Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive257

User:Bewakoofian reported by User:Dusti (Result: Warned)

Page

Aagadu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Bewakoofian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "reverted to revision by pushpakan, please stop your nonsense, dont just add box office figures without proper source"
2. 19:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626248600 by Jordran (talk)"
3. 19:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626248444 by Jordran (talk) 3RR"
4. 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626247481 by Jordran (talk)"
5. 19:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Rv disruptive edits"
6. 18:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "rv POV pushing"
7. Consecutive edits made from 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC) to 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "rv POV pushing"
   2. 15:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "pov pushing"
8. 11:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "reverting fan pov pushing and unexplained edits, and disruptive edits, 3RR"
9. 07:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Rv fan pov pushing and vandalism, deleting references"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aagadu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The page has been fully protected, but I don't think that this type of extreme edit warring should be ignored. I believe two blocks could have been made in lieu of the full protection. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 12:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

I am perplexed, why you are pulling me into this, I was the one requesting page protection from yesterday, and it took 24 hrs to protect. I am just not interested to edit war, how can I accept some ones edit full of vandalism and unreliable sources. Please block those users who have been including fake and unreliable sources and pov pushing. my area of interest article is not Aagadu. I only believe in reliable sources Bewakoofian (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Bewakoofian is warned not to resume edit warring on this page after the lock expires. Any more reverting may be met with a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Siddhaarthbhandari reported by User:Dusti (Result: Warned)

Page

Aagadu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Siddhaarthbhandari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 05:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Corrected wrong edits."
3. 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626243670 by Bewakoofian (talk)"
4. 18:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 18:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""
6. 07:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""
7. 04:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Aagadu. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Another person edit warring at Aagadu like User:Bewakoofian. The page has been protected, but I think that blocks should have been done in lieu of protection. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 12:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned. Siddhaarthbhandari is warned not to resume edit warring on this page after the lock expires. Any more reverting may be met with a block without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:Adamstom.97 (Result: Blocked)

Page: X-Men (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

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

Comments:

Unfortunately, the above diff is not from the article's talk page, because the other user decided to skip that phase and move straight to ANI, which, as pointed out there, should not have been done. I was willing to discuss all of the edits at the talk page, and still am, but unfortunately the other editor does not seem to want a discussion, and instead went ahead with the fourth revert(s). This is very frustrating, as I would rather just discuss this, but WP:EDITWAR advises that this here step be taken. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are questionable: putting unnecessary BR codes without a reason. Changing the text to small size when it comes to movie titles and character name without a reason. Stating that X-Men: First Class and The Wolverine were met with positive by highlighting their dark and realistic tones aren't backed up a source. You also reverted my edit which included an updated box-office gross and removing multiple sources which aren't needed since there was already 1 legit source.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I will continue to reply to these same allegations with the same reasoning, no matter where you post them (though I see you still haven't gone to the most logical starting point, i.e. the article's talk page). I have given you numerous examples of other pages with similar content that use that same formatting, which has been clearly found to work best, whereas your version is messy and less encyclopedic because of it. I have re-written the lead in response to your point about the reception, and I have already eplained that if you wish to add info in such a way as that i will not realize I am removing it, then why don't you just restore it? No need to start an edit war because of such a small mistake.- adamstom97 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that *both* Adamstom.97 and Hotwiki have been edit warring at X-Men (film series). To avoid needing to block both editors, I propose that each person agree not to make *any* X-Men related edits for seven days (neither article nor talk) and try to avoid one other for the same period. Any party who will make that agreement can avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I find your terms fair, and will happily agree to them. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems Hotwiki has no intentions of halting his edits of the X-Men pages, and continues to re-revert and make the same changes. For now I will refrain from altering said pages, but I thought it should be noted here that the user is completely uninterested in resolving this matter or changing his ways. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Hotwiki is blocked 24 hours. Instead of responding here to take the deal (or at least comment on it) Hotwiki has returned to editing X-Men (film series), which is the article in dispute. User:Adamstom.97, in lieu of a block, has agreed not to edit any X-Men article or talk page until 15:10 on 26 September, and will try to avoid Hotwiki for the same period. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Brianmathe reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Brianmathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 18:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "myth to legend"
   2. 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "incorrect facts"
   3. 19:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Comparative mythology */"
   4. 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"
2. 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) to 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"
   2. 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Flood geology */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noah's Ark. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Removal of sourced content */ new section"

Comments:

We are dealing with a POV vandalism only account. Needs a good block. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Toolen reported by User:Dodger67 (Result: Blocked)

Page

South African Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Toolen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626323531 by Dodger67 (talk)"
2. 20:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626229306 by Dodger67 (talk) Don't even start. It was more than that, and if you know what your talking about, you know this to be true."
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) to 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"
   2. 16:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"
   3. 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626198836 by Srnec (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on South African Republic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Discussion at Talk:South African Republic#Maritz Rebellion

Comments:

The issue has been discussed at the article talk page yet the user persists against clear consensus. The user's talk page shows a history of contentious editing with another warning about a different article being posted more recently than the warning about the article concerned here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Another article affected by this issue is Maritz Rebellion. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I'm not sure I'd call it a "clear consensus", but the user has been down this road more than once, and he was edit-warring against multiple editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:UxUmbrella reported by User:Chasewc91 (Result: Already Blocked)

Page

Umbrella (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

UxUmbrella (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626479191 by Chasewc91 (talk)"
2. 07:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC) ""
3. 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Example */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Umbrella (song). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was just blocked for 60 hours for edit warring at Umbrella (song) (see here). User's edits are focused on restoring an overly detailed music video section against consensus. A discussion was opened on the talk page; the user is aware of it and has posted to it, but insists on restoring the article to his/her preferred version. User has clearly not learned his/her lesson.

Civility/personal attacks are also an issue; the user was previously blocked for 48 hours for this reason (not shockingly, related to the "Umbrella" article). –Chase (talk / contribs) 14:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked  for a period of 1 week by Vsmith -- Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Spidermedicine reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: )

Page

Ann Ree Colton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Spidermedicine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Ann Ree Colton. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 08:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Slow edit warring is still edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Although not over three and not within a single day, the editor has removed the same content three times in one month without discussion on talk and without appropriate edit summaries. diff, diff. The editor has also blanked a related article Niscience diff. I think a topic ban is in order. MrBill3 (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Taivo reported by User:DMacks (Result: Withdrawn)

Page

Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626599563 by Hoshie (talk) not really notable"
2. 16:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626637940 by DMacks (talk) The New York Times also reports lottery results"
3. 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626644720 by DMacks (talk) And you should know that WP:BRD applies here. When reverted, do not reinsert, but talk it out on Talk Page to build a consensus"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I made an edit-summary "you should know better than to edit-war, especially once it's obvious that at least two other experienced editors disgree with you. I won't bother templating you.", to which editor made his next edit with edit-summary "And you should know that WP:BRD applies here."--dialog indicating having read my edit-summary (so I indeed did not follow up with a formal warning on his talkpage). Literal 3RR violation, and note that his third included the apparent recognition of having read my warning. It's a valid point to have a discussion, but it's a bizarre starting point to consider the New York Times as a default non-reliable source and to do so solely because it contains some trivial/unencyclopediac facts. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DMacks thinks that his edit summaries substitute for a discussion on the article Talk Page (which I initiated and he failed to participate in). He doesn't seem to know the the meaning of WP:BRD. He also doesn't seem to know that it takes four reverts to constitute a violation of WP:3RR. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I did indeed participate. Maybe your noticing that is as {{ec}} as my moments-belated noticing you had started a discussion while I was writing my edit-summary. Give-and-take via edit-summary is a common starting-point for raising a simple point (I couldn't understand how a NYT cite wasn't plausibly "notable", and still cannot really, but now we are on talk-age about that), though now we obviously do need more extensive discussion which is when we go to talkpage. And "dammit, mis-counted" also during the rapid EC...sorry about that. DMacks (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Perhaps you can request that this complaint be dropped as unnecessary. But "discussion through edit summary" is not the best practice in Wikipedia. Per WP:BRD, as soon as I reverted the initial insertion of the information, the discussion should have moved to the article Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin/clerk, feel free to close as withdrawn (and welcome to join us in the on-going discussion!) DMacks (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Jobas reported by User:AcidSnow (Result: Warned, protected )

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

Previous version reverted to: Preferred version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 01:34, 22 September 2014
2. Revision as of 08:16, 22 September 2014
3. Revision as of 15:00, 22 September 2014
4. Latest revision as of 16:10, 22 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link to section

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk Page Link

Comments:

User has broken 3RR and has made false accusations against me in his edit summaries. AcidSnow (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Warned Jobas (talk · contribs) because he received no warning prior to this report being filed and because he has no prior blocks for edit warring. Page protected for five days to allow discussion of the disputed content on the talk page so that consensus on its inclusion may be reached. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Madere reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: Blocked)

Page

Human (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Madere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "The "dispute" is with you, in any case, your you are the one that must go to the talk or stop disturbing the article."
2. 13:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "It is necessary to show to the human being in its natural state, like the animal that really it is. It is not necessary to go to the talk, there is no such a dispute."
3. 12:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Such a consensus never existed, you can check in the discussion. Thank you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[8]

Comments:

There is an attempt to resolve at talk, to no avail so far. 3RR warning left here [9] last revert was after the warning. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Still reverting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Alexf^(talk) 22:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Yheyma reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Warned)

Page

Non-standard cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Yheyma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Dichotomous cosmology */"
2. 22:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626535594 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)"
3. 23:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626544687 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk)"
4. 04:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626569237 by AndyTheGrump (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated insertion of OR */ new section"

Comments:

Not a clear 3RR but clearly EW. Editor shows a lack of understanding of WP policy diff MrBill3 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Warned User:Yheyma. If they revert again to add the disputed section at Non-standard cosmology they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

User:175.141.37.33 reported by User:Jase240 (Result: Blocked)

Page: List of Nvidia graphics processing units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 175.141.37.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Second previous version before him continuing on the 20th.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Non warned, only asked.)
(Warned for edits.)
(Warned for talk page harassment.)

Comments: The user has been doing this for days, at first he was reverting with someone else with semi-valid information. After the first 2 cards released they stopped being reverted and I ensured the table was correct, he continued to add a 3rd unreleased card. This has been going on for days and the user is also harassing using edit comments and talk page edits. Also to note after he was warned, he blanked his talk page multiple times.

Other comments: I apologize if I did not follow the proper warning and reporting method in this case, I have tried to read through the rules to warn and report as much as possible and hope I did it right.

Jase240 (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Jase240, you didn't do it right. You're not supposed to list refs, and the pointers to the reverts in the article should be diffs, not links. Finally, as the instructions say at the top of this page, you are required to notify the other user of this report (I did it for you).--Bbb23 (talk) 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

- Thanks for fixing that, I'll remember to list diffs like so next time and I can't believe I forgot about the notifying after telling myself to notify him. Thanks for resolving this also! Jase240 (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, he switched his IP and is now using the following: User:175.141.36.89
[10]
He immediately reverted the edit on the page again, I also warned the new IP for the edit. He also has already blanked his talk page from the warning: [11] Jase240 (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

References

User:Red Slash reported by User:Widefox (Result: Warning, protection)

Page

ISIS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Red Slash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on ISIS. (TW)"
2. 22:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC) "/* September 2014 */ well, you're at your 1RR, so you need to be aware of it..."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring on ISIS redirect. Reverted by 3 editors. 1RR limit reached on hatnote on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [12]. Previous disruption on ISIL redirect and related. Ask for admin to notify Template:Syrian_Civil_War_enforcement as these redirects are related. Setting ISIS and ISIL unilateral WP:PRIMARYTOPIC without due discussion. Widefox; talk 22:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, after nine years of editing and some 10,000 edits (roughly), getting reported to WP:AN is a first. I have not violated either the spirit or the letter of 3RR, which requires three reverts in a 24-hour period. And I have no idea what on earth my alleged infringing upon a "1RR limit" is supposed to refer to; I changed a hatnote on the main article to make it one line instead of two (The horror!), and I can't see how that's a revert (I did "undo" a previous editor's edit to make that happen, and maybe I should've just copy-pasted the template in instead).

As for the actual problem, which is the redirect at ISIS, I have not found WP:RFD to be amenable to efficient discussions (I recall Steve Austin taking so long that I unilaterally closed a discussion I was WP:INVOLVED in and begging anyone to revert me and make a decision to close the discussion--which nobody took me up on), so I'm not sure where a logical discussion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could be held that would lead to a speedy result for that redirect. But the evidence is obvious. Pageviews for all capitalizations of ISIS (right now grok.se is down for me so I can't prove it) have skyrocketed over the past few months, and you get one guess as to why that is. To me, this is so obvious that I'm not entirely sure why anyone would disagree, but if someone wants to seriously suggest that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant isn't the primary topic... I mean, sure, we can talk about it. But I'm in the business of getting readers to the articles that they want, and if you can see that 90+% of our readers are looking for the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant when they type in ISIS, you'll get why WP:IAR is pretty doggone valid here. Red Slash 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note that Talk:ISIS still redirects to Talk:Isis (disambiguation). Red Slash, whatever merge you did, you didn't even do it correctly. (And do scroll to the bottom here and see the previous discussions for which consensus was not reached for this WP:LAME edit war.) – Epicgenius (talk) 02:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(Update: I mean "retarget", sorry. Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC))

I did no merge. I moved ISIS (which was a disambiguation page) to a different location so that ISIS could redirect straight to the topic everyone wants to read about. And the discussion you linked to says nothing at all about where ISIS should point to. Red Slash 02:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I put an RfC up... Talk:ISIS Red Slash 03:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Two things:

@Widefox: This request is malformed. You have not provided the diffs of the edit warring (though I can see it in the talk page). Would you mind including those diffs above?

@Red Slash: You're right - after 10,000 edits this may be a first - and you've already been templated. After the second revert (or even the first) you should have taken it to the talk page. You're currently at 4RR - I would suggest stopping, lest you may find yourself blocked a little faster. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, what are you referring to? Please help, I mean it sincerely. I have absolutely no idea what you might be referring to. 4RR? (And I've been templated a kajillion times--that part doesn't concern me.) Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR means that you've reverted someone (or others) four times within 24 hours, which is a blockable issue - as it's considered edit warring. I meant that you've already been templated as in - a warning about edit warring has already been placed on your talk page so I'm not going to place anther one... besides, I don't like templating the regulars. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dusti, I don't understand. Four? What is this about? Red Slash 03:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)7

(edit conflict) I'm wrong - you've reverted twice within the last 24 hours. IIRC everything related to the Syrian Civil War is subject to a 1RR sanction - which means that you can only revert once within 24 hours or you may be blocked for edit warring. See WP:1RR. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, Dusti, that explains that. I forgive you, with or without an apology. I am not an editor who fools around with 3RR and being accused of 4RR and getting threatened with a block concerned me, but I now see it was a mistake. If there is a 1RR rule applied to anything related to the Syrian Civil War (which does make sense, though it was news to me), I will not violate that again; indeed, I even apologize for having unwittingly done so. Thank you for clearing things up.

My apologies again. @EdJohnston: if you're willing - I think this could get closed as Warned? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash, It would be helpful to whichever admin closes this if you would agree to refrain from any more unilateral changes concerning the name ISIS or any other names that may have something to do with the Islamic State. You have now redirected ISIS three times, which may possibly break the 1RR on everything related to the Syrian Civil War, and there is a long list of people who disagree with you. Continuing here with an indignant defence of your actions could make the closing admin think that a block is the only way to get your attention. I assume that's not the case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, can you help me please? I am so confused. I have reverted an edit on this twice in the last week (both today), which I'm pretty sure is nowhere near 3RR. I have no idea what rules, written or otherwise, I may have broken. I filed an RfC on Talk:ISIS, EdJohnston, and that'll have to do. Red Slash 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You changed ISIS into a redirect to the Islamic State once on 14 September and then twice on 22 September (first one, second one). By doing so you joined in a long-running war that was begun by others. Each time your change was reverted by someone else. Your 22 September edits appear to break the 1RR on 'articles related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. EdJohnston, thank you. I had not been aware of any sanctions applying to ISIS, which was a disambiguation page when I found it. I was even less aware of any ongoing wars (except, sigh, for the actual ones). I will adapt my behavior. Red Slash 03:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Red Slash is warned for WP:1RR. The ISIS article (currently a redirect to ISIS (disambiguation)) is fully protected one month. The WP:Requested move process is available if anyone disagrees with how these articles are currently named. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, let's discuss on the talk page now like civilized people and unlike the people who are the subject of the Islamic State article. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wearypoet reported by User:Dsprc (Result: Two articles protected)

Page

R. Kelly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Wearypoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) to 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "BLP Vandalism"
   2. 22:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 626533826 by Wearypoet (talk) I don't get why there's a "personal life" section when there's already a "life and career" section and why was the legal issues article deleted?"
   3. 22:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Legal issues= */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on R. Kelly. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC) "/* legal issues */"

Comments:

There are numerous edits in page history specifically dating back to about last month or so when I initially attempted to engage with the editor, at which point the disruptive editing became more agressive, and a number of similar edits prior; such as these from 2013 [13], [14], and so forth (some of the earliest edits are attempts at removal of this content). The editors talk page is littered with warnings about this behaviour.

Editor seems intent on unilaterally censoring material they WP:DONTLIKE using bogus rationales (or none at all). I've attempted numerous times to engage in meaningful discussion, yet, they're unwilling to reciprocate attempts at forming consensus. The disruptive editing has resulted in a content fork at R. Kelly Legal history and image which was previously deleted per WP:A10, and then recreated anyway. Sushuki12 has attempted to revert the edits but they do not engage in dialog either. They are now both edit warring it out. -- dsprc ^[talk] 13:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no edit war and dsprc never made an attempt to engage with me in meaningful discussion. That's a lie. Instead they constantly feel the need to revert everything I edit even though what I edit is correct information.

My issue with Sushuki12 is that they don't know how to edit correctly nor do they cite with sources. And most of the things they include are unnecessary hence why I informed them to create a separate article which they did. I've contributed a lot to the R. Kelly page. So I don't understand all this confusion. His page was fine before all of this. Wearypoet (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm so disappointed that it has come to this. I've contributed a lot on Wikipedia and dsprc had the audacity to attack me on my talk page but lie on here and claim that they have tried to engage in a discussion which is far from the truth. My edits were mainly because people wanted a "Personal life" section when Kelly's life is integrated into his career which is titled "Life and career" so I didn't understand the reason behind a "Personal life" section so I removed it. Then Sushuki12 decided to create a poorly written article about Aaliyah on R. Kelly's page so I removed it and informed them to create a separate article about the relationship between Kelly and Aaliyah. After a number of back and forth reverse edits, they decided to create the article and post a redirect link so at this point, there's a separate article about Kelly's "legal issues" so I thought why not remove the entire section since it was basically copy and pasted into a separate article? So I posted a redirect link under his "Life and career" section and it was fine until dsprc decided to revert every single thing that was edited back and Kelly's page was a mess. There was two separate "life" sections and all the edits I done (which were in no way harmful) were erased. So I reverted it back and dsprc had the audacity to say that I was going to be blocked but on here they said he tried to engage in discussion? Again, that is false. They're not even a moderator but he felt the need to attack me and say I was going to be blocked for a "war". There was no "war", I was simply fixing Kelly's page which I've been doing for quite some time now. Of course people are going to disagree but I'm not doing any harm by fixing his page and keeping it up to date. I've contributed a lot. If Sushuki12 had an issue with my edits then they should've tried to discuss with me but they didn't.

Everything was fine until Sushuki12 decided to start editing Kelly's page and dsprc reversing everyone's edits back to the original state with no regard about what was fixed.

There's no reason to block me when I've contributed a lot to that page. Wearypoet (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: The articles on R. Kelly and R. Kelly Legal history and image are fully protected for two weeks. Thanks to User:Wearypoet for finally communicating, per his above statement. (He has never posted on the article talk page). We are still waiting to hear anything at all from User:Sushuki12, who doesn't use article talk pages. If the warring continues after protection expires, blocks are likely. If you think the articles are not correct you can propose changes on their talk pages using WP:Request edit. EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Predator2014 reported by User:Catlemur (Result: Reporting party blocked )

Page: Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Predator2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above mentioned user undone sourced material provided by me, accusing me of spreading rumors/fringe theories.The issue is about Turkish alleged involvement.Predator ignored my offer to discuss it with other editors, instead undoing my edit without proper explanation.Catlemur (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I agreed to discuss this issue (If you are talking about your offer at the Talk page). But I believe that questionable information should be deleted until the compromise found.Predator2014 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Catlemur (talk · contribs) Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. WP:BOOMERANG. Catlemur has reverted several users over the same edit the last three days and has violated the three-revert rule. No one other than Catlemur has more than three reverts total, so I've declined to block anyone else. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, I've been informed this is a 1RR article...timeout while I review this. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Catlemur (talk · contribs) and Predator2014 (talk · contribs) notified and notification logged of the 1RR restriction; Catlemur's block still for 3RR and not blocking Predator2014 due to his not having received notification of the sanctions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dantetheperuvian reported by User:SLBedit (Result: )

Page: Intercontinental Cup (football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dantetheperuvian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: basically all article talk page.

Comments:

User:Dantetheperuvian was also reported in Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for insulting me 3 times. SLBedit (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking the "insults" a little too much to heart - though I have placed a note on their talk page along with a proper warning. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're taking the insults lightly but thanks for the warning. SLBedit (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, if "troll" or "fuck" are the worst things you're called during your tenure at Wikipedia - you'll be fine. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:StanTheMan87 reported by User:Krzyhorse22 (Result: Protected)

Page: Mohammed Omar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

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

Comments:
StanTheMan87 was created last month. [20] He keeps uploading images [21] after they get deleted. [22] Files that show unknown people he names them "Mohammed Omar" (wanted one-eyed spiritual leader of Taliban). See also [23] [24]. He uses images that he uploaded under fair use in multiple articles [25] when they should only be used in one article. [26] These images don't even qualify for Wikipedia because (1) they're uploaded without permission from author/owner and (2) there is no proof that the person is Mohammad Omar. It is only suggested that it may be him but that is not enough for encyclopedia purposes. People in the past have come forward to challenge the accuracy of the images. For example, Maulvi Hafizullah, a former protocol officer for the Taliban stated: "I looked at the photo and it was me. The CIA are blind and stupid." [27] The support that Maulvi Hafizullah is telling the truth. The guy in that particular image is wearing a pakol hat, Mullah Omar is from southern Afghanistan and nobody ever wears pakol hats in that region. It's like a cowboy hat being worn in New York City.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Krzyhorse22, you appear to be on an anti-StanTheMan crusade. You say that the account was created only last month. So was yours. You have made a grand total of 127 edits (not counting deleted edits), of which only 32 are to article space. The majority of your edits, 50, are to Wikipedia pages. Indeed, your first edits were to create a report at WP:ANI about StanTheMan. You're not even involved in the edit war you're reporting. StanTheMan reverted three times. However, so did User:Maxforwind, whom you did not report. And Max's account was created only two days ago. There's a lot of weird stuff going on here, and, frankly, I'm not about to sort it out, but for the moment, I'm taking no action, although I'll leave the report open in case another administrator wants to look at it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • My first edit was nominating an image for deletion, the image was deleted and StanTheMan87 re-uploaded it and in the process my first edit was deleted. You cannot see that deleted edit of mine. That's when I began reporting StanTheMan87. I have no relations to Maxforwind (talk · contribs), I was going to report him/her but got busy. I expected admins to block that person also by reporting one. I'm making constructive edits, if anyone is against this they can report me but this report is about StanTheMan87 who violated 3rr and is attacking me. [28] If you want to allow him to violate 3rr that's a different issue. Next you're going to tell me not to report anyone who violates Wikipedia policy. I'm a very serious person, I don't come here to play games.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
    • It's already been established that Krzyhorse22 is indeed insane and has a deep-seated obsession over me though I do not know why. Again, this is not just my opinion, DocumentError can attest to this rather awkward behavior exhibited by Krzyhorse22, [29]. Those images that I have uploaded, I did with forewarning Krzyhorse22, [30] and he never stated that it would be a violation then, instead simply providing pathetic excuses that the images were not legit without providing any sources to support his claims, see [31], [32], [33], [34]. Note that the images uploaded have nothing to do with the one Krzyhorse22 is ranting about [35]. I am not going to type ten paragraphs proving my innocence and wasting my time and admins time in reading the material, in yet another trumped up charge filed by this moron, see [36], [37]. The violation of WP:3RR on my part was justified, as there was no explanation given at all for the reverts, besides "Irrelevant to article" [38]. I suspect Krzyhorse22 is now just making accounts to hassle me on Wikipedia, removing the content I have uploaded through puppets e.g User:Maxforwind, as Krzyhorse22 has relentlessly attempted to remove the images in the past [39] though I cannot prove they are both socks as this is just an assumption. For someone claiming to be "a very serious person", and "I don't come here to play games", Krzyhorse22 seems to have no qualms over claiming to call CIA director John O. Brennan in order to support his POV [40] then writing it off as "it was a joke" [41]. I just can't help but feel so sorry for those that have had to read the same nascent bullsh*t from Krzyhorse22 over and over again. If it is determined that really, I am in fact the problem here, then ban my IP from Wikipedia for 12+ months becuase these constant accusations are just really starting to irritate me. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, KrzyHorse22 is a chronic disruptive account, possible sockpuppet and well-known lunatic (I know this is a WP:CIVIL no-no but the guy has previously claimed he was consulting with the director of the CIA on the copyright status of images, so I'm not sure how else to describe him). I'm not going to retype his whole, sordid history, because I have to do this every 5-6 days, like clockwork. If anyone would like to read it, I've posted it on DeltaQuad's Talk page (please see here [42]). All of KH22's edits are essentially vandalism so 3RR doesn't apply as per WP:3RRNO. DocumentError (talk) 06:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (semi) for one month. StanTheMan has not breached WP:3RR. Therefore, I'm not blocking him, particularly with this rather muddled, messy history. Putting aside all the other accusations against Krzyhorse, I'm still absolutely baffled by his saying that he spoke to the director of the CIA. That's a rather absurd and "krazy" claim. I don't care that Krzyhorse says it's possible. It's a very long way from plausible or probable. However, at this point, I'm not prepared to block him, and this is not the appropriate venue for it, anyway.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Bbb23, you're not only an unfair person but also abusing admin power. Secondly, I don't know why you, StanTheMan87 and DocumentError keep repeating the phone call to CIA everywhere. On the day I said it I told everyone it was only a joke. Why is that such a big deal now and why can't it just be not mentioned anymore? Is it a crime to say such thing? What does calling CIA has to do with nominating image of Mohmmad Omar for deletion? StanTheMan87 clearly violated WP:3RR on Mohammed Omar but you say he didn't and instead threatening to block me. I'm confused what's going on here? I wish you didn't get involved here but another admin.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Don't be fatuous. If you later said it was a joke, please provide a diff for that statement. I'd kind of like to see the context and how long after making the initial comment you retracted it. BTW, as a joke, it's not particularly funny. As for breaching 3RR, you list only three reverts above, so how can you say Stan breached 3RR? And where did I threaten to block you? Not here, but if I did elsewhere, I'm sure I had good reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Serialjoepsycho reported by User:Atsme (Result: Both warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [43]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]
5. [48]
6. [49]

I added the word "Foundation" to a section heading because it is part of the organization's correct legal name. He reverted it back to the common name. I also added more information to the section for accuracy, and he did revert that, too. I was not going to keep reverting him, or I'd be the one in trouble.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning - I warned him on his Talk page about his disruptive editing: [[50]]

He responded by posting a warning to my Talk page: [51]

I was forced to file an ANI against him a few days ago for his relentless disruptions, hounding and civility violations, and requested a topic ban. [52] To date, there has not been a response from an admin. They left my previous ANI unresolved as well, which explains why he has become so emboldened.

Comments:

Please, I just want him to stop so I can do my job as an editor. He has made little to no edit contributions on any of the articles. I am the lead editor on the IPT article where he has also spitefully reverted my edits. He spends the majority of his time hawking talk pages, and hounding me. Atsme☯^Consult 06:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to point to this page here This is the Sreven Emerson Revision history page. While above you will see that Atsme has linked 6 revisions. If you check the Revision history you will only find 4. of these followed a revision by myself. Unless I'm mistaken sequential edits count as one. That would be 2 reverts. If I am mistaken about sequential edits counting as one then you will find Atsme herself is in violation as she has 4 reverts with two being sequential as well.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to further add that Atsme has This on AfD and a merge proposal. It's very interesting seeking a consensus and removing material related to that consensus she is seeking. It's also interesting raising the same issue in multiple locations, ANI, AFD, and a merge proposal on a talk page linked to Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. If she can't get it one way can she get it another way. Really seems like gaming the system and I do to question if this 3RR report might abuse of process as outlined by Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Abuse_of_process.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Learn to count. Atsme☯^Consult 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's count them shall we? Here again is the Steven Emerson revision history page. This is the first one. This and This is the second and third ones and they are sequential. This is the final one. Or where you not talking about my edits? We can count yours as well. Here's yours 1, 2, 3, and 4. Number 3 and 4 of yours are sequential.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC

Steven Emerson Revision history:

(cur | prev) 23:37, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626720711 by Atsme (talk) Reverting pov edit.)

(cur | prev) 23:29, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,647 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (Undid revision 626719697 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Stop reverting correct information and replacing with incorrect information. You are edit warring.)

(cur | prev) 23:28, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,703 bytes) (+11)‎ . . (Stop. You are edit warring. The correct name is The Investigative Project on Terrorism FOUNDATION - an encyclopedia is not the place for commonality.)

(cur | prev) 23:15, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,692 bytes) (+56)‎ . . (Partial revert)

(cur | prev) 23:00, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717804 by Atsme (talk) because it is a POV change)

(cur | prev) 22:48, September 22, 2014‎ Atsme (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,605 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 626717270 by Serialjoepsycho (talk) Leave it alone - the section is about the steps that led to the FOUNDATION, not about his dba, IPT)

(cur | prev) 22:41, September 22, 2014‎ Serialjoepsycho (talk | contribs)‎ . . (50,636 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (→‎The Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation)

^^^^Atsme=3, Serialjoepsycho=4. My edits were to improve the article. Your edits were vandalism. Read the rule: Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. You refuse to accept responsibility for your actions even when you are caught red handed. And the only thing "interesting" about my Afd, ANI, and raising the same issue is the fact that you refuse to stop despite my good faith attempts to stop you. You have no boundaries, or respect for policy. Atsme☯^Consult 14:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You actually missed one. At 21:03, September 22, 2014‎ was your first revert. Here's a link to it again [53]. As far as vandalism I'm not aware of any. What I am aware of is that you are trying to get a consensus in multiple locations for Investigative Project on Terrorism and you are removing any traces of it from the Steven Emerson page before you receive a consensus.You want to Delete the article at AFD, You want to merge the article with Steven Emerson on the talk page of Steven Emerson, and in the actual article of Steven Emerson you are trying to remove it. I think WP:FILIBUSTER applies with that particularly instance. Having this here, at ani, AFD, and ect seems a whole lot like forum shopping. You are really hedging your bets.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect. That is not a revert. It was the first edit that YOU reverted. Your gaming strategy is not going to work here because the issue is clear, and accurately documented. Atsme☯^Consult 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a revert. You did undo another editors work. That was the first of four in 24 hours. And BTW, The post I made on Atsme page, Check the next edit on her page [54].Serialjoepsycho (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not a revert. Since you don't edit or contribute prose to improve articles, you may not fully understand the process of editing to add, improve, and/or correct inaccuracies of factual, documented information. It has nothing do with POV. Review WP:MOS. My first edit was to ADD the word "Foundation" to correct the section title. YOU reverted my edit. Do you not understand what "revert" means? I also added prose which you also reverted, and by doing so created disruption to the project despite the warnings. YOU were not only disruptive, you violated the 3RR with your 4th revert. Please allow the admins to do their job, and form their own conclusions based on the documentation. Atsme☯^Consult 17:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho and Atsme: you are both exhibiting an unwillingness to collaborate with each other. Neither of you have attempted to discuss this on the talk page. Atsme - your edit here removed sourced material. Further, the items that you're adding are unreferenced, and especially with articles such as this more often than not you're going to need some sourcing. Joe - just because you haven't actually reached 3RR yet, you can still be blocked for attempting to game the system and exhibiting edit warring behaviors. You both need to stop and go to the talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a conversation going on. Multiple conversations going on. In Multiple locations about this subject. [AFD], Talk:Steven_Emerson, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Is_inaccurate_information_acceptable_for_inclusion_if_it_comes_from_a_self-published_source.3F, and probably a few other places. Her changes that I reverted go against any attempt at working towards a consensus. It is bad faith negotiating. In her first revert She removed the main page link to the investigative project on terrorism, she removed mention of it, and removed mention of it's 1995 start. All of which she is seeking a consensus for in one way or another in one of those 3 conversations. . I have no intention of gaming the system at all. I'm actually currently waiting for some of these discussions to close so that I can take this to ARBCOM without gaming the system.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That may be why there's so much confusion between the two of you. Disputed content should be discussed on the article's talk page, and these multiple conversations are likely to confuse any such person. Try consolidating this stuff to the talk page. From what I can see, neither of you have attempted to discuss this disputed content, but then again, I'm only looking for the most recent edits to the talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, his response was designed to purposely cause confusion, and it apparently worked. That's how he operates. I've had 7 months of his antics, and often wondered how I've been able to edit in spite of them. Please just look at the reverts - he has 4. In fact, look at the article's revision history for September 22, and you will quickly see he has violated the 3RR which begins with his revert directly following my first edit: [55]. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, there's one thing I forgot to add for clarification to what you said as follows: "Atsme - your edit here removed sourced material." Just so you'll know, I am the lead editor for the IPT article, and the section I edited in Steven Emerson was about his association with the IPTF. The version I removed was sourced using a self-published online blog Steven Emerson. My edit was made using a reliable secondary source [56]. So yes, I improved the article by correcting the information using a reliable source. Atsme☯^Consult 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that's where the issues started Atsme. There's no such thing as a "lead editor". We certainly have individuals who have started articles, but we're all equal and we all collaborate together. See WP:OWN for further information. With just over 1,000 edits, I'm afraid you have a lot to learn. I suggest stepping back and trying to work with Serialjoepsycho on the talk page. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to be contrary, but there actually is such a term as "lead editor", and it's used in the following policy: Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing#Suggested_remedies. Its use is ubiquitous throughout Wiki, including FA reviews, and various project discussions. I guess we all have a lot to learn. I've actually learned more in 2 years of retirement just living life than I learned in 8 years of college. I can also say with experience that your suggestion for me to work with Joe is good in theory, but I seriously doubt he will ever allow it to work in practice, especially now. I've tried it for the past 5 months, and had to file an ANI twice. Believe me, I have better things to do with time than fight with an editor who behaves like a spoiled teenager. He has an agenda, and admitted so in writing: "My intent and purpose for you? I have none other than to stop your POV pushing agenda to accomplish your previously stated goal of whitewashing wikipedia of all mention of Islamophobia." [57] Here's another one: "Grief? To whom? You? It's justifiable. Like the "grief" I give you for removing the Islamophobia template when there is a consensus to keep it. Why would I put more energy in Roku achieving GA status?" [58]. Of course, he took everything I said out of context, and slipped in a lie or two, but that's just his style. He'll find a way to justify it, I'm sure. He has limited experience editing main space articles, and there are a lot of things he simply doesn't know, but he thinks he does. I'm afraid your decision may have emboldened him even more to keep hounding and taunting me, and violating policy. As long as he can keep convincing admins what he did was "justified", he'll keep getting away with it. But you're right - I still have a lot to learn because the difference between right and wrong has changed considerably since I was a kid, and that's one revert I would gladly welcome. Thanks for your time in this matter. Atsme☯^Consult 03:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Both editors warned. There is no 3RR violation at present but this appears to be a long-running edit war. Continued reverts in either direction may lead to a block without notice, unless there is a clearly understandable consensus for the change on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ciller reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]
5. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66] and [67]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR report but a general edit-warring report. User:Ciller is a single-purpose account who works at the station KRBK, and is persistently reinserting a list of non-notable names despite numerous explanations why they don't belong as well as links to discussions showing that yes, this is a consensus and not just an editor or two with a vendetta or, ironically, ownership of the article. The editor has made no attempt whatsoever to use the article talk page, despite numerous requests to do so.[68][69][70][71] - Aoidh (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours by User:HJ Mitchell for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Lugnuts (Result: No blocks)

Page: Hit the Deck (1955 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version r″everted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [72]
2. [73]
3. [74]
4. [75]
5. [76]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [78]
2. [79]
3. [80]

Note that there's been no response from the user.

Comments: I originally reported a similar issue a couple of months ago. I've tried to discuss this with the editor on their talkpage, but apparently I'm "banned" from that page and every attempt to enagage is met with a revert. On the article in question, admin Philg88 also reverted the change stating "Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout "Notes" should be used if there are any, but not for references". Phil has also raised this issue on BMK's talkpage, but with no repsonse. Phil also raised the issue of 4 different editor's posts being removed while trying to discuss issues with this editor. After consulting with Phil, I'm at a loss of what to do, hence bringing this here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lugnuts' basic position is that MOS does not allow the References/Notes formatting, and therefore he is justified in edit-warring to remove it from articles. In point of fact, MOS does not support any specific formatting: it describes several possibilities, and leaves the choice open to editors. I've pointed this out in various edit summaries, but this has not deterred Lugnuts from edit-warring on a number of articles in (erroneous) support of MOS, an action which ArbCom has specifically warned against in a number of decisions.

As for removing Lugnuts' posts form my web page, this is clearly within my purview. His contributions have not been welcome there for quite a while. For many years, I have found Lugnuts to be an aggressively obnoxious editor -- one can see why simply by looking at his user pages -- and do not wish to have his contributions on my talk page. His behavior has never been egregious enough to justify any attempt to have him sanctioned (Wikipedia is big enough to allow even aggresively obnoxious editors to participate), but he does make any interaction with him distinctly unpleasant, despite the excellent Eddie Haskell imitation he's doing in his comment above.

Concerning discussion of this specific issue, he and I have been through the discussion numerous times in the past - of which Lugnuts feigns lack of memory - so I did not, and do not, think it would be profitable to discuss it again, at least as long as he continues to labor under the incorrect premise that he is supporting MOS.

(I do not think this issue is worth the energy it would take to dig up specific diffs, but I will do so on request of an admin.) BMK (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

And now when offered some friendly advice by Philg88, BMK reverts that too and removes the notice of this discussion. Beyond My Ken - now that Isaidnoway has also removed your edit on the article citing the MOS, are you going to revert him, without discussion, too? Comments in edit summaries? Please. You know how to discuss things like an adult via the talkpage(s) in question, so why have you not done so? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Lugnuts really think it is appropriate to use this forum to attempt to litigate how I maintain my user page? And what, I wonder, does he think the purpose of an edit summary is, except to communicate with other users? BMK (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Just pointing out that you've been offered advice by other users and you choose to ignore them. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that User:Beyond My Ken has reverted four times on 19 September at Hit the Deck (1955 film) beginning at 09:03 and these reverts are just one episode in a long-running dispute. One option is a block. BMK, will you make an offer to pursue dispute resolution to avoid a block? For example, agree to open an RfC and promise to accept the outcome? EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ed, of course I have no desire to be blocked, and would consider an RfC/U were it not for my long time observation that that vehicle is almost entirely ineffective, and is very often used for prosecuting old grievances rather than for a frank discussion between editors aimed at compromise and consensus. Also, how can I possibly promise to "accept the outcome" without knowing what the outcome is? These things can go every which way, as I'm sure you know, and I'm not going to commit myself to accepting what could become a run-away attempt at petty retribution. I would be willing to promise to take the outcome of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U seriously, though.

It also concerns me somewhat that you're addressing your comments only to me, without dealing with the equivalent "bright line violation" (as noted below) of Lugnuts. I'd be more inclined to agree to some sort of dispute resolution if I thought things were being dealt with even-handedly. BMK (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To say you'll accept the outcome of an RfC only if it says the right thing is like saying you won't accept it. (I asked for a content RfC, not an RFCU). I think admins should block *you* rather than Lugnuts because you have signalled you will keep up this battle indefinitely, while Lugnuts wants to pursue discussion (which you evade with every possible excuse). EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Bright line violation with edits after warning. BMK's comments avoid the 3RR issue and complain about Lugnut's EW (two to tango) or divert to talk page maintenance. Lugnuts is also a bright line violation of 3RR; Lugnuts gave the warning and continued to revert the article. BMK does have history of imposing particular style on articles and has been blocked for 3RR earlier this year on style EW; there's also an ownership flavor in the edit comment at No Other Woman (1933 film) here. Unknowingly, I crossed paths with BMK's similar format changes at Midway Atoll where BMK had reformatted sections.[81] I reverted some of BMK's explicit character formatting to the previously existing heading styles. Glrx (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I can't speak for EdJohnston, but I think most admins are reluctant to block experienced editors with valuable contributions to the project (even though both of these editors have been blocked before). However, we pay a price when we attempt to avoid the block and come to a more reasoned resolution because many experienced editors are stubborn and reject potential solutions that they don't like or can't control. So, there's not much confusion here, but there's still a little (at least in my view). I want both editors to agree to an RfC (not an RfC/U as BMK talks about) on the reference/MOS issue (perhaps I missed it but I didn't see Lugnuts formally agree to an RfC). I will block the editor or editors who don't agree (someone has to do it). So, the ball is now in their courts: @Beyond My Ken: @Lugnuts: --Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This BMK/spacing dispute has been bubbling away for years: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Disruptive_Editing_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken_on_Reach_for_the_Sky, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Using_hidden_comments_to_make_a_space_by_User:Beyond_My_Ken. Many editors have objected to him installing white space at the bottom of the article (to insert a gap between text and footers) so it ultimately comes down to personal preference. Personally I agree it's a visual improvement, but it is really a typesetting issue, not an editorial one. If readability of text is improved by increasing the gap between text and footers then it should be initiated across all articles in a way that is uniform on all displays. BMK should take this to the village pump rather than edit-warring spaces into articles manually, and if he did I would support his proposal. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, Betty Logan, it has been "bubbling away" for years, and every time it has come up at AN or AN/I, the complaint against me has been rejected. Consistency is not a vital issue when it comes to formatting -- what's important is that our information be accurate and presented in a way that's effective for the reader to take in. That one article does it one way and another does it another way is really unimportant, and that is one reason why MOS is a guideline and not a mandatory policy.

    Concerning an RfC about the formatting issues that Bbb23 is calling for, I would be happy to participate in a centralized discussion about that, and would follow whatever policy-compliant consensus that was to come out of it. I hope that Lugnuts will agree to that as well.

    EdJohnston, my objection to accepting in advance the result of an RfC/U (and I did think that was what you were asking for, not an RfC) has nothing to do with whether it comes up with the "right" result, and everything to do with how it is framed and executed. I've said that I would take the result of a well-focused and disciplined RfC/U very seriously, but I've seen much too much abuse of RfC/U's to do anything more than that. As for "signalling" that I would keep up the reverts forever, I don't see how you get that from the editing, but in any case - although you have no way of verifying this - I took the article off my watchlist yesterday and have no plans to return; this despite the fact that I have been expanding the article in substantive ways while Lugnuts has merely been edit warring to enforce his favored version of formatting. BMK (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Just in case I buried the lede in the above comment, it included my formal agreement with Bbb23's RfC proposal. BMK (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm going to hold you to your second statement, not to your first. In particular, you must accept the result of the RfC, even if in your view it's not "policy-compliant." As an aside, I thought the issue here was about the inclusion of "Notes" more than about spacing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
        • It was. BMK (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
          • BTW, given this thread, can we book you and EdJohnston and a third admin of your choice to close the RfC? BMK (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's deal with the logistics after we get Lugnuts's input. I have a feeling I've gotten myself into quite an undertaking here. In any event, Lugnuts hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia since I pinged him. I can't imagine how he can ever stop editing given his edit count, but apparently he manages. I may not check in myself on this board until tomorrow.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleep is my only weakness. RfC sounds good to me. How to procede with that? After trying to engage Ken in discussion and his refusal to do so (as pointed out by several editors), then it seems the best way forward. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, well, perhaps you can teach me how to sleep. Initially, let's move the logistics discussion to my talk page. That discussion must remain civil. I don't want to hear direct or indirect negative remarks about each other no matter what. As an aside, BMK's name is not Ken. You can call him by his full user name or by BMK for short.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to the part of WP:RFC that states it has to be your talkpage? Surely it's the relevant MOS or article in question, so myself and Ken (and others) can participate? And seeing as it's only Ken that currently takes issue with the current MOS, then he should start it too? I'd drop a note on his talkpage to get the ball rolling, but, you know... Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not reading my comments very carefully, Lugnuts. I didn't say the RfC was going to be held on my talk page (god forbid). I said we should discuss the logistics of the RfC on my talk page. And please stop calling him Ken.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So a pre-RfC? OK, I'll wait for Ken to man-up and start the ball rolling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe it's not needed at all with multiple editors agreeing that Ken's edits are superfluous. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ken, we're all waiting for your excellent input. Oh, wait... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Sorry to be delayed in responding to your suggestion. Sunday I did my part and marched for action on climate change, and Monday and today I've been under the weather and haven't felt much like editing (nothing to do with the march), and have only been picking at low-hanging fruit on my watchlist. I hope (please!!) to feel better by tomorrow, but as soon as I'm back to full speed, I'll see you on your talk page to discuss my concerns about how a neutrally-worded RfC should be set up. BMK (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I just removed your talkback from my talk page and called you a troll. It's our own fault by not creating a new section. Anyway, the edit summary was directed at the IP; sorry about that. Responding to your comment, no worries, just feel better.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Good to see you back, Ken! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Feeling somewhat better today, but still not totally up to snuff. What I have is basically a bad cold, but because it was accompanied by a massive nosebleed, and I'm on big-time blood thinners, I have to take it more seriously, especially since I just had a procedure done a week or so ago. Anyway, that all sounds a lot like excuse-making, and I suppose it is in a way -- I just want the both of you to know -- and EdJohnston as well,if he's still following this -- that I'm not deliberately ignoring this issue. I'll probably work my way back into editing via my watchlist, since it's really a pain when it gets too far behind, and you should expect input from me on Bbb23's talk page by this weekend at the very latest. If I don't make that deadline, feel free to call me on it. Best, BMK (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:93.173.134.213 reported by User:Luxure (Result: Warned both; IP subsequently blocked)

Page

Steve Cohen (magician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

93.173.134.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "http://www.chambermagic.com/jewish-museum-houdini-private-dinner"
2. 02:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Steve Cohen IS Jewish, raised in a Jewish family AND a member of Jewish organizations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_(surname) It is in the news."
3. 02:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_(surname)"
4. 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_(surname)"
5. 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC) "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_(surname)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) to 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 12:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC) "COHEN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_(surname)"
   2. 12:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Steve Cohen (Magician). (TW)"
2. 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Steve Cohen (Magician). (TW)"
3. 02:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Steve Cohen (Magician). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

warned and his edits were also reverted by User:Collect. Block him for 1month. His source isnt reliable Luxure (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note. In my view, both of you (93.173.134.213 and Luxure) should be blocked for egregious edit warring. You, Luxure, had absolutely no right to revert the IP so many times. There is no exemption from edit warring because a source isn't reliable. Nor do I see this as vandalism. The only edits by the IP that I see as significantly troublesome were when he labeled Cohen Jewish with no source for it other than his last name. That was a BLP violation, but the edits about the museum were not BLP violations or vandalism. The only reason I'm not blocking both of you is because it appears that you finally resolved the language and source in the article. That said, consider this an official warning to both that if I see a continuation of the edit war, the offender or offenders may be blocked without notice. As an aside, why are so many section headers italicized?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, thats how the article was, and I realised my mistake as I had assumed that he wanted to change Cohen to Jewish, but he changed his edit midway, I realised it in the end though. Thanks Luxure (talk) 06:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked the IP for 72 hours for ignoring my warning and restoring their version after an undo by another editor. Friendly note to Luxure: the block does not permit you to undo the IP's edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for your help Luxure (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kanbei85 reported by User:JudeccaXIII (Result:24 hours )

Page

Biblical manuscript (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Kanbei85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_manuscript&action=history

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biblical_manuscript&action=history

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User talk:Kanbei85 User refused to start the discussion after being reverted by me and two other editors when asked by me only.

Response: I engaged with JudeccaXIII privately as to why the information was being censored, and was given false reasons such as 1) the material violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and 2) the material was incorrectly cited. These allegations are false, and JudeccaXIII has provided no justification for his/her decision to attempt to censor the reference. Kanbei85 (talk)Kanbei85

Comments:

The user had been reverted by three different editors, one was me. I warned the user properly by Twinkle then messaging the user's talk page. He/she had violated WP:NOR. The source the user provided was based on the scholar's personal site. There is nothing wrong with the information provided, but the user failed to start a discussion on the article's talk page and was being un-constructive by reverting and not having a proper discussion. See my and user's talk page. I'm tired of trying to guide the editor away from his/her mistakes. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I only represent myself in this report. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Response: The claim that I had been reverted by three editors is misleading; the first edit was made and I did not revert it, instead I modified the edit such that the original editor did not attempt to revert the change. The second editor, much like JudeccaXIII has done, decided for subjective personal reasons to censor the edit, and so I reverted it. JudeccaXIII has made no case for why the reference should not be allowed to stand, and is in fact the one responsible for this "edit war". Kanbei85 (talk)Kanbei85

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours3RR violation - how many editors reverted Kanbei85 isn't really relevant and no other editor even reached 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Enciclopediaenlinea reported by User:Knisfo (Result: Both blocked )

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

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments:
For weeks the user has insisted on having the infobox changed to have Spanish included as an official language of the African Union. The "Protocol on Amendments to the Constitutive Act of the African Union" is given as the source. It is a proposed protocol that has not been ratified by a sufficient number of member states and has thus not taken effect. Many times I linked a document from the AU's website that gives detailed information about the ratification status. The user starts discussions on several (unrelated) pages and ignores them when not getting what asking for.

Knisfo (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of five days (User:Knisfo) and 10 days (User:Enciclopediaenlinea) Both editors were over 3RR and both have previous blocks for edit warring, so they both should know about 3RR by now. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Calidude84 reported by User:Yworo (Result: 72h)

Page: The Hum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Calidude84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [89]
2. [90]
3. [91]
4. [92]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [93]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [94], [95],

Comments:

Editor starts out as an IP editor, User:173.25.253.87. After being warned about edit warring, creates an account to evade 3RR, and reverts again. Technically the fourth revert is after 24 hours has passed from the first revert, but the editor has been advised about waiting for others editor's input and waiting for a consensus to be formed, but chooses rather, as a new editor, to attempt to own the article and dictate the content prior to other regular editor's input. A 24 hour block should give the new editor perspective on how Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Also, I believe this may be the Road Runner IP Harassment Vandal (search page for Yworo) banned on December 22, 2011. Note the persistent intentional mispelling of my name as "Ymoro" rather than "Yworo" in comments and edit summaries. Admits that they are the same user as the IP here. Yworo (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Both account and IP blocked for 72h. I've semi-protected the article for a week as well. Black Kite (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Lancashirehotpot74 reported by User:Mean as custard (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Winston Churchill Memorial Trusts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lancashirehotpot74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:

Edit warring - adding uncited conspiracy theory. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• User talk:Lancashirehotpot74 has already been blocked. --John (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Veera Dheera Sooran and User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Amortias (Result: )

Page: Nayantara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Veera Dheera Sooran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)}}

Previous version reverted to: [96] Diffs of the user's reverts:

User:Veera Dheera Sooran

1. [97]
2. [98]
3. [99]
4. [100]

1. [101]
2. [102]
3. [103]
4. [104]
5. [105]
6. [106]
7. [107]
8. [108]
9. [109]
10. [110]
11. [111]
12. [112]
13. [113]
14. [114]
15. [115]
16. [116]
17. [117]
18. [118]
19. [119]

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

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

Comments:

• I suggest Amortias read WP:EDITWARRING before filing another report at AN3. TRPoD has been removing unsourced material from a BLP, and has also made multiple consecutive edits each time... Thomas.W ^talk 18:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Alst17 reported by User:Manway (Result: blocked indef)

Page

Dave Stewart (baseball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alst17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "Unfortunately, I am not a newspaper but I am a source. So, my edit has left your sourced info but removed the unnessary content!"
2. 14:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "Again, personal information though sourced is inaccurate! I am his daughter, I would know better than any newspaper. Please stop reverting my edits."
3. 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627161864 by Spanneraol (talk) Yes, I can and will continue to."
4. 14:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "Personal life information is incomplete and highly sensitive. Has no historical relevance to his career and was placed here with ill intent."
5. 04:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 23:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC) to 00:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Post-playing career */"
   2. 23:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC) "/* External links */"
   3. 23:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC) ""
   4. 00:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Early career */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Dave Stewart (baseball). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Could not add resolution initiative. Tried to add revision 627164425 but failed. Manway 15:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely for legal threats. John (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Can the user be unblocked? she did take back her legal threat. How hot is the sun? (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. --John (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Piandme reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Blocked)

Page: Game of Thrones (season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piandme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [122]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [123]
2. [124]
3. [125]
4. [126]

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

Discussed through edit summaries (see page history)

Comments: Editor continues to add unreliable sources (a fansite) to the page, often replacing reliable sources to do so. Also adding large unsourced cast section to page. Refuses to get the point and has removed warnings for unsourced edits and 3RR from their talk page (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was just about to make the same report, and I support Trut-h-urts_man's request for admin action.  Sandstein  06:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme.  Sandstein  17:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Blimey, I'm really being ganged up upon here! I feel better communication from the opposing parties at the start would have prevented this disagreement Piandme (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Piandme 26 September 2014

Blocked – 1 week for abusing multiple accounts, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Piandme. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:How hot is the sun? (Result: No action)

Page: Talk:Robin Williams (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:12, 26 September 2014
2. 01:26, 26 September 2014
3. 01:28, 26 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: not a 3RR warning, but a request to stop the edit war. Since User:Winkelvi has placed warning on my talk page, I felt it would be counter productive to reciprocate.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since the edit war is in the talk page, it's impossible to discuss it outside the talk page.

Comments:

WP:TPO allows making changes for format purposes, so User:Winkelvi's reverts constitute edit warring. How hot is the sun? (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

How hot is the sun? has changed talk page comments for two different users today. Once for one of my comments, and edit warring over changing the talk page comments for a different user. He was warned not to continue per policy (WP:TPO), but continued anyway. Policy is clear on this: "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. Indeed it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." And, just for the record, How Hot did not notify me of this noticeboard filing. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that one of the "specific exceptions outlined below" is "Fixing format errors". Winkelvi's edit war was wrong. How hot is the sun? (talk) 02:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that those specific exceptions outlined as fixing format errors do not constitute what you were doing, How hot is the sun?. The changes you made failed to meet the criteria. You were not "Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read.", nor were you "Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc."

Your changes to Light Show's comments don't qualify any more than the change you made to my comments qualified. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• For a second there... I thought I read a whole section where two adults were arguing about a carriage return on a talk page. Then I decided that was so ridiculous, I must have imagined it. If it had existed, of course, I would have just told both editors to stop being so silly and to go away and improve an article instead. Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In hindsight the proper thing to have done was to leave a message on the talk page of the user in question to let the user know about this issue of the carriage return if he/she wants to remov it. This edit is all that is needed to demonstrate that User:Winkelvi was wrong. I guess I also erred in not placing the {{subst:an3-notice}} template at User talk:Winkelvi. I didn't see that message at the top of this noticeboard requiring me to do so. I guess User:Winkelvi's incivility and use of profanity (exhibit 1 exhibit 2 exhibit 3) got the better of me. How hot is the sun? (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The old "The Devil Made Me Do It" defense. Thanks, I needed a laugh to start my day. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: While it might be tempting to block two editors for disrupting the talk page, there was no 3RR violation and no further action is needed here. From time to time the community has been asked to impose stricter standards on profanity but these efforts usually don't succeed. When an editor's language gets to the point of stifling others' participation or making them want to withdraw from the whole topic we'd probably have to do something. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:78.96.142.62 reported by User:McVeigh (Result: 1 week)

Page: Tierra de Reyes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.96.142.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff and user comments: This blog is a reliable source because every time then they publish something is true and are much actors who knows about the blog.So is a official blog.
2. Diff and user comments: Informacion verdadera borrada por unos tarados/Real information deleted by some stupids

Comments:
Hi, I come here to ask for help; because in this article is a ip adding information that is not yet confirmed and are just rumors. His only references are a fan blog. I have tried to reverse but editing is impossible. Plus it has insulted me calling me "stupid".--Damián ^(talk) 17:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked the case too, Damian has passed so many edit-war cases , he is warring too and he is not punished, why all others have too be punished he s warring too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rero234 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I ordered a verification of account. Since I find it strange that this new user is displayed here, defending this ip.--Damián ^(talk) 19:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week by User:Ponyo as a suspected proxy. EdJohnston (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:107.199.168.97 reported by User:Orange Suede Sofa (Result: Blocked)

Page

King James Only movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

107.199.168.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous evidence

See link to previous report here

Comments:

Blocked in August for a month for edit warring, right back at it again on the same page. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 3 months (escalation from the previous 1 month block). This user doesn't seem to use talk pages so there isn't much prospect of negotiating with them. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ttll213 reported by User:AdamDeanHall (Result: Protected)

Page: Vortexx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ttll213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has broken the three-revert rule by reverting the Vortexx page back to his own edit. AdamDeanHall (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

AdamDeanHall comes with unclean hands, he is on 4 revert by my count, and there is also IP reverts to both sides of this edit war, looks like both are socking. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week by User:DangerousPanda. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:2001:8003:441d:9701:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: semi)

Page: Rugby union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:8003:441d:9701:223:32ff:fe9e:4b9f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [129]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:43, 24 September 2014
2. 03:50, 24 September 2014
3. 03:05, 24 September 2014
4. 01:28, 24 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130] under one of the previous IPs which this editor has used, and this regarding an other article where this IP was edit-warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rugby_union#Removal of referenced content

Comments:
This dispute has been continued by the editor under a range of different IPs.

• Semi-protected by CambridgeBayWeather. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Der Statistiker reported by User:SchroCat (Result: prot)

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

Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:33, 23 September 2014
2. 19:45, 23 September 2014
3. 21:47, 23 September 2014‎
4. 13:15, 24 September 2014
5. 22:27, 24 September 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [132]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Paris#Composite image or the Eiffel Tower-La Défense and Talk:Paris#Please leave out Tour Montparnasse from montage

Comments:
I also requested page protection (with added comment.

There is also a lot of extremely suspicious editing going on at the talk page, including possible socking, but almost certain meat socking (via the skyscrapercity.com website.

By the looks of the time stamps, there is a very large element of gaming going on with the latest change to the page, and the edit summary to justify the last change - There is no "talk-page discussion in progress" - is plain untruthful. - SchroCat (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to get this right. An editor, known for his vitriolic comments on the Paris talk page ([133]), and who has himself reverted the article several times ([134], [135], [136]) without trying to build any consensus on the talk page, is reporting me for a rule I haven't violated (in fact the last diff refers to something different than the other ones), plus some rather vague and unsubstantiated insinuations. How much more underhanded than this can someone be, I wonder. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The last diff you've given there is an entirely valid revert, given it was reverting vandalism. Disingenuous to the last, your lies, bad faith and insults on the talk page, article and now here are staggering. "without trying to build any consensus"? Simply untrue. You and your meat puppets are acting disgracefully. - SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"The last diff you've given there is an entirely valid revert, given it was reverting vandalism." I hadn't noticed that. I'm removing it. The fact remains you are disingenuous yourself in accusing me of having broken a rule that I haven't broken (as the diffs show), and even including a diff, the last one, that is different from the other ones (so you should remove it too as I have removed yours). But we've already been here before. Whenever you disagree with people in this particular article (I suspect it's the same elsewhere), you use insults on the talk page ("fuck off" really? [137]) and open complaints on admin noticeboards in the hope that your "opponent" is going to be banned. This is an abuse of the admins' time. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I can second SchroCat's request: the behaviour by POV-pushing User:Der Statistiker and a few of his seeming skyscraper-fan-website meatpuppets on Paris has been despicable since a few days. And attempted character slander against the person quite justly complaining about it isn't an argument and doesn't help anything. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point to the admins that ThePromenader has reverted the same picture in the article 3 times in 24 hours: [138], [139], [140]. Not really the best person to take the moral high ground now. And how did he know there was this complaint against me here if he isn't tracking my every moves? A case of WP:Harrassment? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and I won't play that game, that's why I'm here. Paris and this page are on my watchlist because I've had to complain about you many a time over the past ten years, my dear. Your disingenuousity is astounding. THEPROMENADER 22:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Unfortunately, this is typical for Der Statistiker, a user who seems unable to accept any decision not confirming with their opinion. While technically speaking always balancing just on the legal side of several rules, it's clear that the user is not too concerned with WP:OWN and several other rules.Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated insinuations are just that. Unsubstantiated insinuations. I note that I am not the only editor on the talk page who has criticized Dr Blofeld's montage as well as the behavior of those who try keep his montage in the infobox by reverting any editor who puts any other image or photomontage in the infobox. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never encountered this editor (or edited Paris to my knowledge), but it does indeed look like he's gaming the system. There has been a reverting by everyone, but only three editors have reverted more than three times: Coldcreation, Sesto Elemento and Der Statistiker. However, in the first two cases the edits are spread out over several days and don't really come close to violating 3RR. Der Statistiker technically hasn't violated 3RR either, but he is clearly running down the clock between reverts. Betty Logan (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. And this is just the latest round, we've gone through this same story many many times. Der Statistiker is one of the most disruptive users I've come across on Wikipedia. Vandals never disrupt, they just vandalize and get banned. But Der Statistiker has been gaming the system for years, and keep coming back time and time again. Last time I was involved at Paris, I seem to rememeber that Der Statistiker and Minato ku were actively encouraging acquaintances from outside Wikipedia to register to bias a vote in their favour, and instructing them how to do it to fool the system. These users disrupt Wikipedia much more than they contribute to it.Jeppiz (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh! Yet more unsubstantiated accusations, insinuations, and whatnot. What's suspicious to me is how an editor whom I don't know, and whom I never see editing the Paris article, suddenly not only shows up in the Paris article, but also in this complaint page here, which, in theory, only the person who opened this complaint (SchroCat) and myself should know about. Very, very strange... Der Statistiker (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not very strange, Paris is one my watch list since many years. As I saw that you were edit warring (as so often before), I thought about reporting it myself and clicked on your edits to see if you had violated 3RR. Your latest edit was this discussion, conveniently telling me I did not have to file a report myself as there already was one. Jeppiz (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and SchroCat, ThePromenader, Coldcreation, indeed Jeppiz, are not edit warring of course... Also, I note that any editor who opposes Dr Blofeld's photomontage in the talk page is accused of being my meatpuppet (I don't even know what that terms means, but whatever), yet when all of you guys show up at the same time in the article, it's of course because the article is on your watch lists. I suppose only you guys have watch lists. Or we're all meatpuppets. Or it's a giant hallucination or something. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now arguing that my two edits to Paris in the last five years constitute edit warring? Your attempts to deflect the discussion are very revealing.Jeppiz (talk) 23:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm arguing that your two reverts today, in the space of just 14 minutes ([141] and [142]) constitute edit warring. Coming from an editor who I never see editing the Paris article and who suddenly shows up there to support ThePromenader and SchroCat and block any change to the photomontage in the infobox. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Aha, and why are you arguing that? Just to deflect from the topic here, your constant edit warring. If you think I have been edit warring, go ahead and file a report on me and see if it flies. Even if I had been edit warring (those two edits in five years, both to restore the page), it still wouldn't be an excuse for you to edit war. And the topic here, may I remind you, is not conspiracy theories about me, not my non-existent edit warring but your very real edit warring.Jeppiz (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can someone come and have a look at this, please? The storm is over, but there is some cleaning up to do - there was obvious (and admitted) canvassing and edit-warring going on there since almost a week now, but in spite of three pleas for help on admin boards, no administrator intervened in any constructive way. I really don't understand why, but Paris-based article complaints have always been ignored - some 'off-board' reason, perhaps? Anyhow, please check on this. THEPROMENADER 18:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Three days and no action taken. That's just very, very poor. – SchroCat (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected by Mike V. Der Statistiker, you were quite clearly edit warring here, but since blocks are preventative rather than punitive I shall not be taking action here. No comment on the current AN/I thread. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:HurluGumene reported by User:Bretonbanquet (Result: 72 hours)

Page: List of AC/DC band members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HurluGumene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144] His first change, part of which I kept.
2. [145]
3. [146]
4. [147]

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

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

Comments:
This guy has not broken 3RR, but I am not willing to break it myself in order to see if he does. He made his initial change, which was a substantial change to a very long-standing part of the article. I reverted him with my reason in the edit summary. He reverted me saying "I don't agree!". I reverted again, and explained my reasons fully on his talk page, and asked him to use the article talk page. He reverted me again with "Don't be rude! Time for changes" and made further changes which render a whole column of the relevant table redundant. I reverted again and again asked him to use the talk page (in edit summary and on his user talk page), to which he said "Stop that!" and claimed he was adding information, which he has not done. He then left an unpleasant message on my talk page [150], which I am about to remove. He has no intention to discuss his edits anywhere, and has been blocked before for edit warring and personal attacks. He appears to be impossible to deal with using normal Wikipedia methods. He also said on my talk page "Please respect my edit which is simply logical and... much better!" It's simply pointless to try working with this guy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note similar case of three blatant reverts with no discussion on 13 September at No Line on the Horizon, a featured article [151]. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Today he's left me a message saying it's pointless to discuss the article [152]. He also thinks I'm an admin, for reasons unknown. The article is in a state of some considerable inaccuracy, but I won't revert again until someone here offers advice. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 17:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Radio247 reported by User:Neutralhomer (Result: block 72 hours)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: I tried to explain to the user that his posts were in violation of WP:RS and WP:OR and what to do to remedy the problem. No response was ever given, just blind reverting.

In the user's last revert, they included the edit summary: "All information you have removed is sourced material directly from the station's official website which can be found on WSGS.com." Unfortunately, nowhere on the site is this information found and the reliablity of said information is suspect. No sources of any kind were given just that it "could be found on WSGS.com." - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: blocked 72 hours --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The added text is a copy/paste from http://www.wsgs.com/mystery.htm - in addition to 3RR, I also warned the user over the copyvio.

As I had reverted, I would normally have left it to someone else at WP:AN3 to block; but due to continued edit warring over the copyvio content after having been given warnings for both issues, I went ahead and applied a 72 hour block. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Director reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: warned)

Page: IQ and Global Inequality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Director (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [153]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [154] 19:59, 25 September 2014(Rv obvious vandalism. The book is the topic of the article: we)
2. [155] 20:10, 25 September 2014 (Undid revision 627070547 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk))
3. [156] 20:30, 25 September 2014 (Its based directly on the book. Take such complaints to Commons where they belong.)
4. [157] 20:41, 25 September 2014 (Absurd. The book is a reliable source on itself.)
5. [158] 20:50, 25 September 2014 (That obviously doesn't matter at all.)
6. [159] 22:18, 25 September 2014 (Actually, one might say Wikimedia is, in part, an "art project". When the art illustrates the topic.)
7. [160] 22:31, 25 September 2014 (I did. Don't know what you call an "art project", but users are free to post illustrations of their own on Wikimedia.)
8. [161] 08:13, 26 September 2014 (Rollback, restored map. Which is in no way "indistinguishable" from the cover???)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162] 20:51, 25 September 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163] 20:02, 25 September 2014 (Opened by Director)

Comments:

Three editors including myself oppose Director's edit while none support it, per talk page discussion. TFD (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Discussion seems to have moved to the talkpage, a much better venue than edit summary quips. Director, please seek to draw outside attention to the article next time you are tempted to edit war for your preferred version. Further edit warring may result in a lengthy block. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog and User:Gandydancer reported by User:SW3 5DL (Result: decline)

Page: Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gandydancer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Gandydancer:

1. [164]
2. [165]
3. [166]
4. [167]

Jytdog:

1. [168]
2. [169]
3. [170]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page discussion

1. [171]
2. [172]
3. [173] --- notice here Gandydancer doesn't discuss, she just tells me what will be allowed.

Comments:
I've attempted to edit the page but these two will simply not allow me to make any edits. They revert/remove everything I've done. The talk page discussion was successsful with only one other editor, BrianGroen. These three seem to be the most active on the article and simply will not allow other edits. At least, they won't allow any edits by me. My edits are up to date, well-sourced. They won't allow any of my edits to stand for even a day. Yet they make all the edits they want, they remove whole sections, they make all these decisions on their own without any question. It's an impossible situation in which to contribute to the article. I give up. I'm not looking to get anybody blocked. I'm just looking to be allowed to edit the page. Also, they tag team. I would restore my edits and then they would tag team to revert again. First Gandydancer, then Jytdog. Jytdog also templated me here.

SW3 5DL appears to be a pretty new and has been edit warring to insert flawed text (with duplicated references) into a heavily edited article. Actual differences in content are minor - the problem is the triplicate sourcing. OP is being surprisingly aggressive about this. I think WP:BOOMERANG is coming.

OP first tried to delete a whole section in the article after he/she had created a separate article on that section

• here,
• was reverted, and SW3 5DL re-deleted the section with an angry edit note here note: "no WP: policy provided for reverting edit; the outbreak in the Congo/Central Africa has nothing to do with this article" and left angry note on Talk.

and it was downhill from there... then SW3 5DL started inserted flawed text with reference repeated three times into that section:

• 16:34, 27 September 2014 1st insertion of flawed text dif
• 22:55, 27 September 2014 here
• 23:08, 27 September 2014 [174] with edit note "STOP! Both of you. This is not your article. This edit is better sourced, up to date, and a better explanation. STOP!)"

I tried to start a direct conversation about the triplicated reference in this dif which was met with an angry response, not dealing with the issue here and i asked again to deal with the issue here (which has still not been responded to.

that led me to post a 3RR warning in this dif at 23:23, 27 September 2014

which led to a retaliatory warning at 23:45, 27 September 2014 and this drama board posting. too bad.

would be happy to work with this editor but SW3 5DL needs to actually read what he/she was trying to add to the article. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

e/c HUGE WP:BOOMERANG should apply. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly what happened:

Jytdog left a comment on the talk page about moving/deleting the section on the Republic of the Congo here so I deleted the content here. Then I left a note on the talk page here.

Reverted by Gandydancer

• [175]

I reverted that

• [176]

That was reverted by Jytdog

• [177]
• This was Jytdog's angry response to my talk page post about deleting/moving the content: here. All the comments in that section are not engaging in conversation, and certainly not welcoming an editor trying to help out. Also templating me on my talk page, and saying I must be new (been here 6 years and have 125 articles mostly on viruses since that is my field) doesn't show a willingness on Jytdog's part to resolve this.

Also, regarding the references Jytdog keeps referring to. References can be fixed. That doesn't mean you delete the edit. Why didn't he just fix the source if he found a problem with it? Why delete the edit? Isn't that like throwing out the baby with the bath water? They are tag teaming. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• My first observation is that the article has received 500 edits in one week, so the level of activity there is very high. It's so high that editors can and will lose track of how many reversions they have made. My second observation is that Jytdog and Gandydancer are almost always opposed to each other's edits, so if you are tangling with both of them then it's a signal that you are trying to do something that is out of step. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Binksternet, the comments I've seen them make between each other suggest that is not at all true. See the article talk page. They are very much in agreement. Also, you fail to list any diffs that show I've done anything to cause this which I haven't. This is a case of two editors with ownership problems. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Declined. This is currently a hot topic under heavy revision. Except for your comments, SW3 5DL, everything seems to be pretty much operating within normal range. A little more judicious use of the talkpage might not go amiss, but really there is plenty of discussion to got things resolved. I am also declining a PETARD block, as all three of you are clearly working to the betterment of the article despite a bit of edit warring. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Appliedchain and User:Unem Costa Rica reported by User:Lucas Thoms (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Appliedchain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Unem Costa Rica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: last stable version (I think).

Diffs of the user's reverts: I daresay diffs can't paint a complete picture. If you look at the page's history, Unem is at 23 reverts, and Appliedchain is somewhere in the neighborhood of 27 reverts, in the last 24 hours at the time of this report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I dropped a uw-ew on each of their talk pages (1 and 2). Moments later, they both reverted a couple times more.

I'm not involved in this issue; I was using Huggle and saw this going on and figured something needed to be done. —LucasThoms 04:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Comments:

02:19, 28 September 2014‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,588 bytes) (+7,412)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by Appliedchain to version by Unem Costa Rica. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1969696) (Bot)) (undo)

I own the Copyright Certificate for Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica UNEM http://www.unem.international/copyright.jpg Appliedchain it trying to Vandalism agains my site Also selling FAKES copyes of our degrees using his website http://unem.appliedchain.com/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unem Costa Rica (talk • contribs) 04:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Unem Costa Rica: You copyrighted a university??? How does that work? Please understand that the Wikipedia page about your university is not your website: anyone may edit this page. Also please understand that WIkipedia is not a battleground. If you and Appliedchain have legal issues to resolve, do it in the courts, not here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked for an indefinite period; per a combination of edit warring and Orgname. Wifione ^Message 12:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

User:66.102.129.154 reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: )

Page: Doda (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.102.129.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Original improvements made to article.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First blanket revert without summary, one minute after major improvements were made to article.
2. Removed warning about disruptive editing from his own talk page.
3. Second blanket revert without summary in article Doda.
4. Removed second warning about disruptive editing from his talkpage.
5. Third blanket revert, threatening with WP:3R.
6. Fourth blanket revert, false summary of alleged WP:3R.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: First warning. Second warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [178]

Comments:

i did try to talk with User:Poeticbent, although all my edits have been undo without notification or attempt to resolve the problem, i did only recive edit warring while Poeticbent is the one who borke WP:3R and WP:RS using tabloide as source, Poeticbent destoyed also code witch is comon for discographies on all articles, i asked for difrent source but i got no responce, posting on Administrators' noticeboard that i have did something wrong is offensive itself, not to mention that Poeticbent claims on his user page "This user prefers discussing changes on the talkpage rather than engaging in an edit war." 66.102.129.154 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just to be clear. Threats posted in a foreign language on my talk-page, coupled with blanket-reverts of my article improvements, are not your attempts to resolve the problem 66.102.129.154 (talk · contribs). Please do not make false claims, and try to deceive. Corrections of bad English grammar are necessary in Wikipedia articles. Blanket reverts without summaries by you, or anybody with similar difficulties in speaking and writing English, are not acceptable. Poeticbent talk 18:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

as i sad on Doda talk page, you claim on your user page that Polish is your native language, even if it's not, you could easy wrote that you dont know the language, i don't care what you say now, there is no good will from your side 66.102.129.154 (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not your business, what's on my user page. Stop wheel-warring. Your 4 blanket reverts (one minute appart) to keep bad English in the article, are against Wikipedia's core policy/guidelines. Poeticbent talk 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Montanabw reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Article Protected)

Page

John Walsh (U.S. politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Montanabw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Restoring proper chronological order to section. No need for separate heading per neutral assessment"
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC) to 03:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
   1. 03:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* 2014 election */ Restore deleted material and fix chronological order, which now makes no sense after the move. Putting due weight, no need for every gory detail yet"
   2. 03:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "No need for one-sentence section, moving personal life into early life and education section"
3. 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Allegations of plagiarism */ Prior consensus was that there was no need for independent section heading, you want it in campaign, fine, not that important"
4. 03:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 627456047 by Montanabw (talk): Groovy, but burden is on the person seeking the changes. And this was a firmly established consensus. (TW)"
5. 20:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 627171476 by Msnicki (talk): This was edit-warred about earlier and it was determined not to handle it this way. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• The ongoing discussion is at Talk:John_Walsh_(U.S._politician)#Plagiarism_allegations_redux. Like Drmies said, teasing out the details is tough. I didn't file this, either, so I don't think I am the one who is to tease out the diffs (?). Montanabw^(talk) 16:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm one of the editors who weighed in on the talk page. I don't wish to tease out all the details of the diffs above; I'll leave that to the poor admin who's running the board. I will note, however, that this is a BLP and so we should tread carefully. Discussion on the talk page is ongoing, and one of the biggest bones of contention is whether that plagiarism section should be a separate section. I think not, and a couple of editors agree with me, but it's hardly settled of course. Good luck figuring this out. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki and others wishing to put WP:UNDUE weight on an ongoing plagiarism investigation are trying for another bite at the apple that they lost the last time. There is about a five to two consensus against these changes that Msnicki seeks. Montanabw^(talk) 16:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please note this is the second time this issue has gone to a drama board, the last time was here. Msnicki did not prevail then, either. Montanabw^(talk) 16:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by NAEG Setting aside all fingerpointing, are ya'll in agreement that the disputed text is at least in compliance with WP:WELLKNOWN. If there is also debate over WELLKNOWN compliance, then in my mind that's the key issue to resolve first. If the text doesn't comport to WELLKNOWN then it is a BLP violation regardless of any other hesaid/shesaid and must be omitted. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply The allegations of plagiarism are well-known. Walsh has dropped out of the US Senate race due to the "distraction" it caused and a replacement candidate has been selected. The investigation is ongoing and no one has said anything one way or the other, as you can see here. Montanabw^(talk) 16:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Nonresponsive. Please repeat my question, and then please try to provide an answer. The underlying facts has nothing to do with my question, which is entirely about wikipedia process. Do the two sides agree the disputed text - whether it is kept or omitted - at least complies with WP:WELLKNOWN? That should be a simple yes/no. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This is closed, go to the article talk page for further discussion. Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Dreadstar ☥ 16:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:70.33.31.11 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: semi)

Page: Exorcism of Roland Doe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.33.31.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [179]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [180]
2. [181]
3. [182]
4. [183]

And since this report has been filed:

1. [184]
2. [185]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Exorcism_of_Roland_Doe#Cooper.2FEpperson_source

Comments:
User has been blocked before for unsourced (and possibly mis-sourced) POV pushing before. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected by Vsmith. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:172.56.3.194 reported by User:EricSerge (Result: block/prot)

Page

Louis Freeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

172.56.3.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627364362 Adding well-sourced factual details about a persons support of an organization is not 'vandalism'."
2. 22:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627328981; removals are being made for political purposes based on flimsy rationales."
3. 21:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627305407; improved NPOV, sources; edits are largely copy/paste from an accepted modification by editing user. Included link to video clearly establishing material support pre-FTO delisting. Removed accurate but leading section."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Same poorly sourced questionable material added to BLPs of Newt Gingrich, Tom Ridge, and Rudy Giuliani. EricSerge (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I gave the user 3RR warnings on their talk page following their most recent edits. They have not reverted since the warnings, and appear to be making a good faith effort to learn Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding content.

The user then started a discussion on my talk page at User talk:Barek#edit warring - Gringrich, Ridge, Freehan support of the PMOI/MEK, where they indicated that they were not previously aware of WP:3RR. I suggested that they use the article talk page and review WP:DR. The user indicated that they will pursue the talk page options going forward. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment, now they are back edit warring at Rudy Giuliani as 172.56.2.190. EricSerge (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment this can be closed. The more I examine the issue, the more it seems to be a BLP issue. I will take this to the WP:BLPN. EricSerge (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

And it continues over at Tom Ridge. EricSerge (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Both IP addresses used have been blocked and the targeted articles semi-protected for blatant BLP violations. Ping me or the appropriate noticeboard if anything crops up elsewhere. Maybe the RfC can find a policy-compliant way to include some material. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:DexDor reported by User:Francis Schonken (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [187]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [188]
2. [189]
3. [190]
4. [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Comments:

• How clearly this proves that it takes two to tango. I have no suggestion for the patrolling admin. An equitable long-term solution would be agreement on the talk page, but that won't happen as long as it's just these two editors going at it. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 23:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Brianmathe reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Noah's Ark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Brianmathe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link

Diff of the user's revert:

diff

Prompt return to previous behavior that was the cause of a block per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive257#User:Brianmathe_reported_by_User:MrBill3_.28Result:_Blocked.29

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:

It seems this editor is resuming the same behavior once the block ended. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Moving right along. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Alexander Domanda reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

Page

Homophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alexander Domanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins *Will the jerk who keeps changing my correction stop!!!!! Homos means same and hetero means the other in Greek I have 2 univ. degrees Gk and Latin."
2. 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */"
3. 18:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */ Jerk"
4. 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */ You definte phobia brom phobos but not HOMOS from the SAME vs. HETERO which means the other of 2 or opposite. Complete the definition."
5. 19:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origins */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Homophobia. (TW)"
2. 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Homophobia */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Origin of word */ new section"
2. 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Meaning of homophobia */"

Comments:

• Came to user's talk page to issue a 3RR warning and found this. Fully support NeilN's case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, (most) words fail me so I'll keep my mouth shut. Blocked, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:109.74.195.7 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: article protected, IP blocked)

Page

List of sovereign states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

109.74.195.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627572946 by St170e (talk) Please stop disrupting knowledge."
2. 17:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627569522 by Taivo (talk) Where do you people find inspiration for all the sophism? Sounds nuts. Britannica is the final word on this, I'm afraid."
3. 17:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627568543 by Tymon.r (talk) They were not "good faith" they were good ole truth."
4. 17:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627567922 by McSly (talk) No need for consensus on Britannica, whatever you meant by "consensus" (but it does sound like dictatorship wrapped up in color, I grant you that)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring on List of sovereign states */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP hasn't made any attempt to join the ongoing discussion on the article's talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Article semi-protected by MusikAnimal, IP blocked for...well, it all boils down to trolling (there's more in the history, from other IPs). DoRD, does looking at the IP's block log jog your memory, and do you feel the need to add any comments here or any days to the block length? Drmies (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:How hot is the sun? (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [194]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reverted on 01:03, 29 September 2014
2. Reverted on 04:12, 29 September 2014
3. Reverted on 19:41, 29 September 2014
4. Reverted on 20:02, 29 September 2014
5. Reverted on 20:58, 29 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [195]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Talk:Chelsea Clinton and WP:BLPN#Chelsea Clinton

Comments:

User is engaged in a similar edit war on Jenna Bush Hager. How hot is the sun? (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Winkelvi can invoke the BLP here in all good faith, even if their interpretation is not accepted by everyone--and there's more than one edit warrior there, and some mud being flung in edit summaries ("no rational argument"). As it is, this admin accepts Winkelvi's argument. But I'm not going to protect it since the current version is the wrong version, IMO, and I'm not going to revert, lest I get accused of edit warring again for a single revert attempting to protect the BLP. FWIW, I am not convinced at all by the arguments on the talk page that WP:BLPNAME does not apply here, and who knows, maybe we'll all be at ArbCom again later this week. So, good luck to the patrolling admin. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't really see how good faith can be extended here. It would be one thing if this user was removing negative unsourced information, but it's quite another when there is a genuine difference of opinion on application of WP:BLPNAME, and this user is opposite to consensus. Additionally, take a look at this edit summary in response to me leaving the obligatory warning. How hot is the sun? (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • While misinterpreting a policy or guideline is one thing, Winkelvi's edit warring and dogmatic views have begun to border on WP:POINT. I'm also worried about his level of civility with comments like saying to "stay the fuck off" his talk page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, "dogmatic views" and "misinterpretation", that's your opinion, which you are entitled to. Others disagree. As for civility, that BLPN thread isn't exactly civil either, with Winkelvi and others being shouted down. I mean, saying someone's editing is pointy is itself proof that you've given up on their good faith, which probably means that you're tired of discussing it. Drmies (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • It indeed was nasty there. HiLo48, I should add, was also rather rude in multiple comments and edit summaries. Of course, he wasn't the only one. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How hot is the sun? is doing some very bad faith editing, declaring that there is a consensus on the matter and that User:Winkelvi is opposing consensus. There is no consensus. How hot is the sun? has even lied about this at another article. As I said there, when an editor feels the need to resort to lies to support a point of view, there's probably something very wrong with that point of view. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't feel consensus has been reached, but remember that consensus is not about counting noses. If Winkelvi wants to appeal consensus the proper way to go about it is through the arbcom, not edit war. How hot is the sun? (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to "feel" anything. No consensus was reached. HiLo48 (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not about feelings, nor is it about counting noses: it is about the quality of the arguments, and while I'm sure you feel that you are right, that doesn't mean that you actually are. There is no consensus right now: there is no consensus on the talk page, there is no consensus on the BLP noticeboard. The only thing there is, as far as I can tell, is more people willing to add the information than there are people willing to remove it. And no, it's not ArbCom that determines consensus; it's discussion which, if necessary, will be closed by an uninvolved editor. Until then, there's opinions on both sides. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected 24 hours by User:HJ Mitchell. Continued edit warring when protection expires could, in my opinion, lead to blocks. Excluding the well-publicized name of a minor child from the article is not one of the exceptions to 3RR listed at WP:3RRNO. It's a pure matter of editor consensus and not entitled to special BLP protection. What is revertible under the BLP exception is "libelous, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material.." The widely known name of a minor child is none of these. If you want to create a higher standard of privacy than our policy requires then you'll need to persuade the other editors to go along with your view. You can't just continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Completely disagree with your assessment of including the names of non-notable minor children of article subjects, EdJohnston and your interpretation of WP:BLPNAME. So do a lot of other editors (including admins) along with previous discussions at BLP-talk and this very noticeboard. Obviously, there is no clear answer on this aside from what policy states (that is not in your camp) on this issue.-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

At this noticeboard the BLP exception is defined by WP:3RRNO. If you want to go beyond that there is no substitute for finding a consensus to back you up. User:Drmies observes that no consensus in either direction has so far been found. Consider opening up an WP:RFC where, if your assumptions are correct, you should many people supporting your view. On the other hand they might not. But waiting for the result of an RfC would be the right thing to do and it would save you from being blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I'm actually of three minds. Content-wise I'm with Winkelvi et al. Admin-wise I observed what you just observed I observed. And while I think that the BLP was invoked in good faith, BLP/ANEW-wise I agree with you that it does not allow for an exception here. Then again, I'm glad you didn't block Winkelvi, and I wish there had been a bit more reticence from both sides. Thanks Ed, and perhaps you'll feel bold enough to assess the consensus if everyone has raged enough, including me. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston or User:HJ Mitchell, perhaps you can have a look at the "other" article, Jenna Bush Hager. You'll see some familiar names there. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski reported by User:85.255.233.193 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to: [196]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Original edit deleting cited material
2. 1st revert
3. 2nd revert
4. 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [197]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [N/A - discussed on user page.] Also abuse and incivility here as discussion was deleted with the edit summary "revert anonymous coward".

Comments: This is yet another slow motion edit war involving Wtshymanski. In this case, the article contains a statement about the use of oil that has a low sulphur content compared with conventional oil. The paragraph is backed by a reference [198] which is a link to a scientific paper discussing both the problems caused by sulphur and the solutions. The paper itself is impecably referenced.

In Wtshymanski's characteristic manner, he has decided that the paper (and the article paragraph is wrong) and deleted the entire paragraph, with the terse edit summary "just wrong". No evidence provided - nothing.

His first revert (of the deletion of the material) just says "competence required". Without any backing references or evidence, any personal knowledge that Wtshymanski thinks he possesses can only qualify as original research.

When this is pointed out, his second revert changes tack and he tries to claim that the paper is an advertisement or brochure, but introduces his third tack ("... ad brochure is talking about mineral oil; x is not an alternative to x, though there's no supporting Wikipedia policy for that.) The reference is clearly a referenced scientific report and not an advertisement or brochure. It is produced by a company making transformer oil, but I would regard their Senior Technical Services Adviser to be a more reliable source than Wtshymanski - especially when he cannot produce references to back his position.

His third revert has dropped the advert/brochure angle and he is now claiming that "mineral oil is not an alternative to mineral oil ...". While true, that is not what the subject paragraph is about. It is about mineral oil that has been processed to remove the sulphur making it different.

This tendentious editing is a continuation of a long line of such editing and was the subject of a Request for comment (which I do not know how to find). It was stated in that RfC by a respected editor (Guy Macon), that it was easy to tell when Wtshymanski was edit warring for the sake of it hs he produces zero references to back up his editing, and that is certainly the case here. This behaviour also demonstrates that Wtshymanski has still not taken on board the outcome of that RfC.

This is not 3RR, but it is an edit war where an editor is insisting that we accept his totally unreferenced original research over a scientific paper from a respected company in the industry. And he is determined to hammer in his original research.

85.255.233.193 (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Mineral oil is not an alternative to mineral oil. Encyclopedia articles ought not to contain absurd contradictions. The IP address user is getting a lot of excitement out of this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have said many times about Wtshymanski, when he gets into these fights (which he does a lot) he is often in the right about the actual content. I would estimate that he is on the right side of the content dispute 80% to 90% of the time. I haven't looked at the content issue here, but I expect those percentages to hold. That being said, whether he is right or just thinks he is right, his behavior is often extremely distressing to other editors. To complicate matters, Wtshymanski usually stays within the letter of Wikipedia's behavioral rules, standing on the line with his toes hanging over, while his less-experienced opponents often cross the line and (rightly) experience WP:BOOMERANG. A good example is this personal attack by 85.255.233.26[199] and 85.255.233.26's own three reverts.[200][201][202]

My advice is to caution both parties about edit warring, warn them both that statements like "anonymous coward" and "most postage stamps are pre-printed with the sum total of your knowledge on the back" are unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia, advise the IP to bring up the sourcing issue at WP:RSNB, and close this without any blocks or other sanctions. In particular, I see no need for page protection, because neither party is likely to edit war in the near future. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected three days. References supplied by the company selling the transformer oil surely can't be described as impeccable. You might be able to get some advice on better sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electrical engineering. EdJohnston (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I would say that the result, as ever, comes down against the IP editor no matter how right he may be. Googling 'low sulphur transformer oil' only brings up 39,000 odd hits, much of it from respected academic sources (I.e. not manufacturers). One of the first papers is [eprints.soton.ac.uk/273124/ this] from a respected university. 85.255.235.66 (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you editing as an IP. ANI does not hand down rulings on article content disputes. ANI is for dealing with user behavior, and both of you behaved badly, engaging in an edit war (three reverts each) and some rather nasty incivility. Please go to WP:DRR and chose an appropriate venue for dealing with your article content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kudzu1 reported by User:DocumentError (Result: No action)

Page: American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kudzu1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [203]
2. [204]
3. [205]

Comments:

• this article is currently under 1RR; I reverted an edit to this highly contentious article with the note "this should be discussed" - it was subsequently undone by editor with a rather combative "WP:POINT" DocumentError (talk) 03:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I have made one revert, as have you. Furthermore, your own reversion was unconstructive and WP:POINTy, and you previously indicated your intention to oppose all editing to the article on the Talk page, which I regard as poor faith: [206] So what are you trying to get me in trouble for, exactly? -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I said I oppose all editing until the numerous issues that have been raised regarding that issue are worked out through consensus. I'm sorry you've made the choice to declare I'm acting in poor faith because of that. I'm not trying to "get you in trouble." This article is under a 1RR restriction. DocumentError (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Which means no more than one revert in 24 hours. I have reverted the same number of times as you: one. And I do think declaring your opposition to all editing, and then reverting a fairly technical edit I made to redirect a wikilink to the article Iraq, is disruptive editing behavior. I have been trying all evening to assume good faith with you, but the rancorous accusations you have made toward me and other editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and on Talk:American-led intervention in Iraq and your activity surrounding this article are complicating that somewhat. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And the WP:CANVASSING and WP:PA you and your trio are engaging in at those same articles, and in the AfD ([207]) have complicated it for me, as well. You've also indicated you're fine with a renaming of the article, then undone edits where I've renamed it ([208]) and refused to participate in a discussion of alternate names. I have not accused you of being obstinate or obstructive like you have accused me, for doing that, nor will I. I always AGF. I notice you've previously been blocked - was it for a similar reason or something different? DocumentError (talk) 04:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Since you brought it up, I was blocked for about an hour in mid-2011 for making a rookie editing mistake while working on South Sudan content: [209] I hope we can set aside these issues and work together on improving this content, going forward. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

So it seems you only have these issues in Near-East/North Africa related articles? I agree, a more temperate and collaborative approach would allow focus on content improvement. DocumentError (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of de-escalation, I am withdrawing this complaint against Kudzu1. DocumentError (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The submitter wants to withdraw this. If people keep editing this fast they may go past the 1RR limit very easily, so caution is suggested. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Legacypac reported by User:DocumentError (Result: No action)

Page: American-led intervention in Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [210]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [211]
2. [212]
3. [213]

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

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

Comments:
- At 01:47, 30 September I placed a systemic bias tag on article, accompanied by a Talk discussion. Less than 6 hours later - 07:09, 30 September, 30 September - after just 3 other editors had weighed in - Legacypac declared the discussion had "failed" [214] and reverted my edit so as to remove the tags. I undid Legacypac's removal and also cautioned him on the Talk page with the note "The tag has been up for a few hours. Please give editors an opportunity to express their opinion. Wikipedia is not a race. Thank you." He then engaged in 1RR by reverting my edit. This page is currently under active community sanctions and 1RR is prohibited. At the present time, as a result of Legacypac's 1RR, there are no systemic bias tags on this article, a situation I am unable to alter without committing 1RR myself. DocumentError (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

But wait, let's take a look at all your reverts in the past 24 hours: 1 2 3 4 (And unlike the diffs you posted when "reporting" me above, each of these is actually a revert by you!) Honestly, I really don't like things going this way in what should be a collaborative environment, but this is just out of hand, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

None of these are 1RR. Edit-warring is objectively measured; either you did or you didn't. Did you mean to bring this up in a different noticeboard or are you simply trying to make waves? The latter is not constructive. I notice you've been blocked before for issues related to Near East/North Africa articles; was it a similar issue to this? DocumentError (talk) 08:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant to bring this up here, because this is getting tedious. Those who live in glass houses, etc. etc. WP:1RR allows no more than one revert in a 24-hour period; you have clearly reverted four times. If you think administrators need to get involved here, I think they should know what the guy filing the reports has been doing. (And as for the block, I posted the diff above for all to see. I'm not interested in getting into a WP:BATTLE rehash of a completely unrelated incident that happened more than three years ago and was fully resolved within 60 minutes.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR allows no more than one revert to the same edit; it is not a blanket one revert action per article. (If that were the case, every single person - with one exception - who has contributed to that article would have violated 1RR by my count.) I would, again, implore you to please choose to approach editing in a more collaborative manner and veer away from your "Take No Prisoners" approach. We're here to encyclopedia-build. DocumentError (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect. From the policy page: "A revert means undoing the actions of other editors. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, and perhaps that's my fault for not being more clear. As per 3RR: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. I have not committed 1RR as I have only made one undo to the content of the page. The other 2 reverts you noted (you duplicated one) were non-content reverts to correct 1RR violations created by Legacypac. Hopefully that explains it better. I appreciate the enthusiasm you've put into trying to kneecap your "opponents," I hope you can learn to channel that enthusiasm into contributing content, too. I'm not going to discuss this more; if you feel I committed 1RR I strongly encourage you to file an AN3 against me so we can keep this one on-track. Thank you! DocumentError (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unlike you, I don't feel the need to resolve our differences by going to the admins over and over again. If anyone is guilty of trying to "kneecap" anyone here, it's you, with these bogus reports, the spurious WP:SPEEDY nom, the AN/I request, loads of shame tags, and blatant character assassination of everyone who disagrees with you (seriously, you brought up a editing block that lasted less than an hour from more than three years ago on unrelated content for unrelated editing behavior twice to mock me!). I haven't interacted with you much in the past that I can recall, but I can only hope this isn't how you behave on this website all of the time. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Kudzu1, I'm not interested in debating this. With your repeated WP:CALMDOWN notes to me, you have indicated you have no interest resolving our content differences amicably. 1RR is a bright line, this WP:DRAMA is not contributing to the discussion. Can we agree to make this the last post here so as to de-escalate? DocumentError (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError is using every tool he can think of to push his POV, including this report and the one above it. He started an AfD too on the artcle which has 3 or 4 editors (including me now) calling for Admin sanctions and then creates a SB discussion. Oh and on related articles favors locking one to freeze it in a position he likes, RfDs, etc. Further, there were more like 5 editors opposing the absurd Systemic_Bias tag with no support for it before I cut it as part of a general cleanup. The edit reverted DocumentError was to a general cleanup that reflects consensus, not a revert to anyone's edits in particular. Yup, I reverted his undiscussed, unwarranted revert of my edit right away (my first revert) - before he posted any explanation, or at least before I saw his comments. This BATTLE behavior is wasting everyone's time and needs to end please. And thanks Kudzu1 for your research and post.Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact there is an active AfD does not mean "all rules are off - every man for himself!" 1RR is a bright line to keep robust and intense discussion, like we are having, from descending into disruptive behavior. DocumentError (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you violate it three times? -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not. Please stop. DocumentError (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of de-escalation, I am withdrawing this complaint against Legacypac. DocumentError (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)|

Does withdrawing the complaint stop Admin from sanctioning the complainer? Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Nor, does it stop "sanctions" against the original complainant if an Admin deems it necessary. Since you have gone to ANI to allege I have withdrew this notice disingenuously, I happily reinstate it so as to disabuse you of that notion. DocumentError (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a gross misstatement of my actions or comments. I did not take you to ANI, you took yourself there. Withdraw your attack please. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I did not file an ANI against myself to the best of my knowledge. DocumentError (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action at this time. Negotiation is a good thing. Some of the above discussion suggests that User:DocumentError is actually in the minority in some recent disagreements. If that impression is correct I hope he will discuss patiently and wait for consensus before reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I hope "being in the minority" is not the new standard that permits 1RR, the kind of cross-Wiki abuse and combative asides the LegacyPAC [215] has heaped on me, and his misperception of my GF attempts to de-escalate as the opportunity to "go in for the kill." That's not how I remember it used to work. I'm very concerned a small group of editors with colorful block records, who canvass each other and talk on IRC are being allowed to railroad a set of tightly linked articles; being "in the minority" is a tough job in these times and it's tougher when the very fact you're in the minority is viewed as a negative. DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a larger number of editors that are tired of DucumentError using various admin processes to try to override consensus. All these accusations are also baseless. I don't use IRC and have no connection to any other editor WP editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Raising an issue with 1RR has nothing to do with trying to "override consensus." WP does not operate by majority vote and it certainly does not operate by majority vote following a period of WP:CAMPAIGNING. I have committed not to selective notification of users on Talk pages or discussion with others on IRC, but rather to pursue issues through the appropriate avenues. And I will continue to do so, even if it means I appear to be in "the minority" instead of an engineered majority. That's how I was told WP works and it's what I believe in. Thanks for your input, LegacyPAC. DocumentError (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Struwwelpepper reported by User:124.149.77.181 (Result: Warned)

Page: Artur Mas i Gavarró (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Struwwelpepper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [216]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [217]
2. [218]
3. [219]
4. [220]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [221]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The user doesn't even provide edit summaries or any reason for reversion, so I don't think the talk page is gonna help.

Comments: User is pushing a pro-Spain POV on Catalan pages and engaging in cultural erasure. On the page of the president of Catalonia, they keep changing "is a Catalan politician" to "is a Spanish politician", against a longstanding consensus. There is a Twitter user of the same name (not a very common one) based in Madrid [222]. Refuses to engage at all, seems to be using IPs as well and another account, Cataluniaesespania1 (talk · contribs) (translates as Catalonia is Spain). User has also reverted legitimate edits on other pages I've made.

Francoist user is now claiming Catalan people "don't exist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.77.181 (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Struwwelpepper is warned to stop reverting the nationality of this politician until he gets a clear consensus on the talk page in his favor. At the same time, I'm semiprotecting the article (with apologies to the good-faith IPs) for one month because there are too many IPs to warn and monitor. The precedent from other similar articles suggests that such politicians are identified by Wikipedia as having Catalan nationality. This man is the President of the Generalitat de Catalunya which is the government of Catalonia. Note that we have a Category:Catalan politicians so there seems to a practice of identifying certain public figures as having Catalan nationality. Use the talk page if you disagree, and want to establish a new consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I think a block is now in order