive, so count as one revert. Same with the last two. The two in the middle also are, but they are from the other editor in the dispute and so wouldn't count for this report anyway. Note to the parties: Do be careful. No blocks are called for now, but continuing this way could result in blocks. Please talk it out and pursue dispute resolution as needed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:89.133.214.66 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Joan Juliet Buck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.133.214.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

• 1st revert: [26]
• 2nd revert: [27]
• 3rd revert: [28]
• 4th revert: [29]
• 5th revert: [30]
• 6th revert: [31]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33] (personalized comment on the IP's talk page)

Comments: I'm involved. The article has a checkered history replete with BLP issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the 5th revert. The IP is decidely past the bright line, and had been quite properly warned as well. His edit summary of Please I have been following this with great interest and you are wrong seems to adequately show the problem. Other addresses likely include 91.50.184.173 and 77.241.200.126 as making congruent edits. Seems to be European - and likely a person who travels in Eastern Europe a bit. Collect (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Added the 6th revert. I seriously doubt that this is a close call at all. Collect (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts at 14:18, 14:58, 20:38 and 20:48 at a minimum. Clear warning given at 17:57.Kuru (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jokkmokks-Goran reported by User:Activism1234 (Result: )

Page: 2002 Hebron ambush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jokkmokks-Goran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [34] this is reinserting info that was previously removed a few days ago. In fact, we discussed this on the talk page, and a look at it shows only Jokks supports putting it in, while no one else does - there isn't consensus to put it back in. He didn't bother to even comment on the talk page about it...
• 2nd revert: [35] (reinserts this and other info after I removed it today) and this nonsensical revert
• Article is under ARBPIA, 1RR.

Look at his contributions/user talk page history - he has extensive dealings in the area.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] - as mentioned above, despite not having consensus to put it back in, he simply ignored the talk page and put it in a few days later, without even commenting on the talk page.

Comments:

Activism, I don't think your reason for reverting in the edit summary, "Btselem is POV and can't be used unless mentioned in RS", is valid. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61#Reliability_of_Israeli_human_rights_organization_B.27Tselem (although note the editor there, Stellarkid, is a long term sockpuppeteer who was previously involved in the CAMERA campaign in Wikipedia). My understanding is that B'tselem is an RS with attribution, like Human Rights Watch or the IDF. Jokkmokks-Goran seems to be trying to build the article. It is not entirely clear why you aren't helping him. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy with discussing this further on the talk page of that article. Note though that Jokks also reinserted previously removed content for which there was an open discussion on the talk page without any consensus to put it back in, and after I removed it for that reason, reinserted it again, which is really the main reason I'm here. --Activism1234 20:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, because it's not a content dispute but rather a clear breach of 1RR.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism, yes, it would have been better if he didn't do that. He should have continued to discuss it, but you must know that running straight here will reduce your chance of collaboration, which will ultimately damage the article. Shrike, it's not irrelevant that there is a dispute where an editor is unable to build an article based on RS and another editor feels it's necessary to file a 1RR report because they are not getting collaboration on the talk page. We're supposed to build articles but it's becoming increasingly difficult in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Activism1234 has repeated deleted all information concerning Israeli plans for and actual destruction of Palestinian houses in Hebron. I believe that this is highly relevant for the subject of the article. The material has reliable Israeli sources. He has not given any real reason why it should not be included.

I didn’t notice that this was one of the things Activism1234 deleted. The other things he deleted were new additions to the article that had never been there before and therefore not “reverts” as I understand the term.

He deleted two quotes from a report by B’Tselem on the pretext that it’s not a RS. He then also deleted the source. But this B’Tselem report had been included as a source in the article for a long time, supporting the additional claim that Hebron was subjected to a full six months of curfew.

Then he deleted American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee’s reaction to the statements made by Powell and Annan in the “International reactions” section. I see no reason to exclude it. Activism1234 also gave no reason for this deletion.

Then he changed the term “fighter from Hamas” to “Hamas militant” claiming that the former implied glorification of this person. I don’t think this is a particularly important point. But I believe that “fighter” is more neutral than “militant” and therefore more appropriate in Wikipedia.

I made a rash decision and I am therefore guilty of violating the 1RR rule, at least technically. For that I’m sorry and I promise to be more careful next time. I’m also prepared to take my punishment for this.

It is however apparent that me and Activism1234 cannot solve our differences on our own. He is pushing his political agenda very strongly. I feel Activism1234 does not seriously discuss the issues on the talk page. He repeatedly comes up with his own interpretations of events but never supply any sources backing this interpretation.

His idea is that any information that he disapproves of, however well-sourced, should stay out of the article until we “reach consensus”. But that will never happen. We need the help of a third party. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

if it was a rash decision, and you truly regret it, why don't you simply go to that article and undo your last edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by They think it's all over (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should have but I didn't realize my mistake until I was reported here. By then it would probably be seen as a hypocritical gesture. I am sorry for violating the 1RR rule. But I will continue trying to have the section included in the future. Without violating rules. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it would actually work in your favor. I've seen a number of these reports closed with no adverse effect on the violator when they simply said "sorry, I've undone my violation and won't do it again". — Preceding unsigned comment added by They think it's all over (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note that it's been over a day and Jokks has refused to revert... Apparently doesn't have any interest in doing so, and thus we have an edit of a 1RR violation remaining on the page for over an entire day... --Activism1234 23:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:E4024 reported by User:Alexikoua (Result: both blocked 24h)

Page: Occupation of Smyrna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
It started when I added the a link of the relevant peace treaty to the lead of the article. E4024, removed it immediately (1st and 2nd rv), although it was sourced. As a compromise I've added the same information not in the lead but in the main text, but in vain (3rd rv). During the following hours, while I initiated a discussion in the talk page, E4024 performed the 4rth rv (partially reverted a recent addition in another section) and then a 5th rv (again partial revert of a recent addition I've made). In general E4024 displays an aggresive behavior, by reverting (entirely or partially) imediattely any kind of addition made in the article in a variety of sections (typical wp:own). For example a proposal I've made in the discussion [[45]] was answered by this [[46]].

Although he appears to 'battle' alone against various users, ([[47]] being advised by another user to reconsider) for an unknown reasons he insist that my edits appear to be vandalim [[48]].

E4024, displayed battleground acitivity in the past too [[49]], but it appears, as noted, that he isn't making progress.Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am really surprised by this. My many contributions and other interactions show that I am only trying to contribute to the improving of WP. Recalling a case from my very first days in WP is not relevant. In the present claim, the accuser shows that he is not aware of the difference between "edits" and "reverts". I have even corrected his/her spelling mistakes and that edit of mine has been added to my "list of reverts" by the said party. Anybody that will read the discussion page of the relevant article will see that I have been trying to help the user to understand the procedure of international treaty making (the main point of difference between us) but all my efforts were in vain. (His/her attitude may be qualified as "I am not hearing you.") Best regards to all. --E4024 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing a lot of evidence that this is sanctionable edit warring, rather, it looks like a lot of unrelated content removals. While I'll grant that the 3RR doesn't require all reverts to be the same, I just don't see a case this being edit warring worth sanctioning. Will leave this up in case any other admins want to give a second opinion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? A partial revert is still a revert. According to the definition of 3rr: "whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert" so, we have clearly a 3rr in this case (5 rvs in less than 12h). Morevoer, there is still extreme wp:own activity and disruption as E4024 insist to invite other user to his "short history lessons and lectures".Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. E4024's comment about a spelling error involves the 5th revert and, in addition, they changed other material at the same time as they corrected the spelling. At the same time, the reporter has also made more than 3 reverts. More important, the battle continues between the two editors as recently as a few hours ago.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Widescreen reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Again) (Result: 1 wk)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Immediately after being blocked for the same exact reason, Widescreen has continued edit waring against the consensus without abiding by WP:BRD. All the issues were agreed to in dispute resolution and by the editors on the page, Widescreen continues to assert they weren't and continues edit warring without discussing it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This case is also beein discussed here. I don't know what to do after CartoonDiablo denial to answer my arguments? [50] [51] [52] [53]. Now it goes about a POV-Button. Is CD allowed to do everything?

In fact CDs editing is highley POV and obviously wrong. His only argument is to hide behind Weasel Words and 3RR. Thats insolent and not only by CD! Did it goes about 3RR or well sourced and correct informations? I as author of 3 featured articles in german WP have never seen such a proceed is successful. But in this case it seems so. No discussion but still get supported so he can continue with the proceed. --WSC ^® 23:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You reverted again!!![54] Enough of this. I'm usually opposed to blocks, but not in this case. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Just tell me why you are agains a simple POV-Button? Your only argument is the editwar and it needs 2 useres at the minimum to have an editwar. This hyding after 3rr in this case not violated or WAR, by refusal a discussion AND a POV-Button is the worst violation of the five pillars I have ever seen in WP. And I'm an author since 8 Years. en:wp seems to be a "snitchpedia". --WSC ^® 00:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no POV dispute, that was solved and your problems were explained in it weeks ago. We have both repeatedly told you that even prior to you being banned. The only person who thinks there is a POV dispute is you. But aside from that, you continue to edit war without abiding by WP:BRD and discussing the issue. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How many users did it take to have an POV dispute? Futher, you continue to edit war too. At the last time it was me, rooky violating the 3rr. Luck of the draw. You just spread allegations. Do you think the Admins arn't abele to read and proof the tings your false pretences? --WSC ^® 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The question isn't how many, it's the fact that you edit war without abiding by WP:BRD and don't do the actual process for appealing a dispute resolution consensus. I don't know how many times me and Still-standing reverted but you are continuing to revert after being banned for it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for long-term edit warring about cognitive behavioral therapy and psychoanalysis. It was clarified by the last blocking admin here that WSC's last block was for warring which included a 3RR violation at Cognitive behavioral therapy. Two admins (Bagumba and Swarm) reviewed the last block and declined to lift it. Amazingly, this dispute has already been through WP:DRN which came up with a result, which WSC still won't accept. (He is concerned about the relative effectiveness of psychoanalysis and cognitive behavioral therapy. He continues to add POV tags at both articles. As he said at Talk:Cognitive behavioral therapy#POV-Warning on August 30, "I insist, to set one of these POV-warning boxes into the article, till these table is erased.") WSC's block log on the German Wikipedia is here. In November 2011 he was blocked for six months on de:wp. EdJohnston (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:65.15.191.184 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Ford Excursion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 65.15.191.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1st revert = 01:11, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "")

2nd revert = 01:41, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511621155 by CZmarlin (talk)")

3rd revert = 02:38, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511625738 by CZmarlin (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:

• These are the identical edits involving the addition of promotion for an aftermarket conversion company and a spam link to it, as done by Martin Blaney. The result was that the user was blocked yesterday: here
• The same edits were also performed today and yesterday under the following user names: 174.146.45.181 (once), 174.146.122.245 (twice), 184.234.155.140 (once), 70.233.132.43 (once) - most likely meaning that this is sockpuppetry.
• Thank you —CZmarlin (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Updates (note: copied as they appear in my "local" time):

4th revert = Revision as of 23:35, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511634011 by Jim1138 ")

5th revert = Revision as of 23:40, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511634011 by Jim1138 ")

• CZmarlin (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

More updates (with my local time)

6th revert = Revision as of 23:50, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "(Undid revision 511635332 by Jim1138")

7th revert = Revision as of 23:54, September 9, 2012 (edit summary: "(Undid revision 511636248 by Jprg1966")

• Once again, all the edits keep adding the same promotion for "a conversion company (Custom Autos by Tim) in Guthrie, Oklahoma" and the spam EL. CZmarlin (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• It's easier and quicker to use WP:AIV for such cases. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

User:68.83.5.102 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.83.5.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Not applicable. Constantly fluctuates due to edit-warring.

• 1st revert: [55]
• 2nd revert: [56]
• 3rd revert: [57]
• 4th revert: [58]
• 5th revert: [59]
• 6th revert: [60]
• 7th revert: [61]
• 8th revert: [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Comments:
Ceaseless edit-warring across multiple articles connected with Rand. IP will not discuss or take no for an answer. Personal attacks as well against other editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur, multiple examples of disruptive behaviour, aggressive comments and edit summaries, refusal to use the talk page etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, the IP editor has engaged in discussion on user talk pages. Unfortunately, the "discussion" consists entirely of variations on the IP editor saying, "I'm right so stop your abusive removal of my changes", accompanied by another revert. See the IP's talk page, or here, or here, or here. --RL0919 (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Some new meaning of "discussion" I assume ?  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked per the textbook on edit warring. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies. Pc1985 (talk · contribs) is a sock of the IP and is currently evading the IP block. Reported at AIV but it wouldn't hurt to mention it here as well. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks like Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Z554 reported by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (Result:24 hours)

Page: Esh Kodesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Israeli settlement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Z554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 67.6.119.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Esh Kodesh and Israeli settlement

For Esh Kodesh (note that the page is under 1RR per ARBCOM Arab-Israeli conflict)

• 1st revert: [64]
• 2nd revert: [65]
• 3rd revert: [66] (this one is by the IP; same edit summary, though)

Israeli settlement (also under 1RR):

• 1st revert: [67]
• 2nd revert: [68]
• 3rd revert: [69] by the IP, same edit summary as above

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71] (last of a series of warnings to Z554) and [72] warning to IP.

Comments: I think it's clear enough that the IP is involved that I'm including it in the report. Note especially use of all CAPS in edit summaries and the fact that the only two articles the IP has edited are the ones that Z554 was edit warring over earlier. I forgot to mention that for good measure, there's canvassing: [73]
— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Even without the IP edits, the 1RR vio is clear, so 24 hours. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Ducatidave5 reported by User:SkepticalRaptor (Result: 24 hours)

Page: MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ducatidave5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]
• 5th revert: [78]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments like this, this, and this did not indicate that the editor was very interested in anything but this one article and constantly make one change to it. We've seen this before with vaccine articles.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also blocked for disruptive agenda - see here.Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )

Page: Ahmad Shah Massoud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Future Perfect at Sunrise (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]
• 4th revert: [84]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [85]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

Comments:

This report seems malformed. The fourth claimed revert is a revert by Darkness Shines not by FPAS. Mathsci (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am in a bit of pain. Fixed. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition Darkness Shines seems to have been tag teaming with JCAla. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The 4th revert is well outside 24 hours, pain or otherwise. What is the point of reports like this? Mathsci (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Er,. the fact that he is edit warring? And refuses point blank to discuss. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I would not call 53 minutes "well outside2 And do not make accusations of tag teaming. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

He is not edit warring. It is your editing and that of JCAla that seems to be the problem here, although I have not looked at the content issue. Please watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. The first edit was made at 9:13 (am) on 10 September; the 4th was made at 18:53 (pm) on 11 September. Not so hard to see far more than 24 hours between those edits, is it? Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the time of the last revert. it is 53 minutes from the last revert to the fourth. That is most certainly edit warring. You blithely say my editing is the problem, yet have not looked at the content dispute. Way to go. Shall I go and revert him then? Then I can get blocked for edit warring, after all I am just a pleb here not a super special admin. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR rule is "no more than 3 reverts within the space of 24 hours". Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see vandalism or BLP violations so FutPerf needs to hit the talk page, where there is a decided lack of discussion going on except a single comment by Darkness Shines/F,nf. Summaries are pretty aggressive, but not over the line. I don't see a need for action at this given time, but had I independently stumbled across the article, I would be tempted to full protect it for a few days and force it onto the talk page, and may yet if it continues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, he has refused to discuss[87] just wants people banned. Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page has been tried; it's hopeless. Trying to talk to JCAla is like talking against a brick wall. I utterly lost patience with him several months ago (and, by extension, with D.S.), so no, I am no longer available for any kind of dispute resolution that involves me having to pretend conducting a rational discussion with these people. Other forms of dispute resolution have failed too, because JCAla has always managed to deflect any outside involvement through the sheer size of his "didnthearthat" rants (the well-known WP:SOUP approach). JCAla is a hardened, single-minded and extremely obstinate agenda warrior, and trying to negotiate neutrality with him is simply not possible. This is the kind of situation where the Wikipedia model of dispute resolution simply fails, radically, and the only solution will be when these two editors will finally get their long-deserved topic bans. Sorry if it's not politically correct to say it like this, but this is the way it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll save you the speech because you've given it more than I have. I still think blocking would be overkill and inappropriate here (it's no secret I'm not a fan of 4RR blocks where the participants are talking) but, well, you know. You can't revert like that. I'm left with not much else you don't already know: take it to the talk page, take it to DRN or MedCab, all things you also tell others but don't think will work. What else would you propose? There aren't a lot of options here, and you know what they are. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the only rational solution here is to ban the agenda warriors. Anybody with half a brain can see that JCAla's editing on this article has been a persistent, brazen-faced, unrestrained POV campaign; anybody with half a brain who looks at the talk page archives can see that rational discourse with him is impossible. This is blockable, and the situation will persist until some administrator finally does what is needed. Yes, please, spare yourself the admin preaching about dispute resolution; it won't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a clear-cut content issue in which Fut.Perf. refuses to discuss or build consensus. He is more than clearly edit warring, and I am more than interested to see if people are treated according to the same standards here. Fut.Perf. has been hounding people after disagreements in content disputes. With me it started after an image deletion discussion before which we had never met. Ever since that image deletion discussion, Fut.Perf. has been issuing personal attacks and shown hounding behavior. In that first and initial dispute with him at the image deletion discussion, he was noted by the closing admin for: "S/he [Fut.Perf.] must not confuse arguments that are truly invalid with arguments that s/he merely disagrees with."[88] That really captures the main problem here. Ever since Darkness Shines came into contact with Fut.Perf. on the opposing side of an argument, the same happened to him. When DS got a DYK promoted by several established editors reviewing it, Fut.Perf. immediately discredited it including all those that had reviewed it.[89][90] Now we got that 4RR accompanied by an utter failure to discuss and again disrespectful comments directed towards established editors for disagreement over content. JCAla (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• FutPerf, I have looked at the article talk page, from your first post [91] to your last [92], as well as JCAla's contribs. You obviously don't like each other. JC, it isn't as clear cut as you make it, no matter how much you protest. Let me be blunt: I'm worried about Fut.Perf's expressed desire to not work with you, but only as much as I am with some of your tactics that look more like obstructionist wikilawyering than consensus building, with DS along for the ride. Limiting myself to observations on the talk page of this article, none of you are shining examples of collegiate cooperation here. Fut.Perf has tried to work the issues out, including starting a discussion at DRN [93] but both you said your peace and left, and wouldn't address each other. At this point, you need some outside opinions in the matter, and a willingness to accept the consensus of such. An RfC would be one method. Again, there are only so many options here, and I'm interested only in solutions. Drag each other to ANI, RFC/U, start an RfC on the content, ArbCom, whatever, but edit warring, either by individuals or a team of two is not acceptable, previous sanctions or admin bits aside. If you want to consider the long term editing habits of each other, open an RFC/U. Limiting myself to the purpose of this venue, I don't see a need for action, and I can only hope my guidance isn't falling on deaf ears. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Outside opinion? Oh yes, great, please, get us some. RfCs have been tried too. But where do you think that outside opinion is going to come from? Who do you expect is going to read through all that crap on the talkpage in order to even just understand what the dispute is about, let alone formulate a reasoned opinion about it? Have you any idea how many decent contributors we have who have an ongoing interest and a positive track record in this kind of topic domain (internal Afghan politics and history)? I can tell you the answer: it is precisely zero. The only other editors who have ever shown an interest in this article have themselves been no less disruptive agenda warriors than the present set. As for native Afghan editors who might have an editing interest in this field, as far as I'm aware, we don't currently have a single one who is not already indef-banned, or deserves to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Again, I really do understand your frustration. I hesitated before jumping in here because it is a difficult to understand and contentious area, but what is the solution? In all sincerity, what am I to do? Ignore it? Block all of you for a combination of warring and tag team warring? Pick a side and just block one or two of you? I'm trying to offer some way forward but it appears my ideas are all bad ones. You know we don't ban anyone at ANEW, so you tell me, how do we move forward? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: Final warning issued)

Page: Joseph Berrios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 16:54, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511713781 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) restore deletion of neutral, verifiable, reliable, referenced content; undo section blanking; restore numerous refs")
2. 17:00, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511714841 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo disruptive edit, vandalism")
3. 17:06, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511715812 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) vandalism")
4. 17:13, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 4 edits by 68.250.73.249 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by HughD. (TW)")
5. 17:22, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511717705 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo vandalism")
6. 17:35, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511718251 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo vandalism")
7. 17:42, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511720174 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo blatant vandalism")
8. 18:25, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 511720819 by 68.250.73.249 (talk) undo vandalism")
9. 22:09, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Orlady (talk): Move pov to talk page. (TW)")
10. 22:11, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted to revision 511726673 by HughD: prep for povdiscussion on talk page. (TW)")
11. 22:12, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "")
12. 22:49, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Chairman, Democratic Party of Cook County, 2007– */ heading format")
13. 22:50, 10 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* 31st ward Democratic committeeman, 1987–1988, 1992– */ section heading format date range")
14. 14:43, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "WP:MOS notability in intro, summary of article contents in intro")
15. 14:49, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commissioner on Cook County Board of Review, 1988–2010 */ restore neutral, verifiable, reliable, referenced content related to record of hiring relatives while commissioner and defense of same, including direct quote(s) from subject")
16. 14:58, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Commissioner on Cook County Board of Review, 1988–2010 */ restore notable, neutral, verifiable content from referenced reliable sources")
17. 15:09, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Election */ let facts speak for themselves, restore detail, restore quotes, tweak subsection heading")
18. 15:19, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Illinois State Representative */ restore detail of creation of two Hispanic state legislative districts")
19. 15:28, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Early life and education */ add significant detail of ancestry from relaible source, already referenced")
20. 16:18, 11 September 2012 (edit summary: "/* Hiring and promoting relatives and friends as Assessor */ add board president statement and reference to neutral, verifiable, reliabel source")

• Diff of warning: here

• Comment. Editor appears to be at approximately 12RR in 36 hours, despite a warning on his talk page (linked above) at about 9RR, and appears to have no intention of stopping. (I've tried to remove the less relevant edits from the above list, but the original was very long indeed.) The IP against whom he was mostly edit-warring, has already been blocked. The IP in question was removing content apparently based on a belief (right or wrong) that it infringed BLP. Under sporadic discussion at the article's talk page and WP:BLPN. I have not edited the article.

—--Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note The IP was doing major whitewashing of the article, removing well sourced but negative material. I think the "BLP violation" by the IP is overstated a bit, as the edits show more a desire to cleanse the article rather than trim specific points. I would hate to see HughD blocked for what amounts to protecting the integrity of the article, even if he was doing it in the worst possible way. Even ClueBot reverted the IP on these cuts, showing how drastic the changes were. While this is clearly beyond any reasonable amount of reverts you would expect, the BLPN shows the contentiousness of the situation, as well as the obvious bias of the IP warrior. In a perfect world, HughD would come here and explain that he understands he was way over the line, and reassure it won't happen again. His motives may be good but we still can't tolerate that kind of behavior, even if he is right. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Hello. I was attempting to protect the integrity of the article. I requested the IP block but continued warring while waiting for the block to take effect, I recognize I should have waited for the block to take effect. Sorry. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  WRT WP:BLPEDIT the subject of the article is a Cook County politician and the IP maps to their HQ building during regular hours. I seriously doubt the IP was the subject himself but I suspect a surrogate WP:COI, in any case no excuse for my warring. Hugh (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Dennis, just one simple question. Was the material that the IP removed (and that HughD repeatedly reverted back into the article), "all OK" from a WP:BLP perspective? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  That is what WP:BLPN is for. All I can do when looking at a dispute, personally, is look at the motivations and intent. It is certainly contentious material, but it appears to be well sourced. Arguably, the controversy and negative material is what makes the subject notable. He isn't an elected official, after all. My concern isn't about what should or shouldn't be in the article, it is finding a solution that will stop warring so actual discussion can take place, and so review and a consensus can take place. Often, a block is the right answer, but in this case I think it would be counter productive and make the situation worse, rather than better. HughD has been here for years without a block, so warring doesn't appear to be a habit. Since I have no interest in justice, and only in solutions, I'm very tempted to just full protect for a while. Keep in mind, I don't normally work AN3 and will admit an ignorance as to the typical response by admins here, all I can do is use my best judgement in a given situation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  thanks. BTW the subject of the article IS an elected official. Hugh (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment -- WP:BLPEDIT may apply here. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Meh, it might apply to the IP, who was blocked and it has expired. The IP is an official Cook County IP, so someone is doing this at work for the county/city government. This is another situation where I'm inclined to thing full article protection and a force to the talk page is more effective than a series of blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Note, the article has had peer review [94], and a look at the contribs makes it appear User:Kqcassidy may be related. Again, none of this changes the bad judgement by HughD in reverting so much, but I still don't think blocking is the optimal solution. HughD needs to be given a chance to explain himself first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Before page protection, you may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Joseph Berrios and check in with Orlady, who has been making extensive changes to the article since the problem was reported to WP:BPLN yesterday. She's sort of Wikipedia's BLP-fixer extraordinaire. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

well now, how could i know that?? Hugh (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the diff between the version peer-reviewed in January and the version disputed yesterday: [95]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of my concern is that it has been semi-protected, which is a bit ham-fisted for a two sided dispute when one of them is an IP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for your comment. But now may I suggest we get back to semi, thanks. Hugh (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• "I should have waited for my opponent to be blocked" is not what we want to hear! If I find myself at 2RR, much less 3RR, I think very hard about what to do next. That's even if I believe the other editor is breaching WP:BLP every step of the way. In this case, there is no such excuse. HughD carried on past 4RR, past 5RR, past 9RR or wherever he is now, with absolutely no excuse at all. "The IP is associated with the subject" is not something I've ever seen used as an excuse for edit warring. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

uh, i think i said "no excuse" Hugh (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Two comments:

• We routinely go past 3r when dealing with blatant vandalism or spamming. BLPs are in a special category, however.
• I'm not sure what the typical outcomes are for discussions here, but I would hope it would not include a block for HughD. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. While I disagree with HughD's introduction of bias into the article (especially the lede) and his dealings with this IP, on the whole he is a prolific, valuable contributor on Wikipedia.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think my semi-protection of the article was "ham-fisted". I trimmed out the disputed sections, opened an entry at WP:BLPN, semi-protected the article and invited the IP to participate in the discussion there. My deletion of the disputed material was a temporary step to defuse to crisis, not a judgement on its merits; an experienced editor, Orlady, is now slowly reconstituting a more neutral version. I suggest leaving the article semi-protected and letting IPs express themselves on the talk page. I suspect our new version of the article may not necessarily please its subject; he just won't have very good grounds to object.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"I suggest leaving the article semi-protected and letting IPs express themselves on the talk page." Thanks for the semi. It's all we need here, folks. Really. I will work with all editors including our IP in the finest wp fashion. Hugh (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[EC] After being alerted to the BLP situation, I spent a lot of time working on this article to remove and/or rewrite content that I perceived to have egregious BLP issues, as well as some content that seemed at most peripherally relevant to this bio. Apparently, HughD disagreed with my changes, as he has reverted most of them. These are not subtle BLP problems; for example, although this is an article about a current elective officeholder who has not (AFAICT) been convicted of a crime, HughD's latest version of the WP:lead section (which is actually milder than some earlier versions) states as a matter of fact that he has engaged in a number of illegal activities: "Berrios hired relatives and friends to government jobs under his control, complemented elected office with a private lobbying practice, used ballot access law to political advantage, and vigorously defended accepting campaign contributions from those doing business with his elected office". I don't have time to deal with this right now (I'm late for a meeting), but I recommend that someone revert the page to my last edit, full-protect the article, and unblock the IP so that they can participate in talk-page discussion. (And, FWIW, I didn't finish cleaning up the BLP problems in the article, but I think I made a lot of good progress.) --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your edits. The intro makes no reference to illegal activities. As per MOS the intro summarizes aspects of notability. The activities mentioned in the intro are facts manifest in multiple RS. Further, the subject of the article has been very outspoken in rs in defense of those activities and so he or his surrogates should not have any problem with that lede. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, would you like to undertake not to get involved in this article's topic, and discussion of other's role in it, any further? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

may I ask, why you have asked one wikipedian to not participate in this discussion? Hugh (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Because I respect his judgement. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your reply. Hugh (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• HughD, would you agree that edit-warring in this way is *never* acceptable, that you will never edit-war in this way again, whether you view the other party's actions as "whitewashing" or not, whether you view the allegations as "well sourced" or not? Further, will you agree not to edit this specific article again? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. I'm proud of my contributions to this article and I intend to continue to work on it. Hugh (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted our Joseph Berrios article back to Orlady's last version and asked that Hugh make no further edits to the article without getting consensus from multiple, established editors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"Orlady's last version" That version omits about 1/3 of the refs. That version is non-neutral in that it gives the subject a pass on hiring of relatives and friends and controversial political campaign fundraising activities as commissioner, both of which issues predominate rs on this subject. That version violates WP:UNDUE to the extent WP:UNDUE exhorts us to give the same or similar weight in the article as coverage in RS. Hugh (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Another administrator has now fully protected the article.[96] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There we go, was side tracked at SPI, but full was the correct answer here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is now fully protected, this report should be closed. A warning to HughD would be apropos. Though the material that HughD is adding has some chance of being technically correct, his repeated additions have the effect of creating a article that reads like an attack piece. If protection were not already in place I would recommend a block of HughD because his actions regarding a BLP could be seen as reckless. The 3RR exemption works only for *removal* of material that could be seen as defamatory. It doesn't excuse HughD for repeatedly restoring possibly-correct negative material whose status needs review, and breaking the 3RR limit while doing so. HughD's responses here are disappointing. EdJohnston (talk) 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hugh, if you don't like the fully protected article as it is now, I encourage you to get busy at Talk:Joseph Berrios building consensus for each of your proposed edits. That's the way we're supposed to work on contentious articles.

Ed, I concur with your assessment and recommendations. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

may I ask, what are Orlady's or Reaper's burden to role model concensus building? to me they look like editors being bold Hugh (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting a more conciliatory tone as well, particularly considering the generosity and good faith dish out by the shovel full here. We all get "one", how we use it is up to each of us, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dennis! Please always assume good faith of everyone else involved. It can be tough! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• As far as warnings go, I believe I have explained the situation adequately on HugeD's talk page. If warring resumes after protection is lifted, I don't think a discussion will be required to determine if a block is justified. Closing is proper at this point, as per Ed. And Demiurge, I'm pretty sure I brought bucketloads of good faith here today. But remember, that good faith isn't a suicide pact. I'm not sure how I could have possibly given any more good faith than my discussion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• You've brought a great deal of disappointment, that's clear. I guess this is over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bbb23

Has repeatably removed large sections of Joan Juliet Buck article with from what I can see no justification despite repeated warnings by both editors and administrators. Manbumper (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a tag-team edit war involving Bbb23, Collect, Aichikawa, 89.133.214.66, and Manbumper. Par for the course. Should be locked and forced into dispute resolution. —Kerfuffler 23:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, one side is right and the other is wrong. I've locked the article down, wrong version or not. Now, anyone who knows our BLP policy can tell that Manbumper and the IP are wrong, and anyone who's looked at ANI recently knows why Kerfuffler is getting involved with this. I'll leave it to someone else to sort this out, and tease out its consequences. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please honestly check the history please it is much more then me and the IP.

Manbumper (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)