Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive198

User:Hyperionsteel reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Restriction agreed to)

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

---

Page: Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperionsteel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1] (although thankfully I have been able to secure the removal of BLP violations cited to a lobbying organization)

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

In these reverts, Hyperionsteel repeatedly restores BLP violations including but not limited to a controversial and unverifiable quote from an individual that's subsequently used as a hook for two long paragraphs of criticism of the individual, false or exaggerated statements of supposed fact about a living person's character and employment history, and descriptions of various individuals as lacking basic general knowledge of understanding of free speech.

Edit-warring also took place earlier; same general business. I'd begun by removing a large amount of poorly sourced material, citing BLP as one of several reasons, but after being reverted I continued removing only the BLP violations, rather than the other poorly sourced but less urgent material.

(While there are 4 reverts in just over 24 hours, which some would view as an attempt to game 3RR, that isn't even my point and I didn't realize it was the case until I was compiling the report; the problem is the edit-warring to restore BLP violations. I've removed them and explained why they cannot be included, but that hasn't stopped this user. I obviously am at 4RR but I've stated very clearly in each revert that I am removing BLP violations, which I enumerate in the edit summaries and which take priority over that bright-line.)

User also edit-warred to insert content describing a BLP subject as a "race-obsessed paranoiac" before "compromising" and removing that line, while retaining other false or exaggerated claims about the subject (which he's continuing to edit-war into the article linked above; see the bottom of the diffs).

And this has just come to my notice at Antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1st: [6]
• 2nd: [7]
• 3rd: [8]
• 4th: [9]
• 5th: [10]

Originally just an RS problem, but one of the other users reverting Hyperionsteel pointed out that the edit was apparently plagiarism as well, which did not faze him at all.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] (and earlier)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy#Removal_of_poor_sources (The discussion is generally over Hyperionsteel's insistence on the use of op-eds from unreliable papers; the bottom of the discussion concerns the BLP material specifically, which is also at WP:BLPN.)

Comments:
Already elaborated above, I think. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The additions to Antisemitism were blatant copy-pasted plagiarism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I admit I may have reverted this file more than 3 times within a 24-hour period (even though User:Roscelese acknowledges that I technically haven't) but only because User:Roscelese repeatedly removed huge portions of properly cited material from these article without any discussion on the article's talk page and her refusal to accept that mainstream newspapers are acceptable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. I find it ironic that User:Roscelese accuses me of edit warring, as she has engaged in this behaviour to repeatedly and unjustifiably remove material from properly cited sources. I acknowledge that I did engage in numerous reverts of these files but I acted in good faith and did so only because properly sourced material was being repeated removed by User:Roscelese without any discussion or resolution on the talk pages. I am prepared to face any consequences that may come of this, but I ask that User:Roscelese also face similar discipline.

Second, how am I guilty of plagiarism? I've clearly cited and acknowledged the sources (which are RS) and provided proper citations, and I'm certainly not claiming that its my own work. I have asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to clarify, but he has declined to do so. If this is simply about the wording of the material added, this can be easily addressed.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

One more note, I asked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 to discuss his allegations of Plagiarism with me. The only response I received from him on my talk page that either I am "playing stupid" or that I shouldn't be editing Wikipedia (i.e. that I am stupid). I would appreciate it if Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 would actually make arguments of substance instead of resorting to condesending and insulting remarks.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

I'll gladly fill in here. For example, every single paragraph most paragraphs in this diff uses the exact wording of a national post editorial without clear attribution. a13ean (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on some further investigation, I have submitted this to WP:CCI. a13ean (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I have acknowledged that I should have taken more care when incorporating this material into Wikipedia. However, I did provide proper sources and citations. I also attempted to reinsert a paragraph which gave better attribution to the author and source and consisted of reworked language, but this was also removed, again with explanation or discussion. In any event, the issue here is not allegations of plagiarism but whether or not my reverts were justified. I believed they were justified because Roscelese was removing huge portions of several articles (without discussion) solely because of her newfound hatred for the National Post (based on one incorrect article, a few derogatory comments on RSN, and her own invective). I pointed out repeatedly that a mainstream newspaper such as the Post is considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, despite the fact that it has a conservative outlook.

I will begin rewording and reorganizing the material I entered in the Antisemitism article (and I admit, I should have done this the first time) but let's focus on the real issue here - Were Roseclese's mass removals of properly sourced material without discussion justified, and if so, were my efforts to revert this justify disciplinary action against myself. One more thing - Roseclese directly accuses me of inserting false information into these articles. This I will challenge her on - please cite one example of false information that I entered. Anyway, as a temporary compromise, I will agree to leave the BLP material in question off the pages while the debate about the RS is ongoing.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

Very well - as per EdJohnston suggestion on my talk page, I will agree not to edit either of these articles for on month. I will only suggest that users not remove large portions of properly cited material in these articles without discussing it on the talk page first.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC))

BLP violations are always removed immediately, without discussion. You wrote that a commissioner "has" no clear understanding of free speech, but the source said the commissioner "demonstrated" no clear understanding of free speech. You also wrote that the National Post "stated", but in fact they opined. The op-ed piece you cited was an attack piece aimed at the commissioner, but you made it more of an attack by couching it as hard fact rather than opinion gained by observation. You also violated WP:NPOV by using an attack tone, and WP:UNDUE by emphasizing too much the attack piece. Binksternet (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I though this was finished but since Binksternet is making new allegations against me, I feel the need to respond. With regarding to his claim the I was "emphasizing too much the attack piece" clearly he didn't read the rest of the article. I included entire section on people who support the CHRC and even statments from the commissioner herself. True, I didn't include this in the criticism section, because the criticism section is for --- Criticism! With regards to the NPOV claim, I can understand how the tone is too harsh, and I would be willing to accept alternatives. You also accuse me of misquoting the Post - This is what the Post originally wrote: "...when calling for the review, chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch demonstrated no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it." When I incorporated this information into the article, I wrote: "The Post stated that Chief commissioner Jennifer Lynch has "no clear understanding of free speech or the value of protecting it". Also, I explicitly noted at the start of this section that the Post editorial board was the author(s) of the article - "In June 2008, the National Post published an editorial which harshly criticized Canada's Human Rights Commissions (HRCs)." I assumed I had made it clear that this section was sourced from an editorial and was to taken as such - i.e. it is the opinion of the Post's editorial board. I also assumed that such a statement/opinion written in an editorial would not be considered as a "hard fact" - I certainly was not "couching it" as you have alleged - It is clear in both versions that this is the opinion of the editorial board and not a "hard fact" - even if I did use the word "stated" as opposed to "opined". You seem to be implying that because I wrote that the Post "stated" something as opposed to "opined" something that it must automatically (or implicitly) be treated as a "hard fact." This is simply not true.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Thanks to Hyperionsteel for his agreement to not edit the two articles for a month. It seems to me that this should allow the 3RR report to be closed without sanctions against Hyperionsteel. I have not yet been convinced that Roscelese's reverts are covered by the BLP defence. I don't see a consensus anywhere that blanket exclusion of material from the National Post is justified, or that removal of Post opinions by itself is exempt from 3RR when the Post expresses a negative opinion about individuals. Misquotation of the Post by Hyperionsteel is obviously another matter. EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned that such a result will not solve the problem; if Hyperionsteel is allowed to think that the problem is with the articles rather than with his own behavior, the behavior will continue at other articles during that month and possibly return after the month's end. He needs to understand that edit-warring in order to restore copyrighted material or controversial and unverified material about living people is not acceptable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional comment - Rather than making a new post, I think I'll just include it here since it's the same article, but it's come to my attention that possibly another editor, Seb az86556, edit-warred with Hyperionsteel as well, violating 3RR, based on what Ed wrote above (if I'm reading it correctly. Seb said he was reverting a copyvio, not sure if this is covered in 3RR, but if I'm reading the above correctly, I don't think this revert counts in this case). I will notify them about this. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry for the trouble:

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

--Jethro B 00:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

reverting copyvios is indeed exempt. (and by the way, the diffs you give aren't even all reverts) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they are all reverts - either a direct use of the button or removing passages in Malaysia in a back-and-forth dispute that could've been just as easily solved through the talk page. Per WP:3RR, "Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." That's exactly what is here.

Secondly, I brought this up because it isn't so clear that they were indeed copyvios and that this back-and-forthness was legitimate in that extent. --Jethro B 01:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

of course they were copyvios. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Restriction agreed to by Hyperionsteel. He will not edit Canadian Human Rights Commission free speech controversy or Antisemitism for one month. I'm closing with no further action because there are so many copyvios, it is not even worth checking out whether reverts are covered by BLP. Hyperionsteel is warned not to violate copyright in the future. He should pay attention to the new entry at WP:CCI about his edits and see if he can fix the problems listed. Roscelese seems to misunderstand the BLP exception to 3RR, since WP:3RRNO only exempts extreme cases. If someone wants to include editorial opinion from a national Canadian newspaper, those opinions are hardly unsourced defamation. The wisdom of including these opinions should be decided by the consensus of editors, not by a single individual. If Roscelese wants to remove all editorial opinions of the National Post from all Wikipedia articles, she should open an RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I've explained in response to your comment on my talk page that op-eds simply are not reliable for statements of fact, especially about living people and especially when reliable sources contradict them. Please don't fall prey to Hyperionsteel's misrepresentation of the dispute he was edit-warring over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This sounds like an argument you should be making at WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N, where broader issues are considered. Repeatedly reverting material you disagree with is risky. EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's already at BLPN, where there's no consensus to override the normal BLP and RS policies of not using op-eds for statements of fact and not including unverifiable and controversial material about living individuals. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this started because of Roscelese's newfound hatred of the National Post and her attempts to remove huge portions of articles (not just BLP issues) on her own initiative without any discussion, except for her own invective in the edit comments. I tried to explain to her that mainstream newspaper such as the Post are considered RS by wiki standards, despite the fact that the post has an ideological outlook which she despises. Instead she repeatedly launched into tirades about how the Post "makes stuff up" and is hostile to Muslims/minorities based on a single article published by the Post (as well as other media outlets) which later turned out to be based on false information) and a few derogatory (but unsupported) comments about the Post on RSN. I took the action I did because Roceslese appeared unable to accept that she cannot aribitrarily remove huge portions of articles simply because she hates the Post because of its political outlook (her unfounded allegations and conclusions about the Post have been discussed at length in the talk pages). If anyone is falling prey to something, it is Roceslese's rather arrogant belief that she and she alone can declare the Post an unreliable source for Wikipedia).

I also reminded her that wiki guidelines allow the use of op-eds and columnists as RS if they are from mainstream media outlets.

As for Roseclese new accusations, I realize now that some of the edits I have made over the last five years may indeed have violated wiki copyright rules (although it has never been brought to my attention until now). I will make every effort to avoid this in the future and to correct any and all mistakes I have made in the past. Even so, I will continue to add material from reliable sources (while ensuring that these additions are sufficiently paraphrased to comply with wiki standards). I will also bring to attention any attempts by users such as Roscelese who believe they can arbitrarily decide that a mainstream newspaper (one of the largest in Canada) is unreliable simply because they don't approve of their political stance.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

Your comments indicate that you have absolutely no conception of why your behavior at the CHRC article (inserting unverifiable and controversial, or verifiably false, material about living people) was wrong. It is very likely that this behavior will continue, and a voluntary restriction is clearly not sufficient. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have challenged you twice to provide an example of false information that I added to the CHRC article (you have yet to do so). Second, I certainly don't deny that the information was controversial. Third, as I have pointed out to you several times, all of the information I added came from mainstream media sources or from columnists who write for these papers, which are considered RS under Wikipedia guidelines. Finally, you are free to observe all my future edits (as I am sure you will) and point out any transgressions. You are also free to recommend harsher penalties against me (as I am sure you will). However, any sins I am guilty of doesn't change the fact that you arbitrarily removed huge portions of several articles based solely on your own determination that the Post is not a reliable source for Wikipedia (despite wiki guidelines to the contrary), which is how this got started in the first place (you also strongly implied that I used a sockpuppet, which is blatantly false, but we'll leave that aside for the time being). I accept that I have made serious errors and will attempt to correct them, but I will ask you (again) to stop making false accusations against me. Considering your own behavior, you are not really in a place to judge me. As this issue (edit warring) has been settled, I suggest that you stop using this page to attack me and that we move on.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC))

On the contrary, I've pointed out that the Steacy quote is unverifiable and that the Chopra information is verifiably false. I've also pointed out several times that we cannot use op-eds for statements of fact and that the BLP guidelines are even stricter than our normal sourcing guidelines, and you have flat-out ignored me for no reason other than that you apparently like reading Jonathan Kay's opinion columns over your breakfast cereal. If you continue to violate Wikipedia policy, you will be reported again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. You are still claiming that the Steacy quote is unverifiable - as I have pointed out, Mr. Steacy was quoted by three different columnists (Jonathan Kay, John Ivision, and Robert Fulford) that have been published in the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, and the Edmonton Journal (Jonathan Kay has cited this quote in two articles, one in 2008 and again in 2012). I also pointed out that Senator Doug Findlay criticized Steacy in the Canadian Senate. Now, I believed (perhaps wrongly) that all of these sources combined are sufficient evidence to sufficiently verify this quote for Wikipedia. You are free to disagree with me on this, but don't state that the quote is unverifiable. Second, what information about Chopra was "verifiably false"? - true Jonathan Kay described in him in extremely unflattering terms, although it is true that Kay cited only one employee who held a certain view about Chopra instead of several (I acknowledge this error). It certainly does not place Mr. Chopra is a positive light, but it was clear that this was the opinion of the columnist and not a fact (i.e. "Kay described Chopra as ....).

Second, How am not ignoring you? I have responded to all of your rigmarole here and on the talk pages - I clearly do not agree with you on a number of issues, and I will continue to debate them with you as long as you wish, but I am certainly not ignoring you.

Third, you are absolutely correct: If I (just like every other Wikipedia editor) violate Wikipedia policy, then it should be reported.

Fourth, I was ask you again to stop using this page as your soapbox. The 3RR issue has been settled. It's time to move on.

Finally, your last comment about me was both wrong and offensive - I eat fruit for breakfast, not cereal.

(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

This back-and-forth argument to see who gets the last word in is futile and will likely not result in anything. Save your breath guys, save your time, there's no point in this chatter. At the heart of this is a content dispute that is best for talk pages, not for the AN3 noticeboard where a decision was already handed down. Make peace, shake hands, and sing Kumbaya around a campfire. But draw the line, and don't necessarily drag the conversation on when it has ended. It won't benefit anyone, and won't lead to anything. --Jethro B 01:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User: 221.160.109.38 reported by User:Feline1 (Result: Warned)

Page: Mellotron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 221.160.109.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21] [22] [23]

I suggest using semi-protection for this article, as the editor in question (who does not log in with a wikipedia account) has been editing the article in this fashion for over half a decade, and shows no regard for WP:COI, WP:VER, WP:OR etc.feline1 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I've warned the IP that any further attempts to re-add the same material will result in a block. At the same time, Feline, you should be handling this problem differently. The crux of the problem is that the IP has been adding unsourced/unreliably sourced/unencyclopedic material but hasn't been formally warned of that. I note the discussion on the talk page, a good thing, but you have to keep your comments in check and focus only on the content issues, not any perceived conduct issues. Bickering, calling each other vandals, etc., is unconstructive. Also, for the future, diffs are listed here from earliest to latest, not the reverse. Also, the IP made 3 reverts not 4. Two of your diffs are part of the same edit sequence, which counts as only one revert.Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) feline1 (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:H. 217.83 reported by Thefirewillrise (talk) (Result: 48 hours)

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

User being reported: H. 217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 13:29, 7 October 2012 (edit summary: "No, you misunderstood me; by “my new edits” I meant e. g. the musical style section, which was not a part of any version before mine. But I announced “now that Williamsburgland is gone”, that part is correct.")
2. 11:20, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Still no need to undo the whole edit including the parts that don’t really have to do with the edit war (the section on the musical style; the comparisons with other bands weren’t referenced before my edit).")
3. 15:48, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Still no need to undo the whole edit; you could have corrected it yourself and left the message in the summary.")
4. 17:00, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Stop it, this is extremely stupid. You are creating needless versions by undoing the whole thing.")
5. 19:01, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "Maybe I did not see one or two plural versions but at least I changed those I saw. Look at my different versions and you will see. No need for the sentence in the introduction since there is the section below. The Dissection members were no full members.")
6. 19:02, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "/* Controversy */")
7. 19:31, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "I own both the Slayer fanzine and the book with the interview’s reprint, so I know that is a quote. In your version, one of the footnotes is broken, but I guess you just didn’t see. I know the interview, maybe you should read the biography.")
8. 19:32, 9 October 2012 (edit summary: "How did that happen?")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Cautioned user several times on page (see below) and in summaries.

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

Involves myself, this editor and one or more IP/anon editors (?).

Thank you for your time. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 19:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. I'm not seeing a clear warning of edit-warring, although the user, having been blocked before for edit-warring on the same article, should know better. You also neglected to notify the user of this discussion; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know about edit wars. But it is obvious that my edits are not 100 % equal (you know how to compare versions), see my summaries which both users seem to ignore. And I don’t consider it acceptable to undo constructive edits completely because you believe one part of them to be erroneous or something like that, like both of them did; and yet the third user involved, Swankytank (unless this is a sock puppet of Thefirewillrise or vice versa; both started here almost at the same time and focussed on the Nifelheim article, though that may be coincidence), dares to call me a troll and tell me about manners. --217/83 05:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair concern BB, but I'm aware of the user's history (I've edited in the past anonymously, just like the IP user above) and I had expressed my concerns here and the response I received has been less than friendly. That said, I should have notified the user; this is my first involvement in one of these and while I thought I was supposed to post a notification I didn't see the template above. Now, onto the concerns above, the user should know well that edit warring is more than three reverts on an article, and it includes any reverts. The user above has reverted edits done by every user on the article going back to his first bout of edit warring and doesn't seem to care about anyone else's inputs. He is now resorting to accusing me of sockpuppetry, which I think is ridiculous. I created this user name around two months ago, and while it seems that I've forgotten to sign in (again, I'm fairly new to certain aspects of wikipedia and I almost always use work/shared computers and cannot stay signed it) until recently I have been editing the Nifelheim article for as long as the Pantera thing has been an issue. I assumed the other user is this IP, and it seems his first edits are on this article, but I thought that my edits had gone back further than what's on my edit history (I'm fairly certain I signed in and edited in August), so I don't know if there's a way to hide older edits. I'd like to work with both users on this but I think the above user's behavior is ridiculous. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to bring this to your attention. I don't know if it counts as forum shopping, but it seems unfair to me, particularly because at the very least the user is inferring I am a sock puppet again. He has also reverted my changes once again, this time to a version with grammatical errors. I'm really doing my best here. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. H. seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:3RR and a history of edit-warring on the article, even between this block and his previous block in April. As for his sockpuppet accusations, the only comment I have is that the two editors' styles and points of view do not seem similar or aligned, although there's no doubt that the two are interested in the same articles, or in the case of Swankytank, just this article (except for one revert of vandalism on a completely unrelated article - Swankytank has only made 5 edits since registration).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

H. posted a long message on their talk page and asked me to post it here. I'm uncomfortable doing that, but anyone who wants to can read it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that notice and the note on my talk page. I'm hoping we're going to be able to work more peacefully when his block is up.--Thefirewillrise (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Steelpillow reported by User:ScienceApe (Result: Declined)

Page: Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Steelpillow (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:

User repeatedly tried to reinsert uncited material. After my first attempt to remove the uncited material, I tried to discuss the change on the talk page. Discussion was fruitless, no attempt was made by SteelPillow to find verifiable 3rd party sources to back up the material he wanted to keep in the article. Instead he proposed that I should come up with a better blurb. I pointed out that I wasn't the inclusionist, and if he wanted to keep the blurb, the burden of proof was on him to back up his claims with citations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BURDEN#When_a_reliable_source_is_required

He ignored that, so I removed the uncited blurb again, and then edit warring ensued. Dawnseeker then removed the uncited material again only for those edits to be reverted by The Bushranger. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aircraft&diff=516879154&oldid=516869559 ScienceApe (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There appears to be no violation of WP:3RR - all the reverts were in a period well over 48 hours, and the editors would be better following The Bushrangler's advice. Mdann52 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. It's true that there was no breach of 3RR by Steelpillow (3 reverts in 24 hours), but they certainly were edit-warring, along with ScienceApe, who only made 2 reverts, but they got help from Dawnseeker. Bushranger's point about WP:BRD is valid, but the content issues go deeper than that. The article has been tagged as lacking sources for well over 3 years. It's true that ScienceApe removed unsourced material from the article, which generally can be done (Steelpillow's analogy to the sky being blue is pretty weak), but the whole article is poorly referenced and poorly structured vis-a-vis the body and the lead. A good article would have a well-referenced body (this one doesn't) and a lead that summarizes the body (this one doesn't), and no references in the lead because everything in the lead is referenced in the body. The lead doesn't even come close to what a proper lead should be. It's too short, it has information that is not in the body, and obviously it doesn't highlight much of the body. In any event, the parties need to work out the small contretemps as best they can on the talk page and through dispute resolution if needed, but someone ought to tackle the larger - and more important - issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• It's complete original research. Leaving it on that article is a violation of policy. Wikipedia:No original research ScienceApe (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:DawgDeputy reported by User:68.55.123.86 (Result: )

Page: Couch Potatoes (game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DawgDeputy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Comments:
This user has an incredible history of edit warring and WP:OWN. Viewing the last 2500 edits by DawgDeputy, 1473 are reversions (almost 59%). The user provides a standard edit summary for most of these revisions consisting of either "unneeded", "unnecessary" or "unsourced". User has been blocked three times previously for edit warring and twice for sock puppetry. How long will this behavior be tolerated? 68.55.123.86 (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Reiniger321 reported by User:Lguipontes (Result: Stale)

Page: Reconquista (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Machismo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Turrón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reiniger321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [continuous past edit-war], [515494400], [511441173]

• 1st revert: Special:Contributions/Reiniger321. One can see at it continuous edit war behavior with the IP (used by me during late morning, afternoon and early night in a discloseted way) he reverts in the various problematic changes he does against consensus, it would be too long to list everything.

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

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

Comments:

He was already blocked for edit-warring early on and continues his problematic behaviour without seeing consensus, and continues to stalk my contributions looking for things he can change to his POV. Lguipontes (talk) 02:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• If I'm reading this correctly, this is a content dispute over which particular varieties of Portuguese to use for the phonetic spelling at the top of this article, and also a whole host of other articles. I think the best place for this is the dispute resolution noticeboard, but if one of the two doesn't agree to go through dispute resolution, then we might need to think about blocks or topic bans. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

  After having a closer look at this, I think that Reinigers321's accusations of sockpuppetry are not without merit, and I've started an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lguipontes. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• The dispute resolution? Well, his reasons to revert my edits aren't covered by any kind of particular policy of the Linguistics project, as he claims, just like Aeusoes1 said in my talk page. I've been making it for months, and no one has ever reverted me over these silly disputes other than him, which is concerned only with reverting and accusing a fellow editor of vandalism and sockpuppetry. Sincerely, I think he has no merit to try to defend his point it if he demonstrates such enormous level of bad faith, is the only one at this dispute, has no good IPA skills as demonstrated by his frequent confusion of an alveolar tap as in Spanish pero with a trill as in Spanish perro (and the last one with the fricative as in French riviere, the 'rr' phoneme of Portuguese) and never, EVER tried to achieve consensus by discussion. Lguipontes (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a result. Lguipontes (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Stale. I'm not sure that your removing this from archives and putting it back at the top of the main page is permissible just because you didn't get a "result", but there have been no edits to the article since October 4, and there have been no edits of any kind by Reiniger since October 4.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if it is not said clearly somewhere in the archive or here that we aren't supposed to do this, I fail in the criteria of inappropriate behavior per ignorance. What kind of behavior is appropriate if he is back at reverting me again? Because it is a single-purpose account stalking me over, and I'm tired of him doing this. Lguipontes (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say that unarchiving a discussion at an administrative noticeboard when you are not an admin is generally inadvisable, even without a rule. As for your question, if he edit-wars in the future, file a new report here (and link back to this one if you like).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If it is not archived again, I suppose. Lguipontes (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you can link to the archive, assuming editors don't tinker with the archives (smile).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Just saying, a Brazilian IP (what coincidence!) undid two edits of mine on completely independent topics, and I answered it in a quite passionate way. Lguipontes (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

PEOPLE OF WIKIPEDIA, IT'S WEDNESDAY DEEP INTO OCTOBER and he's doing it again. ¬___¬ Lguipontes (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. Please don't use all caps. It appears that he's warring (although not breaching 3RR) over a number of articles about WP:IPA and diacritics, the policies or guidelines for which I know very little. I know there've been discussions, which I have not followed, about diacritics at administrative noticeboards, so I suggest you take this issue to WP:ANI. If another admin better versed in this than I can make some sort of determination here, fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned There was more edit warring yesterday, so I have warned both Lguipontes and Reiniger321. If either of them reverts the other's edits to IPA text again without appropriate discussion, I will issue blocks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Ohioana reported by User:Tokyogirl79 (Result: Indef)

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

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

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43]

Comments: I'm reporting an ongoing reversion war between myself and User:Ohioana, which is pretty much a SPA that only edits Hughes's articles. The long story short is this: I came across the article, finding it not only out of date, but also suffering from some copyvio since large parts of the text in the biography section have been directly lifted from the author's bio page. [44] I've not only edited the page to be more neutral, but I've combined all of the information about the one thing he is known for (Lorien Legacies) into one section and listed multiple reliable sources that talked about his leaving the series and why that might be. Ohioana has not only accused me of being biased and vandalizing the page because they personally didn't like what I wrote. The thing is, it's backed up with multiple independent and reliable sources and is never stated exactly as being cold hard fact, just that multiple reliable sources such as the WSJ had reported that Hughes had problems with the contract along with disliking the direction the series was going in. Every time I revert the edits, Ohioana reverts them back with the justification that they're "incorrect". I've yet to get any true explanation as to why, other than it appearing to be that they dislike that the page isn't full of glowing praise for Hughes, something I'd noticed in their edits for Hughes's At Dawn (novel), which was also full of copyvio, weasel words, and reviews taken out of context. I've outright asked if they were connected to Hughes in some fashion, only to have that ignored. My reasons for this is that as far as the general public has reported, all we have to go on are the news articles such as the one by the WSJ and NY Magazine, so there's nothing that can actually disprove that what these news sources have reported on are incorrect. I'd reported this to the admin board since I'd had the accusations of vandalism and bias, only to not really get much help. Rather than have this keep going on, I waited it out until I could bring it up here because this isn't going to stop anytime soon. There was also another user that was reverting my edits- specifically the same edits Ohioana has issues with ([45]), but they seem to have stopped so I'm not as worried about them.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• The user has again reverted edits. Can someone please do something about this? I've tried resolving it but I'm just getting ignored while the user does as they please without anyone doing something beyond "please stop" messages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Please see this discussion at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef by a checkuser, per this notice. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Michaelt54 and User:Fat&Happy reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Michaelt54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and: Fat&Happy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Honestly, I have no clue.

By Fat&Happy:

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

...And more. Some of them are hard reverts, but still reverts.

By Michaelt54:

• 1st revert: [50]
• 2nd revert: [51]
• 3rd revert: [52]
• 4th revert: [53]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Michaelt54 has been warned, Fat&Happy has not, but has been around since 2009.

Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: They've been talking at User_talk:Fat&Happy#Glenn_Beck, but no avail.

Comments:
I'm not involved, I was just hoping to wait until these two quit fighting to figure out what the hell's going. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• User:Michaelt54's repeated additions to this article constitute negative, unsourced information about a living person. This user has acknowledged—by blanking—a WP:BLP warning I issued but has continued to make the identical problematic edits. Although User:Fat&Happy ideally would have warned and reported User:Michaelt54, I believe that User:Fat&Happy's reverts are technically exempt from WP:3RR because of the BLP issue. (I am slightly involved, having warned User:Michaelt54 twice and reverted him once.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Added: I misread this report. My comments refer to the edit war at Chuck Norris; I have no opinion on the edit war at Glenn Beck. Rivertorch (talk) 06:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. The report is on Beck. The edit-warring is flagrant by both parties and has do with categorization and subcategorization, hardly something to battle over. It has zero to do with BLP. Neither editor was warned of the edit-warring on the Beck article before filing this report. Once warned, neither editor has touched the article. As for Norris, the edit-warring there is also flagrant, although older (October 10 instead of October 11). It also has to do with categories, but it's more controversial because the category Michael kept adding was Category:Intelligent design advocates. F&H claimed there was no support in the body of the article for the cat. F&H repeatedly referred to a BLP issue in their reversions, including WP:BLPCAT (the cat is only very marginally supported in the body, not enough, in my view, to include it). The BLP exemption is better than some in this instance but not a slam dunk. BLPCAT applies only if you think the category "suggest[s] a person with a poor reputation." The edit-warring on the Norris article has also stopped. Michael is a very new editor. F&H is a seasoned editor. I think a block of both editors can be justified, despite the warning issue. Michael is more culpable because of the BLP issue, but the Beck war was wholly unnecessary on F&H's part. That said, because both have stopped, I'm hoping this will go away. I've left brief warnings on both editors' talk pages that I will block them if they continue on either article. However, other admins may take a less lenient view and block them now, and I have to go off-wiki now.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not being Flagrant. I provided my source on the chuck norrris article(his own words) from a townhall.com article. http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2008/04/22/win_ben_steins_monkey Also, I used a source on the Glenn Beck aricle Fast happy was being a troublemaker.--Michaelt54 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It usually takes two to edit war. Please use the talk page and get others involved and try not to edit war.--Malerooster (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Michael, you left this message on my talk page. You also stated, "You need to block Fat&Happy he is continuing to edit war and not listening to the rules". Your statement is false. The only one of the two of you who have edited the Beck and Norris articles since my warnings is you. F&H hasn't touched either article. You've edited both. In the Beck article, you added a category, but not the category you and F&H were battling over. In the Norris article, you added the intelligent design category back in but you found a source that arguably supports it (it's not as clear as it could be). You did both of these things without any discussion with F&H anywhere (as far as I can tell). So, I'm a bit conflicted as to whether you should be blocked. Certainly, your conduct has been less than exemplary. So, I'm going to invite F&H to comment here. I'd like to know if they agree with your edits. I'll decide after that what to do, although, again, any admin can take action without consulting with me if they feel so inclined.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears that neither Fat&Happy nor Michaelt54 have chosen to come here to promise to stop warring. (Michael54 has commented above that he is right and the other party is wrong). Since the last reverts by either party to Glenn Beck or Chuck Norris were on October 11, and it is now late in the day on October 12, this report is on the way to going stale. Nonetheless this war is so simple-minded and obvious that if either party resumes their revert war, a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The two editors have exhausted my patience. Unfortunately, both decided to edit-war in other articles (Rudy Giuliani and Robert De Niro), over the same issue of parent and subcategories. Although Fat&Happy reverted only 3 times in each article, thereby technically eluding a 3RR breach, Michael54 arguably reverted 4 times in the De Niro article and clearly reverted 4 times in the Giuliani article, and possibly 5 times based on a revert by an IP, which I assume to be Michael. Given the history, this report, and the warning, Fat&Happy cannot escape a block for edit-warring because they stopped at three. After the blocks expire, any resumption of this kind of edit-war on any article should be met with blocks of increased duration.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:الطبيب الراحل.23 AND User:86.96.57.58 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Semi)

Page: Fall of Constantinople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: الطبيب الراحل.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) AND 86.96.57.58 (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]
• 5th revert: [59]
• 6th revert: [60]
• 7th revert: [61]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:

The first three reverts were User:الطبيب الراحل.23. After the edit warring warning was posted on the user's page the IP address located in Dubai immediately began reverting (the next 4 reverts) with the same edit. DeCausa (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected by another admin. Two different single-use IPs have shown up here with the same mission, to add a reference to the work of Dr. Saiyed Ali to the article. Neither has used the talk page. It is hard to resist the inference that the brand-new account User:الطبيب الراحل.23 is the person operating these IPs. Nonetheless he is not blocked, but merely warned. Try to get consensus on the talk page for this change. Further reinsertion of this material prior to consensus will probably lead to the obvious admin action. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User: 75.51.167.249 reported by User: LoveMonkey (Result: 48h)

Page: Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War (1917–1921) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and
Page: Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.51.167.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

For the article Anti-religious campaign during the Russian Civil War (1917–1921)

• 1. [68]
• 2. [69]
• 3. [70]
  

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Since this is an anonymous IP I did it on the article talkpage [71] I did it on one of the above article talkpages.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [72]

Comments:

OPTIONAL: I have tried to get the editor to compromise and at least provide info that could possibly be put in a critical of section of at least one article. However the contributor appears to want to counter my sources and information with the accusation that all of my scholars and sources and people of power are liars. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now left a 3RR warning for the IP editor. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: IP blocked 48 hours. The editor seems to be engaged in a campaign of POV-pushing about religious persecution in the Soviet Union and he has no interest in consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:174.98.152.28 reported by User:Staszek Lem (Result: 3 months)

• User being reported: 174.98.152.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user, repeatedy blocked, starts again edit wars in artilces related to Lating musis, Bolero, Salsa romantica. See article histories and his talk page for long wars. For a long time the user demonstrated 100% unwillingnes to provide references to his questioned edits despite numerous requests. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Three months by User:Materialscientist for disruptive editing, per a report at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Special:Contributions/38.103.168.4 reported by User:E8 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Black Diesel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Special:Contributions/38.103.168.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [73]
• 2nd revert: [74]
• 3rd revert: [75]
• 4th revert: [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:
The user has responded strongly after the page was proposed for deletion. The user has repeatedly removed templates from the page and completely ignored the objections to the page content. I did delete a large swath of the page, but did so piece by piece, noting the specific individual objections; this was ignored, with the user completely restoring multiple times. Things have devolved into conspiracies [79][80].--E8 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Balph Eubank reported by User:Moxy (Result: Both blocked, article protected)

Page: Template:Civility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Balph Eubank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Note: no 4th revert in 24 hours (5 reverts over 48+ hours) - but clear threat to continue reverting over and over - (Signs of disruptive editing).

• 1st revert::"I will continue to revert you as long as you use personal attacks like "edit warrior". Pot meet kettle"
• 2nd revert: 14:13, October 12, 2012
• 3nd revert: 10:59, October 12, 2012
• 4rd revert: 14:08, October 10, 2012
• 5th revert: 14:08, October 10, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned about 3revert rule for the related essay being added to this template

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On going talk at essay page - People are talking but revert after revert (on 2 pages) instead of waiting for any outcome/consensus on what to do. Comments:

• Template should be locked (its high profile) if this editors cant talk over edit waring.

• LOL who am I edit warring with, myself? Or is this just another example of certain people being exempt from rules? Merridew has been relentlessly hounding me, making personal attacks, accusing me of being an "edit warrior" (while he himself engages in stale reverts), etc. I will say this: I'm intrigued as to how this report will turn out. I'll also point out a related issue at [ Wikipedia talk:Blanking userpages of blocked editors is not necessarily gravedancing]. Note that Nikkimaria has engaged in civil discussion with me and we've come to a reasonable agreement, whereas Merridew just blanks information and continues commenting on contributors rather than content. I'm sure that's totally unrelated, though. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to address/have concerns about personal attacks pls bring them to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.Moxy (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think they're pertinent to the topic at hand. This did not spontaneously form in a vacuum. - Balph Eubank ✉ 21:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No matter how many personal attacks back and forth there are that is not a reason to edit war - both you and Br'er Rabbit (your edit war friend) need to talk it out. At Wikipedia there is basic conduct and behavioral policies/guides that all should try to follow. And yes they apply to all (both you and Br'er Rabbit).Moxy (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of Template:Civility

dude won't quit; it was nikki who first removed this as inappropriate. moar:

• Diff of Template talk:Civility
• Diff of Template talk:Civility

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I protected the template the other day and warned that it shouldn't be edit warred over. I think I might be too involved to use my tools here, but this looks like transparent edit warring--and I don't see any justification for breaking 3RR. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked already (Balph and Rabbit, not Moxy who reported this). ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: [81]

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Marvel_Studios#Disney_Distribution

Comments:

The user has been involved in a dispute over at the Marvel Studios page regarding the distribution deal between Paramount Pictures and Walt Disney Pictures. Unfortunately, the user has already violated 3RR. What is the best way to help resolve this situation? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

My only comment on the situation is that I provided sources explicitly supporting my (and others') positions and Spshu picked out sentences from near the bottom of said articles, out of context, to try to support his position on the matter. I did not violate 3RR, neither did Sjones, and neither of us "conspired together" as alleged below, and on my talk page. I simply wish for the page to accurately reflect the facts, and consider all of my edits to have been in good faith. Thanks, and sorry that this seems to be spiraling out of control. I did try to step aside. -Fandraltastic (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I know. I also want the page to accurately reflect the facts as well. The sources provided by Fandraltastic supports his and other editors' positions on the distribution deals. However, Spshu picked out sentences from near the bottom of the articles in question, out of context, in an attempt to support his position on the matter. I believe that all of my edits have been in good faith so far. I have not violated 3RR, nor did I want to conspire together with Fandraltastic. I honestly believe that Spshu refuses to get the point in doing so. I also apologize if it seemed to be spiraling out of control as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

How convene, now they want to have the "page to accurately reflect the facts as well". When I was arguing facts, they just want what ever source to support their position no matter what the whole of the source said. Instead of continuing discussion, they continue to revert. --Spshu (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fandraltastic indicating that he was going to flog the same source and not act in good faith. After an earlier source was show that Marvel could select the date, showing source with them picking the date is meaningless. Given I gave Richiekim time (since June) to find a better source and acceptance of Betty Logan's source show I operated under good faith. --Spshu (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and anyone reading the sources I provided can see there is no confusion, no way to misread. They are incredibly clear. You continued to bold portions of sentences and misread/ignore the rest, and type your sentences in all caps as if to yell at me. I'm not going to continue arguing this, and I had actually stopped responding to your belligerence on the talk page and was attempting to excise myself from the situation. Until you left a note on my talk page, indicating that you were reporting me for doing nothing wrong. There is a clear consensus that the films will be distributed by Disney, and at least a dozen sources indicating this to be the case. It's ironic that you want to talk about others flogging sources, as you continue to flog a source from 2007, noting a deal that included up to 10 films, i.e. potentially 10 films. Later sources indicating that only 6 films were agreed upon went ignored, and you continued with your all caps sentences and misreading. Honestly, I'm sort of done here, and at this point just want the admins to make their decision so we can all move on. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

←Because you were implying/infering which is not in the source. I point that out then you stand what amounts to "I right no matter what I say". You were the one misread/ignoring when I bold to point that out to you, once again restate that you were right with no counterargument. In effect needling me and being belligerent. Claiming that your hands are clear; even with one edit, you can consider guilty of edit warring, 3RR is just the clear line. Second you ended up here do to Sjones23's reporting of me, so you can thank him for that. Second, consensus can not override the facts of source or lack there in. You flogged the sources about the 10 films incorrrect and you ignored every correction of your misconception. Seems an attempt at ticking me off and you wonder why some one is belligerent when you cannot seem to conprehend some any sort of concept and seem to be doing so purposely. 10 films - 6 films (produced or bought out) equal 4 films remaining. The 10 film was the whole slate that the original source indicating was in the domestic distribution deal with Paramount which you kept reading the financing part of that source not the distribution part and as you missed in the 6 film source was that they added foreign distribution for five films. But you ignored that it dealt only with foreign distribution as I pointed out but you continued your state of denial about that and other sources.--Spshu (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Here are the two sources in question. [87] [88] The first reports on a renegotiation of the original deal, specifying 6 films, a new fee, and additional foreign distribution. Nowhere does it say or imply or mention that is it referring to only foreign distribution, as you continue to state and bold and type in caps. In fact, it explicitly states that it is referring to global distribution. The second source states that Disney bought out the rights to the final two films Paramount had on the renegotiated contract. Literally the first sentence: "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios". Yet you dismiss this and claim I am misreading or misrepresenting the articles. It is literally right in front of you, stated explicitly, matter-of-factly. I don't know how to explain this more clearly, and I know you're going to just claim that I'm wrong again, so I don't know how to proceed. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not explicity, you are implying. "The deal includes theatrical distribution in foreign territoies previously serviced by Marvel through local distribution entities (Japan, Germany, France, Spain, and Australia/New Zealand)." And it doesn't state that the deal was a renegotation or negation of the orignal deal, just a "big overall deal", which isn't vary clear as it can refer to the fact that Paramount has the worldwide distribution for 5 films in addition to the previous domestic agreement for 10 films. "The Walt Disney Studios, Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios announced they have reached an agreement under which Paramount will transfer its worldwide marketing and distribution rights to Disney for Marvel Studios’ The Avengers and Iron Man 3." and "The Walt Disney Studios deal to buy Paramount Pictures out of the final two films of its six-picture distribution deal with Marvel Studios..." Combined we can only concluded that the second agreement is done. Again, you are infering what you want, none of them are explicity in what you want them to mean. The bolding was to tip you off to that the source doesn't say what you think it say. Caps to point out that you failed to pick up on my logical that seemly purposefully denial in any regards to my arguments and counter arguments since was force to flog the arguments again and again. That just show to me that you don't have a grasp of the material at hand and you just want what you want sources be dammed. --Spshu (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I said my piece regarding content on the articles talk page, however regarding the behavioral issues, after the first revert the editors involved should not have edited the disputed content again until the issue has been settled in discussion regardless if you are right or wrong.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have already filed a request for comment on the dispute over at Talk:Marvel Studios#Request for comment. If I did get involved in this edit war, then I apologize, as I know better than to get involved in an edit war regardless of who is right or wrong. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What the dispute is OVER as I pointed out that you continue to edit war after the dipute was resolved (see below - "5th" revert). So what is is this meaning less RFC for? Except to confuse the "responsing" administrator so you don't get the warning. 75.151.7.189 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) (--Spshu (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

Counter Reporting

This has been in discussion on the talk page since June]. Editors reported have ignored that fact and have edit war and attempt to blame me for edit warring when the sources did not support their position. Nor did they notify me of this ANI filed after the dispute was resolved. Sjones23, even edit warred after the dispute was resolved.

• Fandraltastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 1st revert
  • 2nd revert
  • 4th revert
• Sjones23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 3RR Notice * ANI notice
  • 3rd revert - comment: "What? Please take this to the talk page. (TW)" (where it has been since June 2012 as pointed out above.)
  • "5th" revert - revert after a source is found that actual supports their position.

I acted in good faith requesting a source that actual supported their position and I accepted one when presented. Then Sjones23 even 'reverted' that edit. Spshu (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Notices
  • User:Sjones23
    • 3RR
    • ANI
  • User:Fandraltastic
    • 3RR
    • ANI

Spshu (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I did not intend to be disruptive in the first place, and was only trying to stop the disruption, so I apologize for inadvertently causing disruption in doing so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So you join the distruptive side that had since JUNE to find a source and joined the edit war? That really is trying to stop the distruption? --Spshu (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: User:Spshu is warned for edit warring. Seems like four reverts in just over 24 hours. The talk page is leaning against Spshu's position right now. Please use the RfC to reach a conclusion. Continued reverting that is not supported by consensus may lead to a block. It seems funny that people would dispute over itty-bitty details of distribution deals. It is hard to see why these would be important to the average reader who just wants to know something about Marvel Studios. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What? I already agree to their position when some one (Betty Logan) actually showed me a source that supported their position. They were reverting with out letting the discussion play out. It has to do with who continues with distribution. They want to you itty-bitty details to claim that Paramount did not have additional movies to distribution. I just told them that their sources did not support their claim. Thus they were infering and doing original research against standard WP procedures. The average reader might what to know if Paramount was/is still involved with distributing MVL Production movies (Marvel Studio's slate). Your warning is meaningless as you did not look at what was going on, EdJohnston, even what was presented here as Sjones23 reverted my edit that agreed with their position with a source that actually supported their position instead of infering. 75.151.7.189 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC) (--Spshu (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC))

User:Kanthi78 reported by User:Scray (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ciprofloxacin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kanthi78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

• 1st revert: [90]
• 2nd revert: [91]
• 3rd revert: [92]
• 4th revert: [93]
• 5th revert: [94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96]

Comments:

I suspect that these edits by 76.177.28.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are relevant, too (same 24 hour period):

• IP user revert #1: [97]
• IP user revert #2: [98]
• IP user revert #3: [99]

notified IP user: [100]

I just realized, in looking back at this, that I may have violated 3RR, and if so I accept that this may result in my being blocked. The traffic with multiple editors involved, at Insulin and Ciprofloxacin, that I lost track and I apologize - I assure you that it's never happened before and I will not let it happen again. Very disappointed in myself. -- Scray (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Scray, are you sure? By my count, you have 3 reverts today at Ciprofloxacin. Zad68 16:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I was thinking that 3 reverts, rather than 4, was a violation (yes, I'm a relative noob when it comes to edit warring and I should've read the guidance above more closely) so I may be on safe ground. We have also tried hard to work collaboratively with the warring editor because it's not clear that they understand the policies. -- Scray (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there a problem with this report? I see others getting comments and actions from admins, but this one seems to have been ignored while User:Kanthi78 continues to add problematic content without engaging in any way in discussion (on article or user talk), not even using edit summaries. -- Scray (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Keerthi78 reported by User:Zad68 (Result: 24h)

Page: Insulin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keerthi78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [101]

• 1: [102]
• 2: [103]
• 3: [104]
• 4: [105]
• 5: [106]
• 6: [107]
• 7: [108]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [109]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See user's talk page, edit sumaries and article talk page, several of us (myself, Boghog, Scray) have tried to get Keerthi78 to understand why his edits aren't acceptable and to discuss on talk pages, but no engagement, just reverting/readding what is substantially the same content.

Zad68 21:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that it looks like I have 4 reverts at Insulin for today because I reverted two related pieces of the same content in two separate reverts. If you count those two together as one edit (I should have just done them together), that would make 3. If you count them separately that would make 4. Just to make sure this wasn't a problem I self-reverted the second of those here, and in the edit summary I mentioned what I was doing. Zad68 21:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This edit by 76.177.28.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems relevant as well (same 24 hour period, same content): [110]

This IP is the same IP as in the report for user:Kanthi78 that I reported above. -- Scray (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• It looks like I have violated the 3RR rule myself. After repeated attempts to engage the editor on the talk page and a hectic day in real life, I lost track. Sorry about that. Boghog (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:LanguageXpert reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Both editors warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [111]

• 1st revert: [112] (this had been removed on Oct. 5)
• 2nd revert: [113]
• 3rd revert: [114]
• 4th revert: [115]
• 5th revert: [116]
• 6th revert: [117]
• 7th revert: [118]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [119][120][121][122]

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

Comments:

I don't want to discourage a newbie, but several comments suggest this is a political campaign, and it shows no sign of abating, with similar edit wars over the same topic at Hindko language and Saraiki language a week ago. All of these articles have been protected for a month due to IP edit warring (though often reverting each other, so I'm not suggesting sock-puppetry). I told the editor last night after 6RR that I would report him if he did it again, and today I find he did. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. The last edit by LanguageXpert was almost 24 hours ago. There's clear edit-warring, and with one exception, multiple editors have reverted LanguageXpert's edits. However, Kwami, you have also edit-warred. I count 4 reverts before you stopped. It's true that LanguageXpert's contduct has been worse than yours, but, as you acknowledge, they're new, whereas you are anything but new. At the moment, the article is quiet. If LanguageXpert reverts again, I'll block them. If you revert again, I'll block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I lost count with all the POV-pushing I was undoing. Sorry. — kwami (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:177.18.46.98 reported by User:J. M. (Result: 31h)

Page: Novak Djokovic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.18.46.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 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:
The user keeps changing the "Born in" countries for tennis players from the original countries they were born in to current countries they represent, probably as 177.18.147.70, too. As you can see from the page histories, his edits are reverted by many different people ([131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136] etc.), which means reaching consensus through editing. The user was also warned on his talk page and asked to discuss the issue instead of reverting ([137]). But he keeps reverting, without any explanation.—J. M. (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The user is evading the block by using 177.18.108.67. He was also using 177.18.147.70 before.—J. M. (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked 177.18.147.70 for one week and increased the block on 177.18.46.98 to one week. Both IPs appear to be static and coming from the same place.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:70.55.29.243 reported by User:Carguy1701 (Result: No violation)

Page: List of Initial D characters and teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.55.29.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [138]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [142]

Comments:

This user calls himself TakumiFuji01, and I believe he had a Wikipedia account at one point, though I do not know why he is not using it; the fact that his IP address keeps changing every so often suggests either multiple bans or a dynamic IP address.. While his edits are generally correct, he has a rather nasty habit of calling the person whose edits he is correcting some form of curse word (check the comments by some of his edits). Right now, I am trying to head off an edit war between the two of us. This stems from a disagreement over how to label something in regards to a fictional car in the anime/manga series Initial D, specifically the car belonging to Wataru Akiyama. He had labelled the car as using an HKS brand turbocharger at one point, despite no evidence existing in either form of media regarding what brand the part was (it has been referred to as either a 'Boom' turbo or a 'boost butt-kicking' turbo in the media, depending on whether it was released by Funimation or Tokyopop, but neither term denotes a brand and Google searches only turned up forum threads for both, so I'm pretty sure they are not technical terms). This apparent policy of making stuff up is not very encyclopedic and is (to me) downright hypocritical, especially since, as I mentioned, he gets upset when someone edits the page with unsourced/incorrect information. I have edited the page three times now in an attempt to correct this oversight, and he has reverted my edits twice. I realize this may seem pretty trivial, but as I said, I'd rather have this resolved before an edit war starts (if it technically hasn't already).

I apologize for some of the formatting of this report, as well as the multiple edits, as it is my first time creating one.

• No violation At this point, there's no edit war as the IP has made only two reverts. You've opened a discussion at both the IP's talk page and the article talk page, both constructive actions on your part. However, avoid even mild editor conduct attacks ("hypocrisy") - just stick to content and be careful about your own conduct. You don't want to get blocked over something like this. I don't know if you have any Wikipedia experience before registering an account, but your account was very recently created, and you have very few edits, so take it slow. If you can't resolve the disagreement on the talk pages, use the dispute resolution mechanisms available to you but don't battle it out in the article.Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:ScienceApe reported by User:Steelpillow (Result: Both editors blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [143]

• 1st revert: [144]
• 2nd revert: [145]
• 3rd revert: [146]
• 4th revert: [147]
• 5th revert: [148]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [149]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [150]

Comments:

I have been helping to build this article off and on for some years, but this guy just drops out of nowhere to make it impossible for me.

I soon asked other editors to help out here, here, here and here.

Most of my edits have been attempting to fix up problems identified by ScienceApe or other editors.

ScienceApe instead tried to fix me up for 3RR, archived here, but this was declined (even though I made no defence).

I have since asked ScienceApe on their talk page to behave more politely, here (just after closing the false accusation, so I have to admit I was struggling not to be tetchy) and again here.

But this has not stopped ScienceApe from continuing their summary deletions on, it seems to me, whatever pretext occurs to them, and accusing me here of throwing a 'hissy fit'. (contrast this with my earlier comment to another editor, here).

Could someone please assess this guy and take whatever action is needed so I can edit the article again?

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

There was no 3RR violation. I allowed the article to remain on steelpillow's preferred version until consensus was established that the uncited blurb that steelpillow insisted on keeping had to be removed. Edit warring stopped after I reported steelpillow for 3RR. After this, consensus on the talk page was achieved and I removed the uncited blurb. [151] [152] [153] [154] Steelpillow then tried to insert a new completely uncited, and irrelevant blurb that wasn't appropriate for the lead. [155] I told steelpillow that he can rewrite the lead, but to post what he wanted to write in the talk page FIRST before anything else. [156] He has been passive aggressive to me from the start. [157] In general being smug, condescending while saying "cheers" at the end of every sentence all the while being rude, I don't respond well to that, so any incivility on my part, chalk it up to his passive aggressive nature. ScienceApe (talk) 20:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. This latest battle comes on the heels of the previous report, which I declined, so both editors were well aware of the problems. Yet, that didn't appear to stop them from battling in the article, on the article talk page, and elsewhere, including sniping at each other here and there. It's not clear to me that a clear consensus was reached for ScienceApe's removal. The talk page is too busy. Steelpillow, you should stop acting like you own the article. You should also be more civil. I strongly suggest that after the blocks expire, neither of you edit the article. If anyone thinks a consensus has been reached, let another editor implement that consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

User:JasonnF reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)

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: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]
• 5th revert: [163]
• 6th revert: [164]
• 7th revert: [165]
• 8th revert: [166]
• 9th revert: [167]
• 10th revert: [168]
• 11th revert: [169]

JasonnF has not breached the 3RR in 24 hours, but engaged in a long-term edit war for more than a month.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (twice!) [170] [171]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_libertarian_political_parties#Explanation_for_revert

Comments:

The article has previously been full protected due to a report here at AN3 at the end of August. At that time, Amatulic said he was protecting the article in lieu of blocking both editors. Yet here we are again. Each side has reverted about 11 times over a 7 week period. I think both editors should explain why they should not be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC) The last time around the dispute was the same, but RJFF was not involved. EdJohnston (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss the conflict on the talk page. I have provided rationales for my reverts. Every time I waited some days for JasonnF to answer and counter my arguments. But all JasonnF did was reverting immediately (within hours) without providing new arguments or seriously trying to talk and to find a solution. --RJFF (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have not been here before about this conflict. The last war was between JasonnF and User:One Night In Hackney and it was One Night In Hackney who reported JasonnF. --RJFF (talk) 10:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, UKIP had always been on this list until they were removed by RJFF who has undone over 20 edits from various editors adding them in the past year but not removed any of the other parties which are all unsourced. It is hard to find reliable sources describing any political party as libertarian because it isn't a term generally used by the mainstream media, if self-described Libertarian parties with Libertarian policies aren't allowed to be listed then the whole article needs to be removed. Sorry for the late response, my girlfriend uses my computer (doesn't edit) and must have cleared the new message alert.JasonnF (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. I advise RJFF to use caution also, even though his side of the dispute seems to have more support. If you believe this issue is important, consider opening an WP:RfC on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:201.21.238.38 reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: blocked for 24 hours)

Page: 2012 in film|}}
User being reported: 201.21.238.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}}

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

• 1st revert: [172]
• 2nd revert: [173]
• 3rd revert: [174]
• 4th revert: [175]
• 5th revert: [176]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [177]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors reverting IP for adding unsourced names of people w/o wikipedia articles; no real issue to discuss, though the user has been warned on his/her talk page.

Comments:

Note also the edit summaries in reverts 4 and 5 which are borderline personal attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of hours 'You bastard' is not even borderline. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Michaelt54 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: 1 week)

Page: Pat Robertson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michaelt54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [178]

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]
• 3rd revert: [181]
• 4th revert: [182]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [184]

Comments:
User was previously reported here, and has continued the exact same behavior across other articles. He doesn't seem to get edit warring or consensus, thought the first has been explained repeatedly. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not edit warring I provided my resarch and cited my source.--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You cited the article, which is original research. Please actually read WP:Edit warring, you have been reverting against consensus instead of waiting until discussion is over. You have also violated the three revert rule. This was spelled out to you last time and this time, and the guidelines and policies were linked and provided for you to read. Refusal to get the point is disruptive editing, no matter what you're trying to add. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

NO YOU ARE WRONG! I added a Citation to the aritle. I tryed to disscuss it with you and you were critizing and attacking me. I was not disrutptive editing I made my point with a cited source.--Michaelt54 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You added a citation later, after your previous post. What part of the three revert rule do you not get? Your refusal to accept that social contract, or even appear capable of understanding what it means, is disruptive. Multiple warnings have been left on your page asking you to not revert more than three times. What did you do? You reverted more than three times! If you were not writing your messages, I would have to ask if you are illiterate! Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I tryed to disscuss it with you who says it's consensus? you? See there you go Attacking again. I was not disrupting I said I was sorry for adding the american christians Category. I now Know It's Redundant but I am not wrong to add the american charistaics category. I made my point with a cited source. The american charismatics category is a new category.--Michaelt54 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC) You also broke the rules by edit warring when i was trying to talk to you about it. You riverted 3 times--Michaelt54 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually read WP:3rr. I reverted three times, not more than three times. You crossed 3rr, I did not. Multiple editors reverted you, none restored your edits. That's an indication you were editing against consensus.

(edit conflict)Once again, what part of do not revert more than three times is so hard to understand? I keep linking to WP:3rr for a reason. Refusal to get the point IS disruptive editing! See WP:IDHT. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Semitransgenic reported by User:Adjwilley (Result: Article locked, stale)

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

Previous version reverted to: User added (redundant) material about Armstrong being a drug cheat in this edit on October 12. The diffs are a little messy because paragraphs were being moved, but if you search for "serial drug cheat" in the diff it will help. (the words were added and removed 5 times)

• 1st revert: [185] 21:38 13 October
• 2nd revert: [186] 22:47 13 October
• 3rd revert: [187] 14:15 14 October
• 4th revert: [188] 17:31 14 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was notified on their talk page that their edits were against a consensus on the article talk page and was invited to participate in the discussion. [189] (14:24 14 October). They were also invited to participate on the talk page in edit summaries [190] [191] and warned of edit warring on the talk page [192]. User was not officially warned on their talk page, but they're old enough to know better, have been templated for 3RR in the past, [193] (2011) and already have one block for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion has been ongoing since Oct 12. Here is the relevant thread. (User would not participate in discussions until today.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

False charge, diffs demonstrate that I addressed chronology and repetition issues.These are not all direct reverts of content. Content was improved, and WP:RS cites were added. Additionally, per WP:LEAD, it's supposed to provide a "summary of its most important aspects...[and] should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." This criteria is currently unfulfilled. The reality is, multiple WP:RS sources attest to the fact that Armstrong is now considered cycling's biggest drug cheat, it is not a BLP violation to clearly state this in the lead. Semitransgenic _talk. 12:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I lean toward declining this report, not necessarily because Semitransgenic did not edit war, but because there has been a lot of disruptive edit-warring in the article, which is what led to my locking the article. Honestly, rather than rehash who did what to whom and who should have done x, it would be better if the involved editors would focus on achieving a consensus on the content during this period.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I also meant to add, following suggestion, that I have no interest in "edit warring." I attempted to add valid content to the lead, some viewed the material as premature, that's fine. However, right now, relative to the depth of content in the article, the lead is unnecessarily short. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected
• Stale

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

User:190.233.233.167 reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: Block, semi)

Page: Compulsory voting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.233.233.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [194]
• 2nd revert: [195]
• 3rd revert: [196]
• 4th revert: [197]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [198]

Comments:
This is Jackie d. alarcón (talk · contribs) evading his block. Again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they're now using User:190.232.175.153 to continue edit warring. I've put in a request at RPP. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Other admins have blocked the IP and semiprotected the article. The IPs are believed to be socks of User:Jackie d. alarcón. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war on Scottish Knights Templar

Page: Scottish Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Balantrodach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is an edit war going on at Scottish Knights Templar. At least two editors are promoting their own groups - at least one using anon. IP addresses. Notes have been left on the article talk page and their talk pages to no effect. Maybe the article should be locked to allow a cool off/realization that they are way outside the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? Thanks. Sannhet (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have indefinitely semi protected the page as there is a long history of single purpose accounts and IPs engaged in conflict of interest editing on that page. I have also topic banned Balantrodach from further editing the page because they have apparently admitted to editing on behalf of the organization, and their edits appear to be problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am revoking the topic ban because it is a ridiculous response. Jehochman has failed to establish whether there is a COI here; the sole basis for his decision is that the editor seems to be POV pushing on a single article, which happens on lots of articles. The proportionate response here is clearly to hand out a 24 hour block for edit-warring and see where that gets us. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans are appropriate for disruptive editors in one topic area while still allowing them to edit in others. In that sense, it's a milder sanction than a block.

In this case however, without a community discussion on the talk page or WP:ANI, or ArbCom decision, or any other reason described in Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban, that an admin cannot impose a topic ban on someone for being disruptive. I don't know if this editor has been the subject of past discussion other than here on this page. But now that he is, I would support the topic ban. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to WP:ANI as Jehochman is right about WP:COI Quaerere Verum (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not see where a COI has been admitted to or established; a COI isn't necessarily a reason for topic banning someone though, it is the nature of their edits which need to be looked at. I do see some extreme unsourced POV editing that needs to be addressed however. The editor only edits on a 2/3 articles, so a topic ban is effectvely an indefinite block in his case to all intents and purposes, which I don't really agree with at this stage. At the moment the disruptive editing patterns can be dealt with through a couple of short term blocks and see if that alters the dynamic of the situation. If the editor refuses to discuss his edits or address his editing patterns then he probably shouldn't be editing at all, so an indefinite block would be the way to go. But I do believe the first sanction should be a proportionate one, and the editor should at least have the opportunity to address our concerns. If he blows it he blows it, but at least he gets the chance. Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ANI. You have not revoked editing as you are not an Admin and have not discussed this with the Admin Jehochman ? Quaerere Verum (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not able to revoke blocking because I don't have those set of privileges, but as pointed out above, a ban can only be enforced by a consensus. I don't have to be an admin to point that out. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you didn't have the privilege to revoke the block, then why did you write that you did? [199] Quaerere Verum (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

When an administrator unilaterally imposes a topic ban, that's just another way of saying "this is your final warning for disruptive editing in this field; any more edits will result in a block". It's not a formal ban. Nyttend (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Whoop whoop pull up reported by User:Plasmic Physics (Result: Protected)

Page: Mercury(I) hydride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whoop whoop pull up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [200]

• 1st revert: [201]
• 2nd revert: [202]
• 3rd revert: [203]
• 4th revert: [204]
• 5th revert: [205]
• 6th revert: [206]

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

Comments:

See [[208]], User talk:Plasmic Physics#Use of rollback. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No 4 of those were within a single 24-hour period, but I think full protection would be the best solution to this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The article is in the process of expansion; a full protection order may not be the wisest option in that light.

Please note: the chembox does not acurately represent the article topic. It has been retrospectively incorrectly modified to its current state by the same user, to reflect his views. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the previous comment, the chembox has been corrected. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Page protected – Article fully protected three days. If any blocks had been issued, they would need to go to both Whoop and Plasmic. Plasmic Physics is warned against any further violation of his topic ban from chemboxes, as imposed at this ANI. The references currently in the article don't support Whoop's version. It would be sensible for him to look for reliable sources that show this compound only exists as Hg2H2, as he is claiming. EdJohnston (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Plasmic Physics didn't correct the chembox to be consistent with the article text; I did. Double sharp (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Correction, and defense are appreciated. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User:217.39.37.185‎ reported by User:RatWeazle (Result: Declined)

Page: Fun House (UK game show) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.39.37.185 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The editor was warned about his behaviour in the edit history, I can only apologize if that was inappropriate but he has clearly been warned.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion occurred in the edit history, I apologize if it was an error on my part to let that happen.

Comments:l
This user has repeatedly disruptively edited this and by his own admission other articles by adding a flagrantly irrelevent reference that points to a google archive of a newspaper. this newspaper was published years before the program in question was ever broadcast and cannot possibly contain any relevent information. The editor has used the exact same link to make references in other articles, it is obviously impossible for 1 link to contain such significantly different information.l

I apologize again if the way i initially dealt with this was not totally correct, it is the first time i have reported something. RatWeazle 00:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Declined. Although the IP appears to be comfortable with edit summaries, they are not a substitute for actual warnings and particularly not for content discussions. My suggestion is you start a topic on the article talk page about the problem you see with the IP's reference, invite them to come to the talk page, and see if you can sort it out. I can't tell myself what exactly the IP is sourcing to because there are a bunch of Evening Times issues, and I have no idea where the IP believes the information is located. That said, it is a bit ironic that you are complaining about the addition of a reference to an otherwise completely unreferenced article, including the number of episodes in question.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Film Fan reported by User:Schrodinger's cat is alive (Result: 48 hours)

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

• 1st revert: [214]
• 2nd revert: [215]
• 3rd revert: [216]
• 4th revert: [217]
• 5th revert: [218]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [219]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: [220]

Comments:

Three editors have now had their edits reverted by this user. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I actually had the block screen filled out a half-hour ago, but I'm busy this aft so I cancelled it. Film Fan has a habit of deciding they are right, no discussion necessary; arguing via edit summary; refusing to compromise or give way; & cetera. Won't bother me if another admin goes ahead with a block, and advise FF that when they return there is a Talk page associated with article pages, and a pointer to WP:BRD. Franamax (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat was the one who began the edit warring and then kept reverting my correct edit. If anyone should be blocked it should be SchroCat. Film Fan (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Jsigned, you do need to read the project pages occasionally, in this case WP:BRD. It sure looks to me like you were the one seeking to make a change. The onus is on you to discuss it and get consensus, not just bull it through no matter what. You started the edit-warring when you reverted back to your first change instead of starting a talk page thread. Franamax (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An edit war isn't started by the editor who reverts an edit, it is started by the editor that reverts a revert, and in this case that is you. You may or may not be correct, but looking at the edit history as it stands three editors have reverted you and as yet you have not gained any support for your position. I strongly suggest you revert your must recent edit as a show of good faith to the adjudicating admin and start a discussion on the talk page, which is what you should have done after the first revert. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You guys are getting confused. I changed it from "teaser poster" (which it wasn't) to "theatrical release poster" (which it is, because it has the credits and date on it, AND that is the wording used in the guidelines), which someone then changed to "film poster", so I reverted back to "theatrical release poster". So I was the first to revert, and "Schrodinger's cat is alive" is the one who should be blocked for 3RR. Film Fan (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Copyright_Troll reported by User:UncleBubba (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: [221]

• 1st revert: [222]
• 2nd revert: [223]
• 3rd revert: [224]
• 4th revert: [225]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [226]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Multiple editors attempting to deal with insertion of arguably off-topic, current-event information. Although there doesn't seem to be much to discuss, the user was warned on his/her Talk page.

Comments:

I will post an ANI notice on the user's Talk page. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 01:54, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice posted to user's Talk page. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 02:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Mocctur reported by User:RJFF (Result: Cautioned)

Page: 2012 Nobel Peace Prize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mocctur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [227]

• 1st revert: [228]
• 2nd revert: [229]
• 3rd revert: [230]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [231]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [232]

Comments:
User:Mocctur has not yet breached the 3RR, but he/she massively fuels an edit war in which several other editors are involved (admittedly including myself). He/she has shown no interest whatsoever in discussing or finding a compromise to end the edit war. Two of the reverts were after my warning against edit warring and my attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page. His/her only reaction to my talk page posts was to revert again and again. Mocctur has recently engaged in other edit wars, too: at UK Independence Party (history) and Europe of Freedom and Democracy (history) (without breaching 3RR if you regard each article individually, but if you treat them together, the image becomes very disruptive). --RJFF (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Cautioned Mocctur. I advised him to open a centralized discussion if he finds himself in disagreement with others on several articles due to the same issue. Since I notified him he has not edited Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:MarcusBritish (Result: Both editors blocked, 24 hours)

Page: Mariken van Nieumeghen (1974 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [233] – also note its uncivil/abusive edit summary.
• 2nd revert: [234]
• 3rd revert: [235]
• 4th revert: [236]
• 5th revert: [237]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [238]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [239] – see edit summary remark. Editor "thanked" me on my user talk, but was just being patronising and perverse. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Lugnuts persists in following up all my edits of articles "he created" with insignificant tweaks, including the addition or removal of whitespace.. this WP:OWNish behaviour has evolved into him now reverting my edits without leaving reasons in the summary. Persists on leaving uncivil remarks and harassing my talkpage despite being asked not to. Either feels threatened by other editors altering "his" articles, given his extensive history of adding/removing whitespace from articles that serves no visual purpose. His manner of now reverting edits, and harassing talkpages constitutes as WP:Wikihounding and I insist that he be asked to stop immediately, and respect my wishes that he stop posting on my talk page, or I shall have to insist on Admins imposing an interaction ban that enforces him to stay off my talk page in future. His comments on my talkpage suggest he feels he has impunity and is free to play about with people: please make it clear that his behaviour is uncivil, harassive and is contrary to policy. Also note, the "just made" Stub creation of the "redlinked" article/interwiki-link in question is simply gaming the system and does not expunge his other predatory behaviour, referred to herein, and should be considered a bad faith attempt to create a "get out of jail" card in advance of this AN report. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, somebackground. Marcus is just attempting to get his own back after I nominated a template he'd worked on for deletion. I've tried talking to this user, but he removes my comments from my talk page and calls me a pervert and general WP:UNCIVIL comments. He then stalks my edit history and makes edits of his own trying to game the system. This particular article being a prime example. There's simply no need to have an interwiki link in the body of the article. I was removing his good faith edit. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Also note the previous log raised by this user after he got annoyed at me for listing his template for deletion. Note the comment from him suggesting I have "severe learning difficulties" and my WP:CIVIL replies which he seems to ignore. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

just attempting to get his own back – proof?

stalks my edit history – proof?

I was removing his good faith edit – by calling me MarcusTwatish? hmm... bullshit.

I've tried talking to this user... – false, you've been pretentious, condescending, obnoxious, rude, and oh yes, a liar. Until you meet the requirements it takes to talk to me, you will not be given the satisfaction of a discussion. Anyone who keeps on calling me "son" after being asked not to at least 5 times, is either thick as pig-shit, or intentionally being provocative. Anyone own keeps posting cocky remarks on my talk page when being asked not to, it either being harassive, or does not have WP:COMPETENCE. Either way, you lack the social skills required to "talk to me" on an even level. When you talk down to me, you lose the right to talk to me indefinitely. Live by the sword, die by the sword. If "consensus" means so much to you, then that includes respecting other editors wishes. So far you have not only ignored my wishes, but blatantly made an issue on contradicting them, in extreme and prejudiced bad faith. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. If childishness were a basis for blocking, I'd double the 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:LiamFitzGilbert reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LiamFitzGilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [240]

• 1st revert: [241]
• 2nd revert: [242]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [243], [244]

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

Comments:

Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, like all articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Although I have now placed a formal notice of the Arab-Israeli sanctions on the user's talk page, user was warned (not that it's required) of the restriction in September (and removed it from their talk page).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Búfalo Barreto reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)

Page: Alberto Fujimori (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Búfalo Barreto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [246]

• 1st revert: [247]
• 2nd revert: [248]
• 3rd revert: [249]
• 4th revert: [250]
• 5th revert: [251]
• 6th revert: [252]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st 2nd 3rd

Several attempts to resolve dispute at User talk:Búfalo Barreto

Comments:

Búfalo Barreto (who wants to be called Victor) is warring at the articles on some other Peruvian ex-presidents too: Fernando Belaúnde Terry (history, 2 reverts), Alan García (history, 3 reverts), Valentín Paniagua (history, 3 reverts). --RJFF (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have already given them a final warning and discussed this with them on their talk page and mine. Because they are a new user and I felt they were trying to act in good faith but with a misunderstanding of the policies here. It has been made perfectly clear that the next revert will result in a block, and they have since made good faith efforts to discuss with me. The talk page of the article is quite bare of recent discussion, so everyone needs to go there. It is my opinion that I have already dealt with this edit warring sufficiently, and that it doesn't require further action unless the editor resumes editing. As always, I will defer to the wisdom of those that clerk here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I didn't know we had clerks here; you spend too much time at WP:SPI. This report may be reopened (while it is unarchived) if editor violates the warning. Otherwise, a new report may be filed, or you can always try contacting Dennis directly (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin (Result: Stale)

This is a formal request that User:Arthur Rubin be permanently banned from editing the following articles Formal language, Symbol (formal), Syntax (logic), Theorem, and Well-formed formula. Arthur has repeatedly (more than three times) removed the following image File:Formal_languages.png from each of these articles. The content of the image is valid, and supported by scholarly research, and the sources have been removed. Mr Rubin has been asked repeatedly if there is some substantial way in which the image may be improved, and he has so far, never provided any such input. His actions are unjustified, and consist in him pushing an unjustified POV. This nonsense has been going on for several years now. Obviously he feels that his longevity as an editor alone are enough for him to get his way. Greg Bard (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Stale. The only one of these articles for which this "report" is not completely stale is Syntax (logic), and there Arthur has one revert. You also didn't notify Arthur of this report, putting aside how it's malformed. In any event, if you wish to propose an article ban, take it to WP:AN.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Batista1 reported by User:Richard BB (Result: 1 week)

Page: Hell in a Cell (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bastista1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [253]

• 1st revert: [254]
• 2nd revert: [255]
• 3rd revert: [256]
• 4th revert: [257]
• 5th revert: [258]
• 6th revert: [259]
• 7th revert: [260]
• 8th revert: [261]
• 9th revert: [262]
• 10th revert: [263]
• 11th revert: [264]
• 12th revert: [265]
• 13th revert: [266]
• 14th revert: [267]
• 15th revert: [268]
• 16th revert: [269]
• 17th revert: [270]
• 18th revert: [271]
• 19th revert: [272]
• 20th revert: [273]
• 21st revert: [274]
• 22nd revert: [275]
• 23rd revert: [276]
• 24th revert: [277]

(n.b.: these edits continue on and on, and it's the same things over and over. I have provided diffs up to 9th October (when I have him an edit warring notice), but a quick look at the article history shows that it persists far, far past this. If I pasted every single revert, I would be here all day)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [278]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [279]

Comments:
These are MoS issues that we have a consensus for. Despite this, Batista1 attempts to force his own idea on how things such as names and titles should be presented without any discussion. User has recently been blocked for the exact same edits, twice. Numerous attempts have been made to talk to him, both before, during, and after his blocks, through messages on his talk page, the article talk page, and edit summaries. These MoS edits have persisted in other articles also, but it's only in the Hell in a Cell article that it's really gone this far. The page was protected in order to stop the edit warring, and now that the protection has expired, he's resuming his edit warring only one week after his block expired. He has not responded to any attempts to communicate with him, be they on his talk page or the article's talk page (I started a discussion to try to resolve these issues, which are MoS issues that he ignores, but he has made no attempt to communicate, even after linking him to the discussion on his talk page). He clearly has no interest in contributing as part of a community. Diplomacy has not worked, nor warnings, nor even temporary blocks. As an addition, I suspect also that this is his IP, as the exact same edits are being made anonymously (perhaps to avoid the 3RR) – Richard BB 15:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Note. It would have been helpful if you had not gone back so far but included the more recent edits you believe constitute reverts as it's not easy for the untutored to understand the MOS issues. Also, you should have notified the editor of this discussion; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Many apologies; I thought it'd be better to show the older edits. Here are some more recent ones (after his block expired). [280][281][282][283] Apologies also for forgetting to notify the editor. Completely my error, I'm afraid. – Richard BB 16:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

[284] Edit war continues. I shan't revert his edits any further until this situation is resolved, as I do not wish to exacerbate the issue. Although worth noting that other editors, such as User:Jeffhardyred and User:‎BarryTheUnicorn have also reverted his edits in the past. – Richard BB 09:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Several editors, some of which are listed in Richard BB's report have reverted things like listing wrong ring names and incorrect ordering of teams in tournament brackets, these should be listed as announced on WWE's programming, especially for teams with actual names (e.g. Primo & Epico should not be listed as Epico & Primo), we have explained in our revert edits why we are reverting them, but this user continues not to listen, this is considered vandalism and should be treated as such. – Jeffhardyred (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. User continued to edit disruptively without discussion, even after notice. Richard and Jeff, are you two related?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I think the similar signature is pure coincidence! Many thanks for your help in this. – Richard BB 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm honest I'm not really sure on how to do the signature thing on here, so I have a tendancy to copy the formatting and put my own info in there, just so it's clear which inputs in these talk pages are from me, thing is I made a mistake on it that time, I've fixed it now. – Jeffhardyred (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Magini reported by User:72Dino (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: Polytechnic Institute of New York University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Magini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [285]
• 2nd revert: [286]
• 3rd revert: [287]
• 4th revert: [288]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [289]

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

Comments:

User:Magini and User:Bambinotambino are both sockpuppets of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mangoeater1000. SPI appears backlogged so this person has been reverting valid edits all day without being blocked. At the very least they should be blocked under 3RR. 72Dino (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

These three users(most probably sock puppets) keep vandalising NYU-Poly and NYU-Poly talk page

• 72Dino (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Marco Guzman, Jr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• ElKevbo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

They try to delete my message in NYU-Poly's talk page. See NYU-Poly's talk page history. I have already informed an administrator about it.

Also see NYU-Poly's page history

Thanks--Magini (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User:JTBX reported by User:Masem (Result: 24 hours)

Page: The Shawshank Redemption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JTBX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [290]

• 1st revert: [291]
• 2nd revert: [292]
• 3rd revert: [293]
• 4th revert: [294]
• 5th revert: [295]
• 6th revent: [296]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [297] (User subsequently delete message, so clearly received)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [298] (and prior discussion

Comments:
This doesn't exact fit "3 reverts in 24hr" but the principle is there that I feel this is needed (the editor implies they will continue edit disruptively to maintain a certain version). JTBX has had issues before with the details that consensus has chosen to leave out of the plot for the film (see the talk page diff, the section before that since March 2012). The user started reverting the plot to their preferred version. When we addressed these changes on the talk page, specifically noting that some details left out are extraneous, they took it on themsevles to strip out all details they felt were extraneous. No, its not a revert to the same version, but the principle of why not to edit war and the timing is there. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

My arguments are on the talk page so I will not waste time by adding anything here, but the pure hypocrisy of Masem and other film article users has been shown. Thanks. --JTBX (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the template because I did not violate 3RR within 24 hours and both you and dark pasted those on my page without bothering to discuss or go through my changes. Sorry, I am not intimidated by threats. Discuss and go through my changes properly, as MisterShiney pointed out on the talk page, watch the film if you have to before, and see if my changes were justified. These things take time, you cannot place the onus on me to write walls of text on the talk page as if I am talking to myself and add nothing meaningful, if the edits YOU decide are extraneous then why can't I decide the same and remove them- the consensus on the talk page clearly shows this, so I agreed and removed moree extra details from the plot, but then you revert me and call me disruptive. Well done.--JTBX (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The point is that while 3RR is typically defined as making 3+ reverts in 24hrs, it is the spirit of what is edit warring that is to be looked at, which you have done over the last two days. The version of the plot has had long-term consensus. Neither the version you wish it to be, nor the version that you think follows from the logic on the discussion, has that consensus , so you can't strong-arm your preferred version onto the page. You need gain consensus to discussion this. Instead, you're opting to edit-war on the plot, which is not acceptable. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Its fine, I won't touch the article as I normally don't do that kind of thing, MisterShiney just reverted my edits but I urge you to see the message I sent him. As long as there is constructive discussion of what constitutes extraneous details and what doesn't, we can move forward, I made all of the comprimises on the talk page. Darkblake came along, edited the plot, and has been reverting everything ever since, hiding behind you and Jacobite and false use of policy. The plot actually has a lot of unneeded extraneous details in certain areas while important information has been revised. Absolute hypocrisy.--JTBX (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, you do realise that an admin User talk:Fluffernutter tried to include similar changes and also lost to darkblake, see his talk page for more.--JTBX (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't mean you are correct, ask Dreadstar and Fluffternutter did not institute similar changes at all so you are distorting facts to back up your position. And its again another attack you throw out to undermine an editor, ignoring the fact that I wasn't even involved in your latest edit war, and the other editors do not work for me. JTBX has actually reverted 5 times in 24 hours, he is content to edit war over the specific content and when he didn't get his way in the face of 4 editors, he went to a different extreme, again ignoring the consensus that has been reached out of petty spite. He did this in March, he is doing it now and clearly has not learned how to be a team player or that old versions of the article will be ultimately updated to an improved version.

He accuses editors of either suffering from OWN, having an ego, being in league with each other or now, in this very discussion he accuses Masem of hypocrisy. He is quite content to throw out derogatory remarks to undermine other editors or attack them, which is an unacceptable attitude and yet one he employs very frequently. I don't see anything to suggest he will stop what he is doing, just wait a period of time and try again. And he had no right to remove that 3RR template, I already issued him one that he removed in 24 hours and someone ELSE has had to issue him another for continuing to edit war and revert. He needs reprimanding in a way where he won't just remove the template or blocking for a period of time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Removing a 3RR warning template from one's own talk page is fine; the only point about mentioning it is that its removal means the user is implicitly aware that the warning was given. --MASEM (t) 12:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point Masem. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I know I am new editor, but from my understanding of the policies, there hasn't been any breaking of policies other than those in which JTBX seems to be violating. He just doesnt seem happy that other editors dont seem to agree with him. I only agree with him in part, but that part is not really a point that requires 100% clarification. But repeated editing on a summary that has already reached a consensus is disruptive editing. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 14:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

He's also on his 8th revert at least now. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

9th or 10th revert now, he restored some of the content, I incorporated some of it, fixed other errors and he restored it again. He WILL NOT STOP, so someone with authority has to make him stop. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I came close to locking the article. Hopefully, editors can achieve a consensus about the Plot section on the talk page without further disruption to the article. As an aside, Darkwarriorblake, your counting of reverts is not supported by policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

"Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." seems like it is. The article doesn't need locking, every editor but JTBX is in agreement so thank you for dealing with the situation. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

And the next sentence reads: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It appears that you were counting consecutive edits as reverts; otherwise, I don't see how you get to 10.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Even counting that way he has 7 reverts. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but it's not "that way" - it's the way spelled out by the policy. Seven is correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:212.183.128.57 reported by User:SGMD1 (Result: No violation)

Page: Caribbean Medical University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.183.128.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [299]

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

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

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

• No violation. The material removed by the IP address is a violation of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPCRIME, and should remain out of the article unless there is a strong consensus by experienced editors that I am wrong. I will post comments on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Dixy flyer reported by User:Huldra (Result: Warned)

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

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

• 1st revert: [305]
• 2nd revert: [306]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [307]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [308]

Comments:
The article is under 1RR rule, according to ARBIA-sanctions, see Talk:Qibya. I am apparently totally unable to get the user to understand that 2 equal reverts (see diffs) constitutes a violation of these rules. See discussion on User_talk:Dixy_flyer#prior accounts and 1RR. Huldra (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I have officially notified the user of the sanctions. I have left an explanation and a warning on their talk page about how 1RR/3RR works and future violations. I am taking into account the newness of the editor and their willingness to discuss the policy, even though they are having trouble understanding it, in excusing the breach.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:80.192.233.222 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Richard Dawkins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.192.233.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [309]

• 1st revert: [310]
• 2nd revert: [311]
• 3rd revert: [312]
• 4th revert: [313] after 3rr warning
• 5th revert: [314] after ANI notice
• 6th revert: [315]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [316]
• [317]
• [318]

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

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Steel.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Zac reported by User:Mimiwmimiw (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: [319]

Comments:
The user used foul language, he said "Excuse me? It's citing the word "promotion" and using it in the tense of promotional single." and "Excuse me? Don't you dare talk down to me. If you don't understand why, that's not really my problem." and "Wat do u tink your doin protectng the page!!!!!!! HOW DARE U DO SUCH A TING! U VANDEL! IMMA GET CHU BL0CKD 4 DIS"

Mimiwmimiw (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• No violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, Zac and I were joking around with each other that day... his comments were meant to be humorous. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Kpaldmsgbs reported by User:CityOfSilver (Result: protected)

Page: Supernatural (Ke$ha song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kpaldmsgbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [320]

• 1st revert: [321]
• 2nd revert: [322]
• 3rd revert: [323]
• 4th revert: [324]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [325]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I really can't; the talk page needs to be a redirect too.

CityOfSilver 21:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

User:76.87.41.160 reported by User:Soupforone (Result: declined)

Page: Caucasian race (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.87.41.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

• 1st revert: [326]
• 2nd revert: [327]
• 3rd revert: [328]
• 4th revert: [329]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [330]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [331]

Comments:

Blanking vandalism. Continuous reverting despite warning. Soupforone (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined - user was not properly warned of 3RR violation. Also, read this as for what vandalism actually means. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Saeedparva reported by User:Mohsen1248 (Result: both blocked)

Page: Template:AFC Futsal Club Championship seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saeedparva (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
whay?--saeedparva 19:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours - no attempt to discuss = both blocked. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

User:YOLO Swag reported by User:Shrigley (Result: No action)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Desinicization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YOLO Swag (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][338][339]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [340]

Comments: It's slow-motion edit warring, but the user is being extremely uncooperative and disruptive. Despite asking people to go to the talk page, and throwing around accusations of "pov pushing"[341], he has not once replied to the existing talk page discussion, where another user found my initial edit unproblematic and helpful.[342] When Dengero and I warned him for blanking and unexplained reverts, he removed it as "userspace vandalism"[343], and accused a user of waging a "5 years harassment campaign",[344] (which is also an unwarranted accusation of sockpuppetry)[345] calling him a "creepy stalker".[346]

_______________________________________

I'm not sure if I should even take this seriously. Read my comment to admin User: Jehochman here User_talk:Jehochman#PLEASE_HELP_ME and Jehochman's response to Dengero [[347]] warning him to cease the harassment campaign. Jehochman was deeply involved in successfully community ban my tormentor User:Ideogram (when I was known as Certified.Gangsta and NWA.Rep before changing my username through the proper channel) several years ago and I have strong suspicion that User:Dengero and User:Shrigley are connected to Ideogram and User:Slashem mass sock farm who have been relentlessly harassing me for almost 6 years. The above diffs is clearly a content dispute not an "edit war". Shrigley made an edit to the aforementioned article with no consensus and no explanation on talkpage, which I reverted. Another user also voiced NPOV concern in the talkpage [348] yet Shrigley has not made one single post on the talkpage to explain his unilateral changes. At the same time, he has been mindlessly edit warring and trying to gang patrol the article with my tormentor and stalker Dengero. If anyone was edit warring, it was clearly Shrigley not me. I strongly urge admins to investigate Shrigley and Dengero as they could very likely be linked to the now community-banned Ideogram. This harassment campaign must stop and I don't want any of my stalkers to post creepy "Wikilove kittens" or frivolous "warning templates" (when I'm not committing any violation) on my talkpage or have any interaction with me whatsoever. Once again the 6-year old harassment campaign must stop. Enough is enough! This user has driven me to the brink of a nervous breakdown and resulted in me taking 3 very lengthy wikibreaks.--YOLO Swag (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Almost all edit-warring happens over content disputes: this is not ANI; this is no excuse. Furthermore, I didn't need to post a justification on the talk page before my edit: I was not under any sanction nor was the article especially protected or controversial. In fact, I added very little new information; I just provided references for existing unsourced information.
2. The only way that you could justify your unrepentant edit-warring is to prove that you were reverting the edits of a banned user. You keep insinuating that either I or Dengero are Ideogram, but unless you provide clear evidence to SPI, then you're just making a personal attack.
3. Readin's comment (04:12, 22 October 2012) came after all the reverts I listed here, so you cannot claim them as justification. In fact, the material I introduced[349] was reverted by you[350] and then you subsequently changed the POV of the wording[351], so my reversion of the last edit is not "my" material, but a reversion to the longstanding consensus. None of this changes the fact that you were still blatantly edit-warring. Shrigley (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Readin and I had a long content discussion, which often focused on disagreements.[352] Nonetheless, we were able to agree on two out of the four changes that Readin proposed.[353] Note that YOLO Swag did not participate in the discussion, except to name-drop some arbitration case he was a part of in 2007. Despite my efforts to move forward with the consensus of all the active participants in the discussion[354], YOLO reverted again,[355] calling me a liar and demanding that the article not be edited (even superficially) until everybody agrees on everything.[356] What makes this stance especially ironic and hypocritical is that YOLO himself made some changes according to Readin's suggestions[357] but was reverted by Readin because they didn't have my agreement.[358] So in addition to not following the rules about edit-warring, YOLO Swag has not demonstrated any consistent principles about bold-revert-discuss, demanding all editors adhere to whatever system is convenient at the time to getting his desired text into the article. I believe this is the definition of a disruptive editor. Shrigley (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This is obviously a frivolous 3RR complaint in an effort to gain an upper hand in a content dispute without gaining consensus in the talkpage. Shrigley/Quigley obviously ignored Readin's input and Readin's good-faith insistence to keep the original version before making unilateral changes. He falsely claimed to have consensus before others had the opportunity to weigh in. You have engaged in multiple edit wars to keep your preferred version [359] [360] [361] [362] (note the blatant lies in the edit summary) despite the objection of both Readin and me, disruption, gaming the system, wikistalking, harassment (despite being warned by admin User:Jehochman [363]), gang-patrolling articles, and violation of NPOV as well as trying to conceal your alternate accounts in violation of WP:SOCK (using both User:Shrigley and User:Quigley in the mold of User:Ideogram and User:Slashem)--YOLO Swag (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The post above contains so many misrepresentations it's shocking. Contrary to "ignoring Readin's input", the only edits that I have made after Readin's post have been directly in order to implement his suggestions. You can't claim that you haven't "had time to weigh in" during the long discussion, because you did weigh in, but to use the talk page as a political soapbox,[364] rather than to discuss content. The only person Readin has reverted is you,[365] and my edits after the edit war documented here have are based on agreement from the talk page. You made eight forms of revert so far, reversed by three different people, none of which had consensus.[366][367][368][369][370][371][372][373] In addition to misrepresenting Readin, you misrepresent Jehochman, who spoke to Dengero,[374] not me. You also continue your baseless allegations of sockpuppetry, in addition to countless other baseless slurs ("disruption, gaming the system, wikistalking, harassment"). If this ever just was a "content dispute", it certainly isn't now. Shrigley (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• It is impossible for me to a police a content dispute. That said, my very quick reading of the issue shows that YOLO is engaging in excessive personal attacks, and seems to be having issues with the megalomaniacal point of view and refusal to negotiate. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If you go ask admin User:Jehochman (who issued a warning to Shirgley/Quigley's ally User:Dengero in this same dispute yesterday [375] for harassing and stalking me) and admin User:Bishonen who are familiar with the harassment campaign these users have been conducting against me for over 5 years, you would know that what I said is not personal attack like you falsely alleged but FACTS. User:Ideogram and his mass sock farm including User:Slashem is community banned by Jehochman for precisely the same harassment campaign against me Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Community_sanction/Archive11#Statement_by_Jehochman (note that this was all the way back in 2007 in which Dengero and Shrigley/Quigley were also involved). Obviously you only did a "very quick reading" of the issue so I don't blame you for believing Shirgley/Quigley's spins and mischaracterization.--YOLO Swag (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow. 2 blatant lies right there. First, I wasn't involved in the above incident, in fact, I'm pretty sure I joined wikipedia after that discussion occurred. Secondly, I am not for the last time a sock puppet. And I am saying it here now, if you make an allegation like that again without evidence, it is a personal attack. If you do have evidence, by all means, go ahead and report me. Also, having a respected user "warn" me doesn't constitute at all to you being in the right light. As Shrigley and I have both tried to show you, and in fact the whole point of this conversation, is in regards to your unilateral reverts to the Desinicization. I've done my bit and started a discussion on the talk page. Hopefully a consensus will occur there, but right now your baseless accusations has to stop. Thank you. Dengero (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You were warned to disengage from this user. Your account has in fact been used for sock puppetry. This account appears to have been operated in parallel with your other account User:Ideogram which has an extensive block log. Since that socking was long ago, I would not block you for that now, but I may very well block you for your current harassment of YOLO. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The decision here is no action. YOLO is warned to stop edit warring. If there are problems with other editors, please file a sock puppetry case, or seek dispute resolution, or both. Don't edit war. I will not give the sock brigade the satisfaction of blocking the target of their attacks. Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

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

User:68.37.252.156 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Garry Kasparov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.37.252.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [376]

• 1st revert: [377]
• 2nd revert: [378]
• 3rd revert: [379]
• 4th revert: [380]
• 5th revert: [381]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - see below Comments:

See revision history for edit summaries of the multiple editors who've tried to engage this contributor in discussion - and see User talk:68.37.252.156. Note that this IP is almost certainly User:Gabkhach -- see [382] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
• And now, he's back almost as soon as the block expired.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Cwmacdougall reported by User:75.51.171.155 (Result: Declined)

Page:White Terror (Russia)

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

Previous version reverted to: [383]

• 1st revert: [384]
• 2nd revert: [385]
• 3rd revert: [386]
• 4th revert: [387]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [388]

The editor stubbornly seeks to remove sourced text from a scholarly article that he does not like.75.51.171.155 (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. I've blocked the IP and a newly registered account for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. I will file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you user Bbb23. Note I have reported the anonymous editor 75.51.171.155 on the wp:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. He clearly is in violation of NPOV policy cwmacdougall 0:33, 24 October 2012

I saw that you reported the IP at WP:ANI and an admin moved it to WP:NPOVN. I've added a comment at NPOVN as obviously the IP will not be able to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Insaaf2009 reported by User:Black Kite (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ashcroft Technology Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Insaaf2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [389]

See user's contribs - [390]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [391]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above link

Comments:

• SPA account which only exists to remove the criticism section from an otherwise positive article; the section is sourced to the UK's primary educational journal and was a very big story at the time.. Presumably employee or otherwise connected with the Academy. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

BK should have made mention that this SPA has been at it since at least 1 November 2011, I really can't be assed to look further back but given the only edits this account makes are to this article and are always the same edits an indef may be the best option. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:2.98.182.152 reported by User:Lugia2453 (Result: 1 week)

Page: MMR vaccine controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.98.182.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [392]

• 1st revert: [393]
• 2nd revert: [394]
• 3rd revert: [395]
• 4th revert: [396]
• 5th revert: [397]
• 6th revert: [398]
• 7th revert: [399]
• 8th revert: [400]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [401]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not me, but there has been a discussion on this on the talk page. Edit: Gave a message to the IP address on his talk page to help resolve the dispute.

Comments:

I was simply observing, so there were no warnings issued by me. IP address is removing well-sourced information that he calls libelous without consensus. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the consensus is against it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No attempts at consensus have been made by other editors who have simply resorted to reverting in numbers 2.98.182.152 (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I have made a compromise edit to the article which the IP is happy with so I assume he will stop with the reverting. Perhaps a warning that any further edit warring will result in a quick, and long block will suffice. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A minute after your comment another revert was made. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Compromise was excellent but quickly reverted by another user. Now clear that interest has been diverted away from article so no point in further edits for time being — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.182.152 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment please note that 2.98.182.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is Nernst (talk · contribs), and also 92.16.50.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Nernst said that he was IP 2.98.182.152 here and that he was IP 92.16.50.16 here. So in reviewing the edit history at MMR vaccine controversy please be aware that the edits by Nernst on 21 October, the edits by 92.16.50.16 on 21 October, and the edits by 2.98.182.152 today are all being done by the same person, and are all pretty much the same edit. In addition to being warned against edit-warring here, the same individual, editing as 92.16.50.16, was warned against edit-warring as well by Yobol (talk · contribs) two days ago here, and has been warned previously about edit-warring here. It is possible that this same individual has used other IPs that are not yet known. Zad68 02:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nernst is back this morning with a new IP, 78.144.162.45, see here, stating they will start a new round of "BDR" today (assuming they mean "BRD"). Recommend article get semi-prot, maybe a block for Nernst. Zad68 11:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Recommend a bucket of water to cool everyone off. Happy to stay logged in as Nernst and transfer talk across, given that using an IP address is apparently on par with crimes against humanity. I've repeatedly stated who I am to avoid confusion but don't edit often enough to bother seriously about staying logged on. Don't know why the IP keeps changing, probably a router thing. Don't know how to prove it one way or another. Hope that's helpful. Couple of editors are baying for blood so don't mind being banned/blocked/rebuked if you think it will calm things down and move the article forward. Cheers Nernst (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nernst, you sound like someone poking everyone else with a stick, and when you get told to knock it off, you keep poking everyone else with a stick while saying, "Wow you guys complain so much! Cool off and calm down!" What you need to do is stop poking everyone else with a stick--in this case, stop reverting at the article and engage the Wikipedia policy-based arguments of your fellow editors at the article Talk page. You appear to have started doing that, and you're probably going to get lucky here and get away without a sanction because the admins are behind on keeping up with this noticeboard. I don't doubt that if an admin had handled this case last night, the article would probably have been protected against IP edits and your username Nernst would have gotten a block. But if you commit to stopping reverting at the article and engage at the Talk page until there is consensus, a block will be seen as unnecessary because that intended effect of the block has already happened.

Editing as an IP isn't a "crime against humanity" but it's very discourteous to your fellow editors when you are editing as one of four different accounts (3 IPs + Nernst) so that it is difficult to string together which individual is making the series of edits at the article and Talk page. Nernst, as a matter of WP:CIVIL, stop editing as an IP and only edit as Nernst. It is not difficult to log in, so do it. Thank you. Zad68 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. User:Nernst, User:2.98.182.152, and User:92.16.50.16 all blocked for same period for abusing multiple accounts and edit-warring. Note that the two IP addresses are static.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Walledro reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Blocked 1 week )

Page: David Hammond (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walledro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [402]
• 2nd revert: [403]
• 3rd revert: [404]
• 4th revert: [405]
• 5th revert: [406]
• 6th revert: [407]
• 7th revert: [408]
• 8th revert [409]

added after initial filing

• 9th revert [410]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [411]

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

No use of the talk page as I have not edited the article, I got there from the NPOV board. The main concern here is that this guy will not discuss and he is inserting BLP violations into the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Are all the admins asleep? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Guess so, seems pretty straightforward especially given that the user has not tried to discuss the changes at all. a13ean (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Jayron32 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Daveandaustin reported by User:JohnInDC (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Flip-flop (politics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daveandaustin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [412] (approximately)

• 1st revert: [413]
• 2nd revert: [414]
• 3rd revert: [415]
• 4th revert: [416]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [417]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None apparent. The edits are manifestly inappropriate (essentially turning the article into an anti-Romney screed) and the editor has ignored attempts by several editors to engage him at his Talk page.

Comments:

The editor has already been blocked. JohnInDC (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Jayron32 13:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)