Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive211

User:Jedi94 reported by User:98.197.228.122 (Result: No violation)

Page: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
20th Century Fox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Jedi94 (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. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

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

You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here: If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

Comments:

• Result: No violation. The reverts listed above did not take place within 24 hours. Also note that the person blamed in this report, Jedi94, has now opened an RfC at Talk:Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures#RfC: Franchise relevance. Anyone who has an interest in this question should participate there. This issue was briefly at WP:DRN but was sent away due to inadequate talk page discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Evlekis reported by User:Keithstanton (Result: Submitter blocked indef)

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

User:Evlekis is currently on a 1RR restriction for editwarring and he is up to his tricks again. He is mightly close to breaching his 1RR but is nonetheless engaging in heavy nationalist-fuelled edit war over several pages.

1. .First
2. .2nd

Very concerning. I feel after the 1991 page he is stalking me because he has never edited on that page before, or not atleast recently. But after I reverted him on Butcher of the Balkans, he sends this uncivil comment.[6] Time he was brought into place. Keithstanton (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Speedy closure of this latest smear campaign. This user is not acting alone I assure every admin, there is collusion going on here. No violation of 1RR, and I most definitely am not stalking this editor. He leaves his own trail of bad faith edits which I follow. Sadly, it is precisely because of my 1RR that his edits are in tact. As for nationalism on my part, may he prove it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

agree with Evlekis about the basis of this report. It is utterly inappropriate. Keithstanton is on a ARBMAC warning, and continues to behave very poorly now he has resurfaced. I don't often agree with Evlekis, but on this one he has my full support. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks PM67, most appreciated. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked — The submitter Keithstanton has been blocked indef by User:TParis. EdJohnston (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Beleg Strongbow reported by User:Binksternet (Result: No action)

Page: Maafa 21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beleg Strongbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8] 20:57 March 7. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
2. [9] 21:30 March 7. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." Blocked for 1RR.
3. [10] 15:05 March 10. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."

   [11] 22:23 March 10. "Self-reverting to demonstrate good faith intentions and to allow fellow editors to demonstrate the position they agree with"

4. [12] 13:51 March 27. Removed Summarized quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
5. [13] 14:19 March 28. Removed Summarized quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." Edit summary "Spelling"—this is probably an unintended edit conflict.
6. [14] 14:55 March 28. Removed Summarized quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
7. [15] 19:56 April 3. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."
8. [16] 19:18 April 4. Removed quote, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maafa_21#Summary_of_Katz, specifically this diff.

Comments:

The film article Maafa 21 is about abortion, so it is subject to 1RR. Beleg Strongbow indicated on February 24 that he was opposed to quoting certain statements made by Esther Katz, PhD, director of the Margaret Sangers Papers Project at New York University. Speaking to a reporter about the film, Katz said about Sanger, "She certainly didn’t want to wipe out the black race anyway." Beleg Strongbow said "We must take care that as we use any quotes from Katz that we make sure she is actually talking about the film..." Subsequent talk page discussion was inconclusive between Beleg Strongbow, Badmintonhist, Roscelese, and myself, with valid arguments made to keep the quote, that it was indeed about the film. Nevertheless, Beleg Strongbow removed the quote twice on March 7 and was blocked for 1RR. Beleg Strongbow appealed the block but the appeal was denied. The 24-hour block expired on its own and Beleg Strongbow returned to the talk page to say, "The Katz quote that I removed is not about the film, which is why I removed it..." Subsequent discussion among the previously named editors now including Little green rosetta expressed no support for Beleg Strongbow's proposed changes to the article. Nevertheless, Beleg Strongbow removed the quote again on March 10, but he self-reverted.
Further talk page discussion ensued, and Beleg Strongbow proposed some text for the article, but the specific quote "wipe out the black race" was not discussed or even named as being targeted for removal. Even so, Beleg Strongbow removed the quote on March 27, on March 28, on April 3 and on April 4 less than 24 hours later. Beleg Strongbow knows about 1RR on this article as he was warned many times and also blocked for its violation, and he is quite aware that his removal of this quote does not have consensus.
I have brought forward here a purposely simplistic viewpoint of a complex sequence of edits, with many other issues involved and discussed on the talk page, but I wanted to choose only one issue to show as clearly as possible that Beleg Strongbow is edit warring to remove a quote he disagrees with. Binksternet (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

There has been ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Over the past six-to-seven months, I have consistently sought consensus. The diffs provided above are the result of the following: at each turn, when consensus has been achieved and a subsequent update has been made (by me), one of the dissenting editors has reverted my edit, and the discussion has renewed. I have not been edit warring. I have been editing. There are possibly too many diffs to choose from the Talk page to validate this reality. A good place to start though are the following.

1. [18] 12:44 March 19. Seeking for consensus.
2. [19] 9:10 March 20. Seeking for consensus again.
3. [20] 15:51 March 25. Still seeking for consensus.
4. [21] 16:34 March 28. Yielding to consensus and proposing the precise quote that would replace the existing quote.
5. [22] 8:55 April 4. Questioning why Binksternet had gone against consensus and showing how he was mistaken about the nature of my edit.
6. [23] 13:05 April 4. Demonstrating to Binksternet that consensus had been achieved.
7. [24] 15:14 April 4. Explaining to Badmintonhist why I had reverted his edit (at 15:18 April 4), which was quite different from the (non-reverting) edit I had made the day before (at 15:56 April 3).

I did not revert anyone's edits more than once within a 24-hr period. I have made only one actual revert since March 10 (self-reverting), made on April 4 (shown above). The April 4 revert was of Badmintonhist's edit, while the April 3 edit was not a revert of anyone's edit, particularly not of Badmintonhist's. All of my edits have been in good faith and for the purpose of demonstrating what seemed to be consensus. The March 27 and 28 edits were not for the purposes described by Binksternet: they were for replacing quotes with a paraphrase.

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I acknowledge that the March 27 and 28 diffs are in fact Beleg Strongbow summarizing the quote rather than deleting it. This summary did not satisfy a majority of article editors and thus did not gain consensus. However, the April 3 and 4 diffs are complete removals of the quote, without replacement by summary. These are the diffs which broke 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

My edit on Aril 3 was also not for the purpose described by Binksternet: it was not for the removal of Katz's quote but for replacing it with one that was more comprehensive and that had been agreed upon by two other editors (as shown in my diffs above). Offering 4 1/2 days (between here and here) for disagreement before the edit was actually made, dissention was not expressed until after I made it and then only by Binksternet, who again ignored consensus and reverted my edit. Why did I wait nearly five days? Because I wanted to ensure consensus before making it!

My revert on April 4 was not of Binksternet's edit but of Badmintonhist's, who had introduced a significantly different approach altogether without prior discussion. As shown in my last diff above (15:14 April 4), I then requested that Badmintonhist bring his idea to the Talk page where it could be discussed and that we should keep the edit to which he (and several others) had already conceded.

All these edits by me were made in good faith. I sincerely want to continue the discussion, at the article's Talk page, with everyone involved, including Binksternet. Can we move on now?

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

On my talk page, on his talk page, on the article talk page and here in this discussion Beleg Strongbow has been consistent in representing his April 3 edit as representing consensus. A look at Talk:Maafa_21#Summary_of_Katz will demonstrate that Beleg Strongbow's March 28 proposal was in flux with two editors opposing it and two editors suggesting changes. Consensus was not achieved. I strongly suggest that Beleg Strongbow be blocked for 1RR in removing the same text he was blocked for on March 7. As well, he should acknowledges his error in assessing consensus. Otherwise his continued contribution will be disruptive to the project. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Beleg thinks the April 3rd edit wasn't a revert (perhaps he didn't use the undo button to start the edit?) but it was. The April 4th version was a "Restoring consensus version" edit, which certainly seems like a revert. They both occured (barely) within the 24 hour harbor, so technically this is EW. I've kind of checked out on this quote issue as it is nauseatingly boring. Beleg, please self-revert yourself so this can be closed and step away from the horse. If you are that adamant about this quote, please start an RfC, but if (and IMO when) you "lose" that RfC, it's time to step away from the horse. Bink, why start this? Shouldn't you be encourging Beleg to use DR? (maybe you have, I might have missed it) While I disagree with Beleg's position, getting him blocked doesn't do anyone any good, unless you count shadenfruede.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I'll self-revert (again), if that helps us to move on. I'm not against the quote for any reason other than we had agreed to replace it with the more comprehensive one. I'm also not against Badmintonhist's edit other than he made a big change without first discussing it. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that Beleg hasn't been purposely trying to violate any rules. He is rather tenacious, however, on this particular article. If my latest edit of Esther Katz's reaction to the film is reasonably acceptable to all interested parties why don't we use it and move on? Badmintonhist (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparntly Beleg took my suggestion and will hopefully let this lie or persue a different form of DR vs walking the EW line. Bink, since you started this thread, I don't think anyone will object to you archiving it with an appropriate closing summary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Based on the self-revert by Beleg, I'm going to close this without sanctions. That said, Beleg's editing history has been disruptive. They shouldn't expect leniency if this recurs.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Bbb23. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

A series of IPv6 ips reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: Semi)

Page: Attack (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:6800:FF73:8085:E934:18F8:3F68:2DFA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and others

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: multiple warnings in edit history and talk page discussion.

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

Comments:

I havent taken part in the current discussions, just happened to notice the edit war. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 22:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor is simply blanking text that is sourced - time to stop this - saw it on the universal wahtchlist with 4 reverts... now 5 .Moxy (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. The IP seems to have been waging a campaign on this article since March 2. Just recently he made a post on the talk page to explain his views, but I don't see any rationale for the constant removal of sourced content. Warring on a contentious article with fluctuating IPs violates WP:SOCK whether or not you are an IPv6 address. As a bonus, he broke 3RR on April 5. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Malibu1236 and User:Javier12345 reported by User:DragonLord (Result: Both reported editors blocked; article semi-protected)

Page: List of Winx Club episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Malibu1236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Javier12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and several likely IP sockpuppets, see here

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36] and [37]

Comments:

From the message posted on my talk page, it appears the edit war is between Malibu1236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Javier12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). IP sockpuppetry by both users is apparent based on the edit summaries in the edit history of the affected article. I am not directly involved in the edit war; I found this edit war during an RC patrol. —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 00:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked both reported editors for 72 hours.
• Page protected semi-protected article for 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:108.181.44.47 reported by User:Diannaa (Result: 24 hours )

Page: Mötley Crüe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.181.44.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous revision of Mötley Crüe

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Diff of Mötley Crüe
2. Diff of Mötley Crüe
3. Diff of Mötley Crüe
4. Diff of Mötley Crüe
5. Diff of Mötley Crüe

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of User talk:108.181.44.47

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Previous revision of Talk:Mötley Crüe -- Dianna (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety ^talk 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sammy1857 reported by User:Carolmooredc (Result: ARBPIA warning)

Page: Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sammy1857 (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. [38] Removed: "His son Yoni, a pacifist, was arrested for resisting mandatory conscription"
2. [39] Removed again after another editor put it back: "His son Yoni, a pacifist, was arrested for resisting mandatory conscription"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:This page is 1RR under WP:ARBPIA. It has been heavily abused by Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis as AnonIP and new registered accounts and was protected for a couple weeks This editor edited within 24 hours of protection template taken off. This is a new registered account so I'm giving the editor less slack than would with an obvious newbie.

CarolMooreDC🗽 14:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Sammy1857 (talk · contribs) is warned of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:98.180.31.49 reported by User:CodeCat (Result: Locked)

Page: Altaic languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.180.31.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 98.180.5.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]
4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Altaic languages#Correcting Article to Reflect Leading View of Korean and Japanese as Only Hypothetically Part of Altaic

Comments:
This seems like a case of WP:TRUTH, accusing others who disagree and demand sources as trying to hide the truth and subvert Wikipedia's goals. They've been asked to provide reliable sources, but have only provided one non-reliable source (Ethnologue) and refuse to provide anything else. CodeCat (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Locked for one week by User:Nyttend.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Katangais reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. labeling GFE as inaccurate information
2. improper edit summary Full of "we don't need to.."
3. improper edit summary accusing me of incivility as response to OWN2 warning

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:He is reverting good faith edits to plot summary by reverting it to version he has painstakingly built since December 2011. My revisions have been accurate to what actually transpired in the novel but he keeps reverting it back. He has been slapped with an OWN2 warning for his steadfast refusal and tried to make a rebuttal that I believe is nothing more than poor excuses full of we-don't-need-this-and-that. His actions can threaten other people's efforts to edit the article in the future, especially when it concerns putting in other sections.

(Note: this was originally posted in the RFPP page but Michael Greiner recommended me going here.) --Eaglestorm (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this is a unilateral action, further proof of the above user's irrational and uncivil behavior. While he spends his time reporting me to a disciplinary administration for 'mismanaging' the very article I have worked so hard to improve, I have actually sought a third opinion on our respective revisions on three different WikiProjects - we are still awaiting a constructive response.

I very clearly specified my pretext for undoing this user's edits - which I believe is a legitimate cause for concern. When one refuses to heed reason and continues reverting another's revisions even after a recommendation we take it to the article talk page and after a recommendation that one list any of the supposed inaccuracies present in the article so both editors can work to improve them, I hold him responsible for initiating an edit war. Eaglestorm has consistently ignored my appeals, and if I am guilty of reverting his problematic edits - which continue to be made with the simple 'rvt' or 'rvting inaccuracy' messages without elaboration (while waiting for a constructive second opinion, since attempts to debate this logically with Eagle have already been ignored) then yes - I boldly declare here that I am guilty of starting an edit war, and will gladly accept the consequences accordingly. --Katangais (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"I have actually sought a third opinion on our respective revisions on three different WikiProjects" - forum-shopping right there and its not good. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Deride it if you must, I only attempted to resolve this matter through other means after direct communication with you had already failed. And while we're on the subject....which one of us has the reputation for waging pointless edit wars, hmmmmm?

The article will now be left the way it presently is simply because nobody cares to open this vain can of worms with you again. After reviewing your past record, I am convinced it's abundantly clear who has much more to answer for. You're wasting my time here, Eagle. Go find somebody else with the patience to take your petty nonsense. --Katangais (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Both editors are warned to stop edit warring and to discuss the content dispute. Katangais, your attitude doesn't help you. Eaglestorm, you are at 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, more than Katangais, who is at 2, although both of you are edit warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Vinson wese reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Emmelie de Forest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vinson wese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments: repeatedly reverted the removal of contentious information that does not meet WP:BLP sourcing standards. per WP:SPS, self published sources cannot be used in BLP articles.-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 01:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Dark Beauty Paradise reported by User:Thevampireashlee (Result: Blocked 72 hours by Kww)

Pages: Lana Del Rey discography, Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album), Paradise (Lana Del Rey album), Burning Desire (song)
User being reported: Dark Beauty Paradise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The edit wars have been occurring across four different articles, and started on 5 April and has persisted up into today. Reverts have been made on both sides. Attempts were made to contact the user in edit descriptions, on their user talk page, and on article talk pages. Edits prevailed and all attempts at peaceful resolution have been ignored.

Editors performing reverts besides the reported party: myself, User:Status, User:Faizan Al-Badri, User:Razr Nation, User:Arre 9, User:Hahc21, and many more. Due to the extremely large volume of reverts, it would be better just to link to the article history itself.

• Lana Del Rey discography: history
• Born to Die (Lana Del Rey album): history
• Paradise (Lana Del Rey album): history
• Burning Desire (song): history

1. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Dark Beauty Paradise#April 2013 (made by User:Status
2. Second and third warning, where I asked to engage us in dialogue about the changes User talk:Dark Beauty Paradise#Lana Del Rey

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

Comments:

--Thevampireashlee (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Gruesome Foursome reported by User:The C of E (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Mid Ulster by-election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [59]
2. [60]
3. [61]
4. [62]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments: Gruesome Foursome has just returned from a block for violating 3rr on this page. He has since returned and continued in the same vein of ignoring consensus while also making accusations of lying that are unfounded. Similar actions have happened on the Manor of Northstead page too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear 3RR, was warned and prior recent block for same. Kuru (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Venus fzy reported by User:Eyesnore (Result: Warned; user agreed to conditions)

Page: Šar Mountains (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Venus fzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [71]

Comments: Changing non-ASCII characters with ASCII ones to be typed. Eyesnore (PC) 23:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Venus has violated WP:3RR. However, they have not reverted after being warned. In addition, there's been no attempt to discuss the issue with them except through edit summaries, which is not sufficient. Finally, they are a fairly new account. For those reasons, I have left a note on their talk page saying I would not block them if they agreed to leave the article alone for 7 days. This report can remain open to see how they respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sthubbar reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: 31h)

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]
5. [77]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79], dicsussion also taking place here [80]

Comments:
This user has removed this 2009 Cochrane review 5 times now without consensus to do so. The one other editor who weighed in and reverted the person in question once disagreed with its removal as stated here [81]. The user in question has not gained consensus for the changes in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how these administrative procedures wotk, but somebody ban Doc James for 24 hours from editing the osteoarthritis page. He has submitted 5 reverts in 24 hours and nothing from the 3 reverts rule has happend.

I have completely followed the rules. I made 3 reverts, not the 4 that he falsely claims, and after my 3rd revert I opened a discussion on the WP:Medicine talk page. A version was reverted by an independent person and I accepted that and continued editing from there.

I am completely following the procedures and Doc James is just plain making mistakes and lying.Sthubbar (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sthubbar. Depending on exactly how we count your reverts, you've made either six or seven reverts at Osteoarthritis within 24 hours starting at 13:07 on April 7. Jmh649 seems to have made three reverts. I recommend that you agree to stop editing this article until consensus is reached on the talk page. If not, your account may be blocked. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This user asked for a ref in this edit [82] while deleting the content in question yet deleted the ref in the edit right before it.[83] The ref in question was a 2010 review article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I obviously don't understand how Wikipedia arithmetic works. My 3 reverts gets turned into 4, then 6 or seven and Doc James' 6 reverts is 3. I guess because you are counting every time I remove these negative treatments as a revert.Sthubbar (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just coming here to report Sthubbar myself for edit-warring at Osteoarthritis. In each of the following reverts, Sthubbar removed at least two good-quality sources, PMID 17437317 PMID 17438317 fixed typo Zad68 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC) and PMID 19821296:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

but I see Doc James has a more complete report than this. Already warned as above. Zad68 04:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Hearfourmewesique blocked 3 weeks )

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

Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [85]
2. [86]
3. [87]
4. [88]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [89]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Prior discussion on H's talk page [90], similar discussion on article talk page [91]

Comments: User:Hearfourmewesique insists that his opinion of the comedian's typical character ("off-color" or "feral" "foreigner" be inserted into the article lede, and claims it shouldn't be removed because he can quote an obscure interviewer in support. At least two editors have removed it, and a third supports removal on the talk page; no editors support User:Hearfourmewesique. Because this is a BLP, I was willing to push up to the 3RR limit, but it's not a clear enough violation to justify breaking the limit. User:Hearfourmewesique cites WP:DEMOCRACY for the principle that one editor's opinion trumps a greater number's, which is ridiculous. User:Hearfourmewesique has at least four prior blocks for edit warring, plus an AE block that may be related [92]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked - Three weeks, by User:Toddst1. EdJohnston (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:WWGB reported by User:Borvo (Result: Warning to Borvo)

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

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

1. [93]
2. [94]
3. [95]
4. [96]
5. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments: WWGB doesn't want to react to anything I write him, he is constantly removing my talk, including two 3RR-warnings (one using template, other just text). --Borvo (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reply

It seems that Borvo fails to understand WP:UP#CMT which I have continued to cite in my edit comments. WWGB (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I quote the same page: Note that restoring talk page notices is not a listed exception to the three-revert rule.--Borvo (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Borvo, editors are allowed to remove whatever they like from their talkpage. On the other hand you are now at 5 reverts (at least) on the Margaret Thatcher[100][101][102][103][104] Consider this your final warning that any more reverts from you will result in a block. Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Borvo has been notified for 3RR and edited after the warning. I have reported Borvo for disruptive editing at WP:AIV, but this location is the correct place. Widefox; talk 14:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Borvo hasn't edited the Thatcher article after your warning or mine, so that's a good sign that a block is not required at this point. On the other hand, posting a 3RR complaint about an editor deleting 3RR notices from their own talkpage while simultanously breaking 3RR themselves on that user's talkpage and even worse on an article, and also deleting a 3RR notice left on their own talkpage, does suggest that Borvo needs to slow down a fair bit if s/he is to avoid trouble in future. Slp1 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 reported by User:32cllou (Result: No violation)

Page: Breast cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [105]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [106]
2. [107]
3. [108]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [109]

Comments:

It's not just the warring but the deletion of most recent cochrane collaboration work (and elaboration by the Nordic branch of the Collaboration) on mammography, unscholarly order of research (old stuff last!!?), change in true meaning, and writing that is not supported by the reviews. I'm sorry, this AN3 is unfortunate and my first report. I hope I've done it correctly. Thank You.32cllou (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This is a malformed attempt to report user:Jmh649, who is an admin, an M.D., and generally the most active maintainer we have of medical articles. The list above shows only three reverts, and they are spread across three days. My advice to the reporting editor is that it would be more productive to make a serious effort to reach consensus. Looie496 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Commment I'm fairly new at writing in wikipedia. Why is the report "malformed"? (because there are 3 not 4 effective reverts?) M.D. may suggest financial interest in promoting mammography (he's a "preventative" guy). His text was not supported by the reference, he used a bad link, and he's using the wrong order of research reviews. I've looked into how admins are elected, and found it liable to promote bias [[110]] it is as they say "cult like"!!!. PS you might be interested to know that mammography is not recommended at any age? I bet there are many users of wikipedia who look for the most recent high quality reviews. Currently buried and weakened by Jmh. I will take the issue to the dispute page.32cllou (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• So it sounds like you are withdrawing this report? It's malformed because most of the templates aren't filled in, look at the templates at the top of this report and compare it to all the others on this page. You should also read the Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) at the very top of this page. As Looie pointed out, this report doesn't support a 3RR violation. Zad68 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I repaired the formatting of this report, so one of the above comments may not make sense any more. EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Soham321 reported by User:Neelkamala (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Markandey Katju (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soham321 (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. [111]
2. [112]
3. [113]
4. [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

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

Comments:
Soham321 is hostile towards other wiki editors and continues to edit war even after attempts to reach out make him understand BLP policies.

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The final revert was outside of 24 hours, but this was not. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:MarkusGuni reported by User:A1candidate (Result: Both blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to: a

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5
6. 6
7. 7

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:Newly created account with high level of edit-warring behaviour

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by User:Adam Cuerden (Result: Declined)

Page: Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malleus Fatuorum (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. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549319049&oldid=549318852
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549319872&oldid=549319826
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549325272&oldid=549325065
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549325988&oldid=549325798
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549400667&oldid=549400352

This ignores things that are technically reverts, but so uncontroversial as to not be worth considering, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549378223&oldid=549377955 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549389741&oldid=549388721 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=549389741&oldid=549388721

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMalleus_Fatuorum&diff=549408569&oldid=549389356

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Malleus has thrown himself into several disputes today, but I've at least tried to deal with mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Margaret_Thatcher#celebrations_of_her_death_in_the_UK:_Widely_reported._Highly_unusual._Why_aren.27t_they_even_mentioned.3F

Comments:
Talk shows a strong consensus against the material advocated by AC being included at this time; that being said, given that this is a highly prominent individual who just died, a short period of protection (full or semi) might be useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See also and WP:BDP. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• (Involved admin). By well-established practice, we give a lot of leeway to editors on articles that are high profile, such as a very high profile politician very recently deceased and currently the top item on "In The News" on the Main Page. Malleus is clearly not edit-warring, but engaging in the BRD process, just on several different fronts. It is important that this practice be retained because editors need to be able to maintain high-profile articles against the tide of drive-by edits which are both a wonderful part of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and an utter pain to editors who have put a great deal of time into writing and structuring the article. The common sense approach would be to dismiss the complaint against Malleus, or at most caution him against continuing to revert Adam Cuerden.

  Additionally, this is clearly a bad-faith complaint by Adam Cuerden, who has been advocating the inclusion of disputed material. In spite of the consensus on the talk page (permalink), and in defiance of the BRD process (to which Malleus has worked hard to adhere), Adam re-added a {{POV-section}} tag when he didn't get his own way. This complaint is clearly an attempt to take revenge on Malleus, and Adam should be cautioned for coming here with unclean hands. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

May I point out your reversal of the tag claimed it was a drive-by tagging and that I should discuss on the talk page - when I had opened a hread within minutes of tagging? You reverted the tag with an obviously incorrect reason, so I restored it.

It seems far more bad faith to remove a tag with an edit summary that shows that you are obviously mistaken about the supposedly drive-by nature of the tag, and to complain that the tag was readded, then to re-add a tag, apparently removed in error, when intervening edits had removed what small amount of criticism there was, making the problem far worse. I further see absolutely no good done by having a talk page section, where a few users have said they agree that there's a problem, but censoring the tag directing people to join the discussion. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a misrepresentation of what happened, Adam, and I think you know it. Whether you're doing it to cover your arse or because you seriously think Malleus will be sanctioned, I don't know, but if we're going to have a conversation, let's have it based on the facts as they are, not as we'd like them to be. I removed the tag because one editor's opinion that something is biased does not make it so, and you can't just slap a tag like that on a GA that's currently at the top of the Main Page. Common sense ought to tell you that the tag was never going to last, and it certainly appeared "drive by" in that you didn't even give an edit summary. But motive aside, you were bold, I reverted; the correct thing would be for the two of us to have it out on the talk page (where the consensus, albeit not unanimous) was against your edit. Re-adding the tag because you didn't get your way, after you'd already been reverted, was clearly in bad faith, and claiming that my revert was mistaken is disingenuous—you could have engaged me on my talk page or the article talk page (where I was active at the time) at any time but chose not to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"18:37, 8 April 2013‎ HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)‎ . . (136,601 bytes) (-114)‎ . . (Undid revision 549369175 by Adam Cuerden (talk) please don't drive-by tag; if you thinks something needs changing, take it to the talk page) (undo)" [116] Further, my comment to the talk page was posted at 18:29, 8 minutes before you claimed there was nothing on the talk page int hat edit summary. [117]. Please use facts. If you genuinely thought what you claim to above, you didn't say so at the time anywhere. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Further, there was no consensus at the time, as you claim - check the thread and the time of your reversion. There had only been one, or at most two, comments.

Finally, I think it's clear the consensus is at least ambiguous now, so that including the POV tag appears clear.

Wait, is this one of those stupid things where HJ Mitchell thinks I have views I don't? I'm at best ambiguous about the mentioning of Cameron coming home. I just noticed Malleus seemed to be making a lot of reverts, when I looked at the history to see who removed the tag - undos do show up, you know, and decided to check them. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Nikkimaria. Since Thatcher's death is a big deal and there will be people who try to push one point or another, it is better to IAR than to hand out blocks. (The page is already Semi-Protected) --Guerillero | My Talk 23:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've been observing the article today but not editing directly. I would agree with Nikkimaria, HJ and Guerillero. I think what Malleus is doing has been helpful. This is consistent with other high profile news concerns, where it is better to add less than more, and work closely with the consensus on the article talk page, as he has done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Declined For all the reasons said above. Malleus is not aggressively edit warring and his contributions today have been useful; to block him for this would miss the point of WP:3RR, which is to prevent edit wars, not prevent users from improving an article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Although not precisely on point, "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." (WP:3RRNO).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here, here...I second that given all considerations.--MONGO 02:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• For those interested, as a result of this discussion, I requested a somewhat related modification to 3RR here. Ryan Vesey 01:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Chestnut1204 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Indef)

Page: Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chestnut1204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [118]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [119]
2. [120]
3. [121]
4. [122]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Byzantine Empire#Use/mention mismatch in title, again

Comments:

Note the personal attacks in the edit summaries of the first and last reverts: "Go live under a rock, you brainwashed loser." "undid undo from some brainwashed fool who probably believes the Holocaust never happened." DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note also that Chestnut1204 is obviously a sock/reincarnation of earlier TeleGamer (talk · contribs), who showed the same aggressive agenda behaviour on several articles a couple of months ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And it's a single-purpose account. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

An indef block should be considered, per Future Perfect's observation (above). Someone who bursts onto the scene (March 6) with guns blazing and leaves a lot of insults in edit summaries certainly fits with the traditional image of a POV-pushing sock. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

He's still edit-warring as we speak. Can we please have some action here now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - Indef as a sock of TeleGamer. The editor continued his revert war at Byzantine Empire since my final warning, with no response here. He can't be bothered to participate on talk pages and he won't answer when he is told that an indef is being considered. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Downtownvanman reported by User:Skookum1 (Result: Declined due to lack of warning)

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

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125]
2. [126]
3. [127]
4. [128]

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

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

Comments:

• Other than at Talk:Adrian Dix "discussion" (accusations and response) have been made on my talkpage and also on WP:CANTALK where the SPA's goal of having me banned from Wikipedia is clearly stated.

• the last diff provided is for an IP address that's been doing the same re-insertion and biased writing; the SPA appeared only once that IP user had reached 3RR....other IP users have attempted this material in the past (which has been reported to the BLP Noticeboard); I invite you to review the article's history for more of the same.Skookum1 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Update The SPA Downtownvanman has reverted the same material again, with an edit comment claiming my re-deletion is "pro-NDP", and on the BLP board, and in edit comments, accused me of being NDP while claiming to be neutral himself. I have no party affiliation; Admins familiar with me may remember that I was a founding member of the Green Party of BC and of Canada, though am no longer. My interest in this matter is to prevent BC Liberal (NB different than federal Liberal, which is why I make a point of using "BC") talking points and attack ads being used as a the basis for sections of content; to me, the matter is WP:UNDUE anyway, it's a molehill being made into a mountain so as to divert attention from the real good mountains; with a sign on it saying "this is important, if you don't think it isn't, then you must be POV". At this point this is now 4RR definitely, though whether the IP address of similar "attack edits" as are being made against Dix here rehgularly, is the same, only an admin with CHECKUSER can know for sure. AT this point the invective against me is ramping up, and the user's familiarity with me in political news/forum spaces (where I'm considerably more fanged and clawed than around here) is very evidently the reason he is wanting to have me banned.....this whole incident may in fact be part of a "shut up that Skookum1 guy" agenda, and not really about Dix's backdated memo at all......all I've asked for is a protect or semi-protect to end the silliness and so that real editors can work on the article without "neutral" IP users and SPAs constantly re-inserting attack-ad material while claiming neutrality......Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Skookum1 has reported me but has failed to notify me as outlined at the top of the page.

Please "CHECKUSER" on me and see I have done minimal to no edits and am 1 person. It took me 10 minuted of searching the internet to find how pro-NDP Skookum1 is through his postings on various websites, blogs and new articles over the past few years. He is egotistical if he thinks there is an "agenda" to ban him. I am new here but I believe he needs to be banned based on his unbiased edits that have taken place for many years. Unlike Skookum1 I am a person with no direct or indirect political affiliation (I have not voted in the last few BC elections, neither myself, any of my family members or anyone I have come in social contact with in the past few YEARS are members of any BC political party). Skookum1's access and ability to continually amend the Adrian Dix page with a pro-NDP tone is concerning as Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. (Downtownvanman (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC))

• I'm going to decline a block at this point; there's a clear issue with edit-warring, but Downtownvanman (talk · contribs) has not reverted since being notified of the 3-revert rule on his talkpage (the 3RR warning in an edit summary isn't sufficient for a new user). If he reverts again, having now been warned, let me know and I'll reconsider a block without going through this formal noticeboard process again. In the meantime, I'm going to semi-protect Adrian Dix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) given BLP and other concerns. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment since your decision another SPA has emerged and attacked me, including outing, it's probably another sock from the same individual; must not have been an IP block, or they just changed IPs/computers. This has included created a fake category to do with this Category:Adrian Dix WikiWars where the SPA also outed me in a "category description", same as on User:Sunciviclee's page (who wants to contact you and me directly, why I don't know but he doesn't seem hostile). The new SPA is User:Srob88; that account was created today (April 9).Skookum1 (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Chicago1432 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: 24 hours)

Page: OMICS Publishing Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chicago1432 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]
5. [135] another one, subsequent to this report being filed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [136]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Comments: Sock-fest underway at this article, and an SPI report has been filed but there's a big backlog. In the meantime, a clear 3RR violation above, where #1 in the list is a revert by virtue of reversing this one.
—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring; sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry seems highly likely based on behavioral evidence, but since there's an open SPI I will await that adjudication before considering an indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 17:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

User:LexBlog reported by User:Theworm777 (Result: Declined)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts: edit warring

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]

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

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

• Declined. The editor is new. They haven't violated WP:3RR (they've made 3 reverts). You warned them after they reverted 3x, but they didn't revert after that, so I'm not quite sure why you then opened this report. Although they haven't participated in the discussion on the talk page, they did post a polite message on your talk page that indiates to me that they are (1) unfamiliar with our rules and (2) not attempting to be disruptive per se. As an aside, I don't see any source for the 2010 conviction at the end of the section at issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Dreadstar reported by User:Fladrif (Result: None)

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

---

Page: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dreadstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [143]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [144]
2. [145]
3. [146]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [147]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:

Dreadstar editwarring to prevent a transclusion of a blocked user's comments to an ongoing enforcement discussion about the blocked user. Warned about it. Conceded that the transclusion was actually proper [149], then proceeded to tinker with the transclusion so as to screw it up all up, blames me for his f*-up, and uses that to justify yet another reversion. Fladrif (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The last edit (#3) was purely an edit conflict, which I self reverted once I realized what had happened - due to Fladrif's kind report here. I'm not editing anything regarding that 'transclusion' further; instead, I've taken the whole matter to WP:AN and the conflict is in front of Arbcom]. There's no bright-line violation of 3RR and no danger of continued edit warring. Dreadstar ☥ 03:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bbb23 reported by User:Strangesad (Result: WP:BOOMERANG)

Page: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [150]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [151]
2. [152]
3. [153]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive247#Proposing indef block for Strangesad. 'Nuf said. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Bbb23 edit-warring or not? Apply the rules equally, not preferentially. Thanks. Strangesad (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Bbb23 is not edit-warring, Bbb23 is trying their best to deal with an exceptionally disruptive user who is on Wikipedia with the sole purpose of picking fights.Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, is calling the result BOOMERANG an impartial act? Is it edit-warring or not? Apply the rules equally for all. If I did what Bbb23 did, I would be blocked. Why isn't this a double-standard? Strangesad (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not edit-warring. An administrator is allowed to close a section if they feel the issue has been resolved or does not require further discussion. Users should not revert administrators unless they have excellent rationale, and they should definitely not revert multiple times. In this context, Bbb23 is completely in the right. m.o.p 20:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

He was directly invovled in the debate, had taken sides, and made disparaging comments about my worth as an editor. In that context, and admin should not be acting in ways available only to admins. Strangesad (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

These are allegations you raise before you edit-war with the admin, not after. m.o.p 20:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I did, on my Talk page, linked above. He ignored them and reverted. Edit warring. He also deleted my comment from the discussion [156]. Strangesad (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Move to close per WP:CDS. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Move to review, according to the rules. Admins are not exempt from the rules. In fact, admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard. "BOOMERANG" is not the result of an investigation into whether Bbb23's behavior met the definition of edit warring. Regardless of whether the proposal on AN to block me goes anywhere (looks dead in the water, to me), the report of edit-warring by an editor--admin or not--should be treated equally and objectively. Strangesad (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Move denied. --Malerooster (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And it appears rightly so. Let me just note here that based on this statement Arbcom looked at the technical evidence, and decided to leave it as is. Case closed. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Moral support for Bbb23 based on his proven judgement, and consensus support by multiple editors, including myself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these comments have anything to do with whether Bbb23 edit-warred. Strangesad (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Does it not feel lonely always arguing against many other people? Again and again? History2007 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

@Strangead: You are exhibiting serious I didn't hear that behavior and coming off as entirely clueless. Unfortunately, "clueless" after a while mutates in tendentious editing, or even trolling, both of which are disruptive. The only reason you haven't been indef blocked due to the AN thread on your behavior is that several very respected editors spoke up asking that you be given another chance. That's not going to continue to happen if you keep on the trajectory you're currently on, and making remarks such as the one above. Get a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:141.136.243.34 reported by User:DVdm (Result: 31 hours )

Page: Kid President (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 141.136.243.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [157]

• 1st revert: [158]
• 2nd revert: [159]
• 3rd revert: [160]
• 4rd revert: [161]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [162]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [163]

See also

141.136.240.224 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 7-Apr-2013

141.136.240.95 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 31 hours 6-Apr-2013

141.136.248.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 5-Apr-2013

141.138.38.202 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours 4-Apr-2013

141.136.222.121 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Comments:

DVdm (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GOOD— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.243.34 (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for editwarring poorly sourced, disruptive material into a BLP. Slp1 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Note - Back at it as

141.136.222.153 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) with a.o. this.

DVdm (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:78.150.28.18 reported by User:DVdm (Result: two users blocked)

Page: KT Tunstall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.150.28.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [165]
2. [166]
3. [167]
4. [168]
5. [169]
6. [170]
7. [171]
8. [172]
9. [173]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [174], [175]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See user talk page for discussion.DVdm (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Please also have a look at Annie Lennox, and its recent history. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and also my conversation with the user on the talk page. Evident of a sockpuppet, and from what I've saw this has been going on for days (maybe even a week). I reckon a few days ought to do it? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have requested at the talkpage that all users stop the edit-war since this is running at approx. 8RR and it is not exempted from 3RR rules. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I too have requested a stop, but the user has chosen to ignore Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are way over yourself. Don't forget this is not exempted from 3RR. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I can see that, and in no way am I involved in the edit war, simply trying to stop a sockpuppet, its why I have tried to get the user blocked. Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is a certified sock you should specify so in the edit summary, also specifying the master. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: This report is technically invalid in the case the IP is not a sock, because the IP never got a formal 3RR warning before. If the IP is a sock or continues to edit-war they can be blocked. I just left a 3RR warning on their talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The user has been involved in the same edit war for over a week now. Their is a first for everything. I am not edit-warring, I'm simply here to sort the problem out! There has not been an issue before on these pages with nationality - why now? Uh oh Uh Oh Again (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If this IP is not a sock, then you cannot revert them because you are well over the 3RR limit and you reverted again making 9 or so reverts at the moment on your part. The problem is there is no concrete evidence the IP is a sock. And you don't sort problems involving edit-warring by doing more reverts especially after other editors made remarks about stopping the edit-war. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I locked the article for three days. @Uh oh, you (and the IP) are fortunate you weren't both blocked. Dr. K.'s comments about your conduct are well-taken. I hope you learn from them as your last comment that you were not edit warring doesn't make it sound as if you have. If I see behavior like this after the lock expires, you and/or the IP may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I acted too soon without realizing that a similar edit war between the same two editors was going on at Annie Lennox. That was just too much for me. I have therefore blocked both editors and unprotected KT Tunstall as unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Following the blocks, an ip editor has continued the pattern at Annie Lennox and at Texas (band) (but, curiously, not at KT Tunstall). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately it looks like clear sock activity to me. The IP 90.222.124.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should be blocked. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes I saw that they didn't revert at KT Tunstall. They just may be testing the waters. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Applesandapples reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No violation)

Page: International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Applesandapples (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [176]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [177]
2. [178]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [179]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:
Article is under a 1RR restriction per WP:ARBIPA Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I also wish to point out the not so subtle POV push in the edit[181] along with the source misrepresentation. The first source used did not mention any NGO's or governments criticizing the ICT, nor does the other one just added. Which is what that edit is inferring. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is completely ridiculous, and not the first time my edits have been barefacedly misrepresented in this manner. I made this edit first [182], which is not a revert! I was then reverted by DS [183], and I undid his revert [184] as I felt it was very unfair.

Of the two edits DS has referred to, the first one was not a revert, it was a vanilla edit. I really feel I need to emphasise this because I feel that I have been a victim to this kind of misrepresentation before and was blocked for it! So- [[185]] is not a revert. NOT A REVERT. DS reverted me first, and I reverted him back. Once. Not violating 1RR. Applesandapples (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

From the very top of this page "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." Your edit most certainly undid anothers work in part, a vanilla edit would be adding something new. You have also misrepresented the sources and delibartly introduced a POV into the article which the sources do not support. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2013

When adding material to a sentence, it is inevitable that there will have to be tweaks in the sentence structure, which often involves removing a superfluous word or two. The case against me is utter rubbish, as it would categorise the majority of edits in Wikipedia as reverts. If I change the spelling of a word, is it a revert? If I think the wording of a sentence can be improved, is it a revert? Is a revert absolutely anything which involves the removal of at least one character from the original material? If we follow DS's criteria for what is a revert, then he himself could stand accused of 5 reverts in one day! [186][187][188][189][190].

What, unfortunately, is happening here is DS is mischaracterising editors who see things differently to him, and if he is allowed to get away with this in future, then every edit by an editor who does not follow him will be reported as RR. He has a history of doing so, and it's a pity that administrators don't try to stop this kind of behaviour. Applesandapples (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Uninvolved in this dispute, however, User:Applesandapples points to pattern/history of behavior about DS against other editors with a long history with many others on multiple boards and over many situations, including situations where he was putting many editors, including me and those who don't contribute to his POV, on a public warning list while he was an involved editor and passing himself off as an admin when doing it. Crtew (talk) 00:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation, and Darkness Shines, please take care not to file reports unless there is a clear violation. Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami reported by User:Roscelese (Result: Declined)

Page: Secular Islam Summit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [191]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [192] (undoes earlier edit [193])
2. [194]
3. [195]
4. [196]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been blocked in the past for edit-warring on this very same article, and also received earlier warnings about 4RR and 5RR behaviors at the article that s/he managed to get away without sanction for, so is obviously aware of how our policies work.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most recently Talk:Secular_Islam_Summit#Chronological_order.3F, I'd also been chatting with Jeff5102 on his talk page.

Comments:
Pretty straightforward 4RR. Kwami doesn't agree with my or Jeff's ordering of the material, is going to edit-war until doomsday to get what s/he wants, has an idiosyncratic definition of "consensus" which reads "Kwamikagami's preferred version," nothing new here.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The first edit was not a rv, or at least I did not revert an edit I observed. I changed the order of the info Roscelese had added to better reflect WP practice, as reflected on the talk page. She then reverted me, etc. Unfortunately, Roscelese will not work with other editors except under the threat of administrative sanctions. She's been edit warring over this article, on and off, for a year now.

Roscelese reverted four times, missing technical 3RR by a couple hours. She has argued with nearly every other editor on this article, insisting that anything other than her view is biased. I don't understand what her POV is, since she's never clearly explained it, but she really does need to learn that edit warring is not the proper way to improve an article. I suppose we could revert to the pre-Roscelese version of the article, which is what we've done in the past to address her insistent bias. However, she has led to improvements in the article when she's forced to work with others. — kwami (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Declined, and recommend continuing the discussion underway on the article Talk page. Nothing will be gained by blocking either party in this case, as you both clearly have something constructive to offer. Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:William_M._Connolley reported by User:194.69.198.225 (Result: No violation)

Page: Gresham's law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William_M._Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [197]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [198]
2. [199]
3. [200]
4. [201]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a (see comment below)

Comments:
I had made an update to the above article in respect of providing the clarification of geographic names, which would have been a fairly minor change to the article's content. The user William_M._Connolley reacted by reverting my edit and saying that "this is just more nationalism. we don't need the exact geog clarified". I was surprised that clarification of geographic names may constitute 'nationalism' and explained to William_M._Connolley that he did not provide any factual explanation as to the grounds for reverting my updates, whereby his actions were purely based on his subjective perception of 'nationalism'. Nevertheless, he did not refrain from further reverting, with support of another user (User:Lawrencekhoo), and also did not react to my warning on continuous edit warring.

Also, please be advised that I did not discuss my initial edit and subsequent situation via Talk page (Talk:Gresham's_law), because I felt it is a minor edit (as stated above) containing only factual information, which should not to be subject to a discussion.

194.69.198.225 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Those are four reverts over five days, which doesn't constitute a prima facie violation of WP:3RR. There were no attempts by you (194.69.x.x) to discuss your attempted change, despite ample opportunity and invitation to do so. It appears that your change was also reverted ([202] by a second editor, Lawrencekhoo, against whom you leveled an entirely spurious accusation of sockpuppetry: [203]. You – 194.69.x.x – have now added the same content, without discussion, at least five times, including four reverts. Adding material once or twice without discussion is one thing; doing so in the face of repeated reverts is quite another.

Instead of digging yourself into deeper trouble, it might be best if you actually tried to engage in discussion—instead of drawing uncomfortable administrator attention to yourself on noticeboards like this one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation, and the page will be semi-protected to stop the reporter from edit warring with dynamic IPs if the change is made again. Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Αισχυλος reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24h)

Page: Economy of Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Αισχυλος (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [204]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [205]
2. [206]
3. [207]
4. [208]
5. [209] Please note: This revert (#5) was made after I advised the user of the report at 3RRN. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
6. [210]
7. [211]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Multiple 3RR warnings. Sample: [212]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [213]

Comments:

SPA is not responsive. Edit-wars in rapid succession with copy-pasted edit-summaries: Main data source: CIA World Fact Book 2012! Firstly, Use CIA Data or World Bank or IMF because Our goverment lies. They do not participate on talk despite advice on their talk by multiple editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Wyattmj reported by User:EdJohnston (Result: 72h)

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

I happened to see this war because the article is on my watchlist. I have not edited the article myself. User:Wyattmj seems to be looking forward to the overthrow of the Copernican principle, which asserts that the Earth is not in a central, specially favored position in the universe. Though I can't follow all the reasoning in this article, he is up against up at least three other editors who disagree with his changes and he seems to be trying to force his version back in, repeatedly. On April 10 he made six reverts (if you count 74.100.71.90 as being him logged out, which seems likely), or five reverts if not.

If you read his edit summaries, it appears that he thinks participating in the discussion (and the lack of sufficient response from others) entitles him to break 3RR. I gave him a special customized warning at User talk:Wyattmj#Edit warring at Copernican principle and you can read his response. He thinks his behavior is fine, speaks about 'whitewashing', and he goes on to personally attack the other editors and call them 'liars:'

"I strongly disagree. These guys (materialscientist, Drbogdan, and Lithopsian especially) keep reverting my edits; though well thought out and documented. They keep telling me to go to talk, and weeks go by, and no one discusses this. I will take this further. These guys are basically trying to sweep the truth under the rug and use Wikipedia to lie to the public. Let them ban me. They are liars at best, and probably much worse, and are making a fool of Wikipedia."

• Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:56, 10 April 2013‎ - I have been discussing. No one is reiterating and joining the discussion
2. 04:42, 10 April 2013‎ User:74.100.71.90 - I did not add Krauss' quote. It was there long before you came along. Add the rest if you want, but do not revert. The alignment with the ecliptic is anti-Copernican. [This IP appears to be the same as Wyattmj]
3. 05:17, 10 April 2013 - The edit before my first one is Feb. 20th 2013. It is in that edit. As to just now, yes, I restored it, but I did not oringinally add it.
4. 12:25, 10 April 2013 - I'll look at the rest
5. 15:33, 10 April 2013 - Removed criticized line
6. 18:26, 10 April 2013 - The Wikipedia article explains what the Copernican principle is. We know what it is. Alignment to the ecliptic is anti-copernican, period.

• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [214]. User was also blocked previously for 3RR violation on March 23, apparently for warring on the same article.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Copernican principle#CMB Anisotropies

-EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: (ec) Already blocked 72 hours by User:Vsmith, so I'm marking my own report as closed. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Robsinden reported by User:Lihaas (Result: Warned)

Page: Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [215]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [216]
2. [217]
3. [218]
4. [219]
5. [220]
6. [221]
7. [222]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [223] 2nd warning

Comments:
Well I warned him twice, he tried to justify and went on reverting to his version.Lihaas (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• My reverts were for different things (and some of the above examples are not even reverts but as per discussion on talk page), removing additions that were against prediscussed consensus - the users in question did not seem to wish to enter into dialogue on the talk page. I'm fairly certain I did not overstep two reverts, unless inadvertently. I'd suggest we both step away from the matter until resolved on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period"

Did not wish to enter dialogue in the talk page? THen why is this dated before you continued reverting?Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, it didn't make much sense, and I was probably attempting damage limitation! However, we seem to be discussing reasonably on the talk page now, so hopefully we (and the other editors) can make the article work. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I also suggested you self-revert but instead you came here to justify the reversions.Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As there have been various edits by various other editors, I don't think self-reversion is possible. I'd rather not run the risk of being accused of further edit warring. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Your most recent reversion can be undone by you. But you choose not to and run the risk of having so many reverts beyond 3RR. You are also given the opportunity to have this withdrawn by reverting but choose not to.Lihaas (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Self-reverted. Please withdraw. Hopefully we and the other editors can reach a satisfactory conclusion on this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, youve still violated. ITs clear. Let the admin see it.(Lihaas (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)).

• Note. I agree with Lihaas that the self-revert was insufficient because after the self-revert, Robsinden continued to make changes to the article including other kinds of reverts. I was prepared to block Robsinden because of that, but I believe that Lihaas has also been edit warring in the article, so I am reluctant to block one without blocking the other. I will therefore ask both editors to stop editing the article at all for 5 days in exchange for not being blocked. I'll then await their responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for seeing both sides of the incident. In my defence, I saw Lihaas's edits as disruptive, as they removed a tag placed on the page (added after discussion on the talk page, which Lihaas was not involved in) and added information against the advice of the tag, seemingly to advance their view of what the page should be, which was against consensus at the time, and without having contributed to a discussion. My actions were intended to combat what I saw as disruptive editing. Any further edits I made were considered and made whilst in dialogue with other editors on the talk page (and as far as I can remember, none were reverts, unless you count reverting some vandalism). The section in question still needs considerable work to bring up to the standard we need for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and I feel I still have something to contribute in that respect. However, like any editor I want to be seen as responsible, so will accept your terms not to edit on the page in order to avoid a block, as it seems there is no other recourse. To be clear, am I allowed to contribute to the talk page in this time? --Rob Sinden (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

(I'm asking regarding the talk page, as someone has changed the 24-hour chart position from 22 to 2, which is not per the source which shows 22, and needs to be amended). --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute to the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Unfortunately, Lihaas has not responded to my offer on their talk page, even though they've made multiple contributions to Wikipedia since I posted it. Because they have not edited the article itself, I'm not blocking them, but I'm holding them to the 5-day term and may block them even beyond the 5 days if they disruptively edit the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts reported by User:Fortdj33 (Result: Page protected)

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

---

Page: Passion (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [224]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [225]
2. [226]
3. [227]
4. [228]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [229]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [230]

Comments:

This disagreement stems from the placement of a simple stub tag. After I tagged the article Passion (2012 film) with a stub tag marking it as an erotic thriller, Lugnuts reverted the edit with a summary stating that it was overstubbed [231]. This is not the first time he has reverted this article for that reason [232], which borders on him claiming ownership of the article. This time I reverted it back [233], assuming good faith and explaining that a third stub tag was necessary, because neither of the existing stub tags covered the genre of the film. Lugnuts simply reverted it a second time [234], stating that we don't need three stub tags on one article. I then explained on his talk page and in the edit summary how a third stub tag could be acceptable in this case [235] [236]. His response was to revert the article a third time [237], with an edit summary directed at me personally, because we have disagreed before. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it's an edit war you're both involved in, and he hasn't technically violated WP:3RR, I feel that page protection is a more suitable approach. I hope the 3 days will be enough to work it out on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that this user has no clue when it comes to stubs, and has been proven wrong on a previous occasion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And that comment right there goes to show that this is less about a content dispute, and more about Lugnuts' incivility when it comes to edits he doesn't agree with. Lugnuts may get away with violating WP:3RR on a technicality, but that doesn't excuse him choosing to edit war, instead of trying to come to a consensus. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please assume good faith instead of making kneejerk comments. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I did. [238]. You were the one who chose to make personal comments, instead of simply discussing how to improve the article. Please practice what you preach. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If the two of you can't work together constructively, then edit other articles. Your comments don't bode well for King of Hearts's hope. Page protection is intended to foster collaborative discussion not sniping.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:UrbanVillager reported by User:Peacemaker67 (Result: Locked)

Page: Kosovo: Can You Imagine? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [239]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [240]
2. [241]
3. [242]
4. [243]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [244], although he quickly deleted my warning [245] with the edit summary, "stop trolling".

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [246], [247], [248], [249], [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257], [258], [259], [260], [261] shall I go on?

Comments:

UrbanVillager has blind reverted edits to this article on what appears to be a WP:OWN basis. He has also reverted just outside the 24 hour limit. He claims I have some anti-Serb agenda, despite the fact that I am just expecting the article to meet WP guidelines like WP:COPYVIO and that statements be sourced from reliable sources independent of the subject. I have also created and expanded articles about the massacres of Serbs in WWII, so it is just nonsense. All the sources about the film are actually related to the film. Malagurski is the director, Taylor appears on the dust cover extolling its virtues, Bissett appears in the film, so not surprisingly he talks it up. I have no regard for the film (now that I have watched it), but I had no regard for the one-sided way it was being portrayed before I watched it, and all my edits were made to bring it into line with WP policy and guidelines and counter the clear bias of the sources. My intention throughout has been to straighten out the obvious policy issues with the article. UrbanVillager's response has been to blind-revert my edits, to the extent that he has even reverted simple grammatical changes I made. He has not properly addressed the concerns I expressed about the supposed Malagurski YouTube Channel (which appears to be that of the Serbian Youth League), or provide a citation for the unreferenced statement about the "alleged nationalist and irredentist ideology on the part of the Albanian majority". He merely reverted it without attempting to provide a citation. Essentially, he is edit warring in an article covered by ARBMAC, will not engage in any meaningful way on the talkpage, and I believe an ARBMAC warning is warranted at least, to encourage him to engage on the talkpage and stop blind reverting. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Both editors are warring unless Peacemaker is exempt because of the claim of WP:LINKVIO. The copyright issue is an interesting one. On its face, it would appear that the YouTube poster is the director. Even assuming he is the director, it's not clear that means he's the copyright owner, although given the kind of film it is, it's certainly possible. That issue should be fleshed out, along with any other disputes. I've locked the article for 3 days to permit that to happen.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that the LINKVIO reverts are exempt. However, fair call on the lock. I will do my best to get something definitive on the suspected LINKVIO during the hiatus. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe Moonriddengirl has resolved the matter in UrbanVillager's favour. I withdraw. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:91.79.73.217 and User:91.79.68.155 reported by User:Oknazevad (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: List of professional wrestling world champions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.79.68.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 91.79.73.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [262] (initial reversion today)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [263] Talk page request from February
2. [264]
3. [265]
4. [266]
5. [267] Most recent

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [268]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [269]

• Page protected. I semi-protected the page for 5 days but somewhat reluctantly. Your conduct has been suboptimal. You have reverted 3x times today, and I can't even count the number of times in early February. It's almost exclusively a battle between you and this one other editor (with multiple IP addresses). If I hadn't found another editor (also an IP but not the same person) who agreed with you, I would have locked the article. Your invitation to the IP to discuss the content issue was in an edit summary. Next time, do it on the article talk page - earlier (you posted something today) - and leave a message on the IP's talk page telling them you've done so. Finally, you didn't notify the IP of this discussion, which you are required to do. I've done that for you (on .55) just so they are aware of this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:ErBabas (Result: Sopher99 and Emesik accepted conditons)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [270]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1) Direct revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=550006205&oldid=550002314

2) Revert compared to the reference version of yesterday

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=549990265&oldid=549989913

3) Revert compared to the yesterday reference version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=549832417&oldid=549832245

4)Revert compared to the yesterday reference version

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=549832245&oldid=549812808

5) Direct revert

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=550040852&oldid=550039917

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

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

Comments:

That's four violations of the 1RR rules imposed on the page.

The 1RR notice is clearly visible when you try to edit

I thought it was MalesAlwaysBest myself Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Must have been an EC, Sophers comments vanished. However this is a "new account" who manages to find his way to aNEW? Quacky or what? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is the user chronicalusual's sock puppet. Read at your pleasure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive Sopher99 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm calling meat and sock puppetry. One's definitely not a sock, the other is a clear sock puppet of chronicalusual. They both show up at the same time, 1 to revert the other to report. Sopher99 (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You got to be kidding me. This account was literally created in anticipation to report me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ErBabas

Sock puppetry and strong indications of meat puppetry. Sopher99 (talk)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

Is that your defense line? It is quite poor.

5 reverts in 24 hours on a page under 1RR? You completely abused the rule. You are trying to get away by attacking the person who reported you (and none of the reverts you did are mine anyway so you defense is pointless). How do you explain you completely ignoring the 1RR ? You can't, that's why you are attacking the person who reported you. You know you broke the rule.

You should concentrate on explaining yourself

--ErBabas (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Syria civil war is not part of the Arab-Israel conflict. You should read up on why that notice is there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg#Concerned Sopher99 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The warning was put to reuglate this discussion here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_22

As you can see people like FunkMunk, Sayerslle, Emesik, DIREKTOR, also have broken the 1 revert rule, but those having nothing to do with the purpose behind the label. Sopher99 (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&action=history

This is ridiculous. Yes, I broke the rule to revert your vandalisms. This is not the first time you revert my changes on that particular page and not the first time you receive a warning. Just have a look at your own talk page.--Emesik (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Jake watemberg on your ling wrote clearly "I have lifted the protection. You are all expected to adhere to 1RR, with no exceptions" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErBabas (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen I am not going to debate with a sock account. The notice was put in place for the long debate mediation in February and March. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Even after being reported, Sopher99 is continuing its edit war on the page like if it was nothing http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&action=history

He not only spit on the 1RR but is now also far above the 3RR. He is at 11 reverts in less than 24 hours on a page under the 1RR --ErBabas (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As for the perceived edit war itself, I don't think we are communicating very well. Emesik does not understand that important and controversial changes should be discussed on the talkpage, despite Tolly4Bolly's and me asking for a discussion. Tolly4Bolly went ahead to request for page protection. Emesik will have no choice but to attend discussion then. Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia rules do not require anyone to discuss before editing the content. However, destroying my work with reverts is something that calls for explanation, which you did not provide. I explained on my talk page what I wanted to achieve. You did not agree and continued with edit war. This is immature and this is not the first time you're doing this. Furthermore, you accused me of being a sockpuppet, which is a lie.--Emesik (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As for some of the "reverts" the sockpuppet of ChronicalUSual is accusing me, Emersik gave me allowence to re-add some of the info he deleted with this diff. So it looks like compromise is foreseeable [271] Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I have locked the article for 3 days, but I'm not closing this report. The edit-warring between Emesik and Sopher is egregious. The only possible exemption for Sopher is the socking claim, and I have no idea if it's accurate. Emesik has been around for a while (since 2006), albeit with significant gaps in their edit history. The ErBabas account, on its face, is suspicious, but even assuming that ErBabas is a sock, that is irrelevant unless there's some connection between ErBabas and Emesik, or some connection between Emesik and ChronicUnusual. I suggest, as a sign of good faith, that Sopher file a new report at SPI regarding the claimed socking. Please provide a link to that report here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Emesik is a sock if he is been there that long. He would have shown up by now on the checkusers. I simply suspected because both the ChronicalUsual's sock and Emesik began operating the article at the same time. Sopher99 (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no link with Emsik or with anybody else Sopher99 reverted during his infraction on that page --ErBabas (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Case opened here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual#9_April_2013

I am not sure how much good blocking either of us will do considering the page is locked specifically so that discussion between us can be initiated Sopher99 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed Sopher99 started a case against me but did not include Emesik inside and he even admits here he did not believe it was me. So basically he is attacking the person who reported him as a defense line, hoping he will get away with his proved, uncontested violation of the rules, irrelevant to the case he opened. --ErBabas (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your joking right? Read a bit further. Sopher99 (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where you reported Emesik, either, Sopher. Also, it's customary when filing a report at SPI to include an explanation and evidence of the socking. You just listed them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hes not a sock if hes been there since 2006. I only suspected at first because both ChronicalUsual's sock and Emersik began editing and reverting the civil war page at the same time. Sopher99 (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So.. we should add arbitrary offensive accusations of socking to the list? -- Director (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-read all my comments. I suspected Meat-puppetry from Emesik, because of the timing concurrent with a renown sockmaster. Which is entirely possible in this case (however unlikely). Sopher99 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's see if I have this straight. You suspect User:InayaKuzbari of being a sock, no idea why. That editor comes along and edits the article. The edit is obvious vandalism. You properly revert. A little later Emesik, whom you acknowledge is not a sock, comes along and make a major edit to the article, with which you disagree. It is not vandalism. It has nothing to do with IK's edit. You revert. Then the two of you happily edit-war at all with no justification from either of you. IK comes back and tries again, same kind of vandalism, and is properly reverted by another editor. There are a few reverts after that by you and Emesik (and one by another editor who did nothing wrong), and somewhere in all this a report is filed. Where is the justification for your reverts? Maybe ErBabas is a sock, I don't know and for the purpose of your conduct don't much care. And who would he be a meat puppet of? Surely not Emesik who has as much to lose by this report as you do? So, here's the deal for both of you. Both you and Emesik must agree not to edit the article at all for 7 days. If you do that and abide by it, I will not block you (I'm also going to shortly unlock the article as it's unfair to everyone else).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Not even gaming 1RR anymore are we, Sopher? Since I was mentioned I feel I must comment: Sopher's actions have effectively frozen that article. Noone can make any edits he (and sometimes a few of his buddies) disapprove of. He likes to play chicken until the other guy gives up. Usually people are just too polite to call his bluff - and this is what happens when someone stands up to the no.1 edit-warrior on that article. I tried to do so myself, but in the end didn't want to get blocked and gave up, my hat's off to Emesik & ErBabas. The talkpage, one must add at this point, is also dysfunctional to the point of comedy. Sources are openly ignored, OR, STONEWALL and IDONTLIKEIT are rife... essentially you must receive the written approval of the WP:OWNers in order to have anything you do stick - or else its "no consenus" for you!

If anyone needs a really solid block for edit-warring - its Sopher. I bet at this point he feels like a valiant knight at the ramparts fighting off the waves of "Nazi Assad supporters".. -- Director (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Your arguments were turned down by many editors EkoGraf, Futuretrillionaire, Lothar ect. They were then turned down in the dispute resolution. The Request for comments didn't give consensus to your proposed edits either. If your edits are not put forward by talkpage, RfC, or dispute resolution, then maybe its time to re-evaluate what edits you are proposing.Sopher99 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ your begging me to differ. This isn't the place for content dispute discussions, and you shouldn't be allowed to clog the thread with pointless gab. Comments referring to specific content disputes should be stricken to allow admins easier access to the details of the report. For the record though, since you continue the pattern of slander, the added edits were supported by a majority of users on the talkpage. But Wikipedia isn't a democracy, and votes are not wwhat this is about - every addition I've made was profusely sourced.

I'm an editor with seven years experience and over 45,000 edits on this project (working mostly military conflict articles). I'm European and came to that article with no bias or agenda. I was not able to make a single solitary, sourced, policy-based addition to that article thanks primarily to Sopher's "vigilant policework". -- Director (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to talk about past disputes. Second of all Only one of your proposed changes had a slight majority. You had three proposed changes, each one relatively radical and hotly contested by many users. Even the RfC and DR could't favor them Sopher99 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The biggest joke is that now, with the block in effect, we have to wait for 3 days while Sopher99 himself is the author of the current, broken version.--Emesik (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup. He's "won" again, hasn't he? The trick, you see, is to edit-war as frantically as possible to make absolutely certain you're the one who gets protected.. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Entirely untrue. Its the same page except you have a line "With growing involvement of foreign actors the conflict is sometimes described as a proxy war[69]. Following disagreements, split and even clashes between different opposition fractions, the war became a stalemate in early 2013, though with the opposition gaining steady ground." Which wasn't there before you put it. Sopher99 (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The comment section is not used for snide anecdotes that have nothing to do with the 3rr. Sopher99 (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there an echo in here? Or are you just repeating what I said right above? Right where you brought up the content dispute yourself. Though there are no "anecdotes" there, Sopher, there's just my comment on your overall behavior with regard to 3RR. 11 reverts in 24 hours on a 1RR-protected page pretty much speak for themselves, however... -- Director (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Sopher99 officially recognized that Emesik wansn't a sockpuppet of me. Therefore, his only line of defense has fallen. He is guilty of having broken the 1RR rules 10 times, with various users (not only Emesik) in the past 24 hours and got the page blocked. It should be noted that Direktor here, FunkMonk on the Syrian civil war page and Emesik here all complain about Sopher edit wars. So it isn't just me --ErBabas (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to Bbb's proposal

I can agree to not edit it for a whole 7 days. But the article has to be semi-protected. Additionally no changes to the lede can be made while discussion is ongoing and engaged. Sopher99 (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Generous terms. I don't think we'll get a better offer from Sopher, guys.</sarcasm> -- Director (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

These are not terms. Why should the edits continue on the very thing that caused the edit conflict. Theres a discussion on the talkpage for it now. Which both me and Emersik has recognized Sopher99 (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just so it's clear, Sopher has unconditionally agreed not to edit the article for 7 days subsequent to what is said above. I am waiting for Emesik to respond. The article has been unlocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Now, I'm certainly involved, but if it were up to me I'd take into consideration Sopher's previous (very noticeable) pattern of edit war on that article, as well as the fact that the article is subject to active arbitration remedies. I myself would topic-ban him for at least two months off any Syria-related topics per WP:ARBPIA. That's me, though. A week of consensual non-editing seems a bit lenient. -- Director (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You have engaged in just as much frequency as the rest of us. We went through pages and pages of discussions, good-faith debating, Request for comments, and dispute resolutions. Don't try to "eliminate your competition" Sopher99 (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Sopher... I revert 11 times on an ARBCOM articles every day before breakfast. Signing off. -- Director (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Browsing through Sopher99 talk page, he has been blocked one time previously and has numerous reports notifications against him as well as warnings. This isn't his first time and numerous people are complaining about him. His infraction is big thims time because I understand that the 1RR is a very special case to be respected. Anyway, it's not me who should ask for sanctions, I just reported the heavy infraction. --ErBabas (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Give it a rest, everyone. I'm leaving this report open only to hear from Emesik. Otherwise, unless another admin wants to comment, nothing else needs to be added. Think of this report as semi-closed, which means I may revert any editor who posts here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very bad solution, leaving us with the version edited by Sopher99, the reported user himself. It actually means that you force me to succumb to his reverts and destruction of my work, or face a ban. I don't know why you are asking me at all, as I have no choice here. --Emesik (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you apparently misunderstand Wikipedia policy with respect to edit warring is disturbing. As for your work, if other editors who have not edit-warred, agree with your changes, they can adopt all or part of it, as long as they comply with policy in doing so. You need to accept the conditions or reject them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The disturbing fact is that you are approving actions of the person who broke the rules first. Then you give me a "choice" which is no real choice at all. Can't you just ban us from editing that page for a week? Well, just to close this shameful thing: I agree not to edit Syrian civil war for a week. --Emesik (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Boisekimber (Result: Not here)

This user just edited his own article Boise Kimber. I reverted the edit, but suspect this user was editing this article before under different name. I have rv the content several time before and don't think I should be the one warning this user not to do so. Please somebody place an appropriate WP:COI warning. Thank you. Mhym (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of it, but you should not have posted the problem here. You could have posted it at WP:COIN or at WP:BLPN, but, thus far at least, this is not an edit warring issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:58.167.4.192 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: IP and DrKiernan blocked 48 hours)

Page: Wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.167.4.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [272]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [273]
2. [274]
3. [275]
4. [276]
5. [277]

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

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

Comments:
IP trying to insert material of dubious relevance to article. Warned by several editors, but oblivious to requests to cease edit warring. Also edit warring on same issue at Trinity College, Cambridge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked the IP for edit-warring at both articles. However, that doesn't end the matter because User:DrKiernan also violated WP:3RR at both articles. Because DrKiernan did not edit-war anywhere nearly as much as the IP and because his reverts appeared to be aligned with the views of other editors, I chose to offer him a way of avoiding being blocked. As I stated on his talk page, he must self-revert at both articles and he must agree not to edit either article for 5 days. Because DrKiernan is an admin and I am sensitive to the issues of even-handed treatment in these matters, any other admin is free to undo/change any action I've taken thus far. As an aside, @Ghmyrtle, you should have notified the IP of this discussion. Also, you act like you know who the IP is (he calls himself Ted). You warned him that he might be "blocked again"; what are you referring to? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who the editor is, but he self-identified as Ted on my talk page. I did not say he might be blocked again - I said he might be blocked from editing again, i.e. blocked from editing further. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I have now blocked DrKiernan. They refused to accept the offered conditions, effectively arguing WP:IAR, which simply doesn't wash in edit warring violations.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:79.141.161.13 reported by User:Maurice07 (Result: Maurice07 blocked for one week, .161.13 blocked for 72 hours)

Page: World Tourism rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.141.161.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:[280]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [281]
2. [282]
3. [283]
4. [284]
5. [285]
6. [286]
7. [287]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Sample: [288]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[289]

Comments:

I warned this user about edit warring bu there is no any sensitivity and my 3RR warning deleted by this IP user [290]. Also,user does not participate on talk page! Maurice (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment

I do admit that I have violated 3RR but so does the reporting user. The user systematically changed the location of Turkey from Asia and Europe to only Europe. I think it is apparent that Turkey covers parts of both continents. Furthermore, he fails to understand that the UNWTO map doesn't represent the county's location but the group it is in. What is more surprising is the fact that the table with the countries location we have both been changing redirects to a UN map showing Turkey being in Asia.

Note 1: The attempt to solve the dispute on talk page provided by the reporting user dates back to 12th of November 2012.

Note 2: The user was topic banned from Greek-Turkish relations for many reasons. One of them was that he was constantly changing the location of Turkey to Europe.

1. [291]

Note 3: I was never informed for this report but rather given a "warning". It is also interesting that I also warned the user and he also deleted the warning

1. [292]

Both editors blocked for edit warring. Detailed explanations left on both talk pages. m.o.p 14:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Objectivity99 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Withdrawn)

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

---

Page: Raymond Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Objectivity99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [293]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [294]
2. [295]
3. [296]
4. [297]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [298]

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

Comments:

Repeated deletion of well sourced content with several reverts within just a few minutes, meaning that there's been no time for any discussion. I've chosen to report it as an edit war but it could just as well have been reported as vandalism. Thomas.W (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Next time please notify the editor of this discussion; I've done so for you. Although the editor is somewhat strident, calling the removed section "well sourced" is a bit much. It's a terrible section from a WP:BLP perspective. Perhaps it could be cleaned up, but I'm not inclined to sanction an editor who removes it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no interest in the article or its subject, but I very much dislike deletion of large blocks of sourced content without previous discussion. Especially when it's done by a user who, judging by his/her edit history, can best be described as a single-purpose account whose only contributions to WP are dropping in every now and then and removing/editing whatever displeases him/her in the Raymond Ibrahim article. Thomas.W (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the editor's behavior raises red flags, but you have to step back in cases like this and look at the substantive issues. I rarely permit BLP to exempt an editor from edit warring, but here I would, even if I don't like the way it was handled.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Crtew reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Withdrawn)

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

---

Page: Ahmed Ziauddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crtew (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. [299]
2. [300]
3. [301]
4. [302]

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

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

Comments:

The removal of FV tags in a BLP when the source cited does not support the content is not on, Crtew is engaging in OR in a BLP and his removal of these tags is disruptive. I have asked the user to self revert and if he will do so I will happily withdraw this report. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all the matter we're speaking about is triva -- it's about a transliteration of a name that appeared in an article. Furthermore, technically this was not a 3R because I had corrected the citation based on his original template in the meantime. I even told him that on the talk page of the article but I'm not sure he was receptive to hearing that. Finally, when Darkness Shines slapped a dispute template on the article,I just deleted it, removed the transliteration and moved the citation to the other place where it fit lower to support that he subject talked on extra-judicial killings. After I had removed the template and material, he initiated this. What we have here is someone trying to pick an "edit war." Crtew (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, what we have here is an editor who was giving you time to find a cite to support your addition to a BLP, which you still have not done. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And I had already said this to you[305] and am still giving you time to find a cite. I can remove the lot on BLP grounds alone, I am being entirely reasonable here. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is where I removed the transliteration, even before he asked me to. [306] Crtew (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Really?[307] You removed it at the same time as your 4th revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I believe I'm WP:INVOLVED. It's hard to keep track of these two continuously fighting, sniping editors. Without addressing the merits of the report, I note only that the only two editors editing this article since March 9 are the dynamic duo here. I'm not counting bots and I'm not counting Drmies, who had the temerity to intrude on these two editors' battle. It's lovely to have both of you back gracing this noticeboard (we won't talk about the other noticeboards that have been blessed with your presence). Knock yourselves out continuing your battle here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Actually, I'm pretty proud of the fact that this article went from this [308] since April 8 to this [309] by today. The article started admirably on 10 December 2012, which was a few days after the scandal broke. It was created by [Aminul802], who was later blocked for sockpuppetry by DS. Then it survived a further AfD initiated by DS.[310] Many people have actually contributed before 8 April. Parkwells also did an admirable job at contributing. It's currently in AfD and will most likely be deleted, as it looks now, by a deletion nomination from Darkness Shines. Most of the material will be able to go nicely into a another article on the scandal, which means the material won't be lost. Crtew (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:198.84.241.55 reported by User:Novaseminary (Result: Blocked and article semi-protected)

Page: Online counseling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.84.241.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [311]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1, 2, 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1st talk section attempt, 2nd talk section attempt (with ad hominem attacks against me, too)

Comments:

This editor previously violated 3RR on this same article as I noted above without filling a formal report (1st; 2nd; 3rd; 4th).

He also edit warred as noted by Fishbert above. Finally, he was just warned by an admin for edit warring on a notice board (here for repeatedly inserting this unrelated nonsense)

Novaseminary (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Over-long and misformatted response by 198.84.241.55 removed. [312] Please post only concise and on-topic responses here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.
• Page protected. The article was semi-protected for a week by User:Diannaa. I blocked the IP for disruptive editing, including edit warring across multiple articles, personal attacks, and talk page vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Sean.hoyland reported by User:Soosim (Result: No violation)

Page: Ali Abunimah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [313]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [314]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [315]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [316]

Comments:

Sean.hoyland was warned and admitted to the violation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ali_Abunimah#Twitter_and_1RR - Sean.hoyland is a very experienced editor and as he admits, knows better, and in this case, has clearly said that he would not even bother to do a self-revert even if asked. not sure what else needs to be said? this is his second violation of edit warring in about six months. i propose a 4 day ban. Soosim (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

" An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a single revert." Consecutive edits count as a single revert, this is only a single revert in 24 hours. Proposing editor should stop wasting everyone's time by continually using the ARBPIA sanctions as a means to get their way on content disputes. Dlv999 (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Ali_Abunimah#Twitter_and_1RR. To correct a slight error, I didn't say I "would not even bother to do a self-revert". I said I would have declined. The reason I would have declined is that a BLP covered by ARBPIA is being exploited to POV push. It's pointless and disruptive. Sampling tweets with no eviddence of notability via secondary source coverage is ludicrous. As I said "The material should be removed until there is evidence that it complies with policy and consensus to include it". My removal of the twitter material was reverted here by a "new" editor who clearly has no business being in ARBPIA and should not be editing BLPs. On the comical plus side, for my efforts cleaning up a BLP about a person I know nothing about, whose articles I have never read in any source as far as I recall, I was told "Your allegiance/bias toward Abunimah and EI should get you banned from doing any more edits.", not by Soosim, by the editor whose disruption is being facilitated. I actually meant to remove the twitter material at the same time as this edit at 2013-04-11T06:25:10 which wouldn't have been a 1RR violation, but I forgot until the next day. Such is life. Since the article has attracted a reverting IP on a mobile in Israel who removed the twitter material again, and it was put back by another editor, I walked away, for now, but that material is coming out of that article unless someone responds on the talk page to justify it's inclusion. People should not be treating BLP articles in ARBPIA as if they are tools to be exploited in an information war. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• No violation. The only editor who understands 1RR here is Dlv999. It's true that there is a long temporal gap between Sean's two edits, but there were no intervening edits. Therefore, there was only one revert. I would nonetheless caution Sean that claiming a BLP exemption from edit warring is problematic, and you run the risk of being blocked if the reviewing admin doesn't agree with you.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Mar4d (Result: A day)

Page: Hindu Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [317]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [318]
2. [319]
3. [320]
4. [321]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [322]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Hindu_Taliban#Category

Comments:User has crossed 3RR, and has done four reverts on the article within the space of one hour. I simply added a category in the article and he's been intent on removing it without using the talk page even once while doing all the reverts, including one instance where he's abused rollback rights. I also asked him to self-revert his fourth revert on his talk page but he has chosen not to. Mar4d (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• This might be unrelated, but the user has also reverted me twice on this article within 8 minutes just then, starting from here. And there's the second revert. And again, I was the one to make the "first" edit. This pattern of edit-warring is troubling. Mar4d (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Note to admins Please ignore the dozens of reverts on both articles I've mentioned above that have taken place just a few minutes ago by an apparent sockpuppet. This report should be taken independently on its own merit and I hope the temporary sockpuppet distraction does not cloud your judgement. Mar4d (talk) 11:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:John reported by User:Kevin McE (Result: Declined)

Page: Andrew Marr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a very experienced administrator.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [323]
2. [324]
3. [325]
4. [326]

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

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

Comments:

Rather than try to provide any meaningful explanation of what he objected to, the admin involved threatened me with a ban. It turns out that his issue was a misunderstanding of wp:blpsources. Kevin McE (talk) 10:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The block by the involved Admin in this case is an outrage. The material is well sourced, relevant and appropriate for inclusion. Leaky Caldron 11:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I just notified John of this discussion. Kevin is currently blocked for BLP violations. Both parties reverted more than three times. Kevin clearly violated WP:3RR. Whether John did is dependent on whether he is entitled to claim the BLP exemption. Whether John's block was justified is not something that should be thrashed out here.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. Kevin has been unblocked by User:Orlady after a discussion with Kevin, LC, and User:Black Kite. In her unblock reason Orlady said: "I fully expect that Kevin and John will engage in cooperative discussion now." To block Kevin for edit warring at this point would clearly be punitive. Similarly, to block John would be punitive and counter-productive to resolving the underlying content issues. I believe the parties need to put this behind them and move forward.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Editoreditorman reported by User:PiCo (Result: Advice given)

Page: Isaiah 7:14 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Almah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Editoreditorman (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:
Forgive me if I've done this wrong, because it's the first time I've made a complaint like this.

There are no diffs for reverts because I'm trying to avoid an edit war, not report one.

The problem is across two articles, Isaiah 7:14 and Almah, but the two are linked because they concern the meaning of the Hebrew word almah as used in the Old Testament in general and in a specific verse of the book of Isaiah. (I can tell you feel this gripping you already).

The background is that there is a word "almah" used in the Old Testament in a few places (only nine), one of them being verse 14 of chapter 7 of the book of Isaiah. The big thing thing is that conservative Christians translate it as meaning "virgin" - they've done this ever since the New Testament was first written in the 1st century (it's in the Gospel of Matthew, where Matthew quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a prophesy that the messiah will be born of a virgin - so it's pretty important to Christians).

The problem is, Jews never thought it meant "virgin", and modern biblical scholars agree with them. It means simply "young woman" - it's the feminine form of a masculine word "elem", young man, what we would call an adolescent. This is pretty universally recognised - it's in Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary, for example, and in any other Hebrew dictionary you care to mention.

As such, the word is not an exact equivalent of our word "virgin". Hebrew does have a word for that meaning, but it's not "almah" (it's "bethulah"). An adolescent girl was probably a virgin, but not always - she could be married and still be an "almah", in fact she could be married and pregnant, but the important thing was that she was an adolescent.

Anyway, Editoreditorman is apparently a good but rather conservative Christian who he knows that Jesus was born of a virgin, and by golly Isaiah said so too. No amount of scholarly references to the contrary will convince him otherwise. And the scholarly references are pretty unanimous. There's Marvin Sweeney, one of the leading modern scholars on the Hebrew prophetic books, saying "scholars agree that Heb. alma ... refers to a woman of childbearing age but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin." (Page 161 of Forms of Old Testament Literature, 1996); there's Brevard Childs, highly respected biblical scholar, saying that the translation as "virgin" is "...misleading in too narrowly focusing on virginity rather than on sexual maturity..", (page 66 of his Commentary on Isaiah 2001), and many more. As Sweeney says, the consensus is that "almah" does not mean "virgin". In fact there are absolutely no dissenting voices, to my knowledge.

Editoreditorman, however, says there is one. He prefers to use the InterVarsity Press' New Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (2008), which he believes says that an almah "would be expected to be a virgin." Yes - but he's misrepresenting what the book he quotes actually says. Sure, a young woman of marriageable age in ancient Israel would be expected to be a virgin - but only until she married. After marriage she would continue to be a young woman ("almah"), but not a virgin. And she'd remain an "almah" until she had her first child, after which she would be accepted as a mature woman. This is exactly the situation described in Isaiah 7:14 - the prophet Isaiah confronts King Ahaz and gives him a prophesy: "Look!", says Isiah, "that almah over there is pregnant; she'll have a son, and before he's old enough to reach maturity, the threat that faces you now (an invasion by two of Ahaz's neighbours) will be gone, and it will your enemies who are destroyed."

(It's significant, by the way, that the phrase in Hebrew is "ha-almah", meaning not "a maiden", but "the maiden" - "ha" is the equivalent of English "the").

So Editoreditorman has misunderstood what his favoured source is saying - an unmarried almah would be expected to be a virgin, yes, as the New Interpreter's Dictionary says; but a married almah would not only not be a virgin, she could be pregnant. like the one in Isaiah. Unfortunately Editoreditormanwon't discuss this, despite my attempts to draw him into dialogue on his Talk page. So I'm bringing this here in the hope that an edit war can be headed off, somehow.

PiCo (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. No one comes here to avoid an edit war. What are you thinking ? :-) I've left a message at Editoreditorman's talk page urging them to discuss the content issue and to stop reverting. Hopefully, they will heed my advice (with a soupcon of warning thrown in).--Bbb23 (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Then can you suggest what I should do? Surely it is better to try to avoid edit-wars. PiCo (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think you have done a commendable job thus far. Another editor has changed the portion of the Almah article at issue. It is no longer your version or Editoreditorman's version. The Isaiah article is still in the same state it was (Editoreditorman's version). Editoreditorman has not edited WP since my message. I would continue your discussion. If Editoreditorman does not contribute to the discussion and you know by his contribution history that he has seen my message, then you may revert him. If he continues to revert, you may comment here or notify me on my talk page. You may revert him earlier if you have achieved a clear consensus on the article talk page, or if after some space of time he simply doesn't come back. Be careful not to edit war yourself, but you have some latitude given your approach and the fact that you have not even come close to violating WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Eris Lover reported by User:IRWolfie- (Result: A day)

Page: Christianity and homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [327]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [328]
2. [329]
3. [330]
4. [331]
5. [332]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [333]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [334] see [335] for attempts by others.

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:220.244.41.132 reported by User:RexxS (Result:IP Blocked for 31 hours )

Page: Talk:GW 501516 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 220.244.41.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version before first revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. removal of other user's talk page comments and request that the IP identify
2. removal of other user's talk page comments again
3. removal of more of other user's talk page comments
4. removal of more of other user's talk page comments
5. revert of the same material
6. revert of the same material
7. revert of the same material

Permalink IDs of edit warring warnings and very full attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. warning 1 and discussion
2. warning 2
3. warning 3
4. warning 4 and discussion
5. talk page discussion

Comments:

The IP address (belonging to TPG Internet Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia) has been used by multiple users to make comments on the talk page Talk:GW 501516. Recently, a user from that IP address claiming to be the "IP Admin" for the company has persistently removed comments from that IP relating to the article, including some that have already received replies, making the threads unintelligible. The "IP Admin" claims to be a different person from the earlier editors, but insists on a right to remove their talk page comments because they are copyright violations. Despite multiple requests, "IP Admin" has failed to show evidence of copyright violations. The talk page comments have been restored by three different editors, and 220.244.41.132 has been warned several times. I have done my best to engage them and pointed them to OTRS, but they have still insisted in edit-warring to remove talk page posts after the explanations and warnings. At this stage I cannot distinguish between a genuine naive editor who misunderstands our policies and a wilful troll, but I don't believe that we can tolerate the degree of disruption to the article's talk page that this user has caused. I would request a lengthy block until either the IP provides evidence of copyvios (through OTRS if needed) or they agree to abide by our policies of WP:TPO, WP:EW and WP:DE. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Protect the page til things settle down and the IP coughs up proof that is needed, give them 5-7 days. PumpkinSky talk 02:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't protect the page because it looked as though the edit warring was from only 1 IP, and I'm not sure which is the correct version. I did block the IP for 31 hours though with the hopes that it can be sorted out in that time frame. — Ched :  ?  02:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:KillerChihuahua (Result: No action)

Page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Warning at 3RR by User:A Quest For Knowledge: [336]

Previous version reverted to: [337]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [338]
2. [339]
3. [340]
4. [341]

• Notification

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is the Administrator's Noticeboard/Arbitration Enforcement. No, I didn't try to "resolve" that a non-admin is edit warring to remove a report; by the time I saw it he was already at 4 reverts. Not his place to make the call. He's experienced enough to know better; he's been blocked for edit warring before. I am surprised he's doing it on AE. I would have blocked him myself, but since he filed a AE request which was just closed today, thought I'm not the best person for it. Avoid the appearance, etc. KillerChihuahua 02:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

• IP editors whose only edits involve filing a frivolous AE case and admin-shopping to get an editor blocked are a WP:DUCK case if I ever saw one. Of note the 192 IP is from the Digital Ocean ISP in NYC and another IP from the same ISP in NYC previously tried to file an AE case against the same editor. That IP went around removing sockpuppet tags from the userpages of various accounts, all apparently belonging to the same sockmaster, and was blocked.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

And I'm thinking you didn't need to edit war on AE; you should have let an admin handle it. Had you simply let it alone someone would have checked and blocked anyway; your suspicions are not proof. The duck test is shaky ground; best to err on the side of not edit warring on an admin noticeboard IMO. KillerChihuahua 02:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, it was an obvious and now blocked sock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: I had just blocked one of the IPs that The Devil's Advocate was reverting as an open proxy. We don't usually block people for reverting socks, so I'm closing this. Someone coming through a proxy is by definition concealing their identity; they could in actuality be a blocked account or a blocked IP. Any IPs in good standing are welcome to edit AE. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO this is the correct way to handle socks; it is not the correct way to handle a non-admin edit warring on AE. He may have suspected them to be socks; can he confirm? I was unaware he has checkuser. He himself said "probable" sock. KillerChihuahua 02:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ed, TDA may well have been correct (accidentally) in reverting the other IP, but three of his reverts involved MY edit. If what you say above is true, then TDA has most certainly engaged in edit warring and met the bright line of 3rr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.100 (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I see that when you said that IPs were welcome, you were being economical with the truth, having now semi protected the page after a FIFTH revert by TDA, of material that I endorsed. Witb a dynamic IP yhat is the standard for Australian residential ISPs, I have many more contributions. If you wish to deny my AE request, that is one thing, but to manage the case in this way is quite another. KC, cab I please ask that you raise this matter at ANI. Clearly I will be treated as a non-person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.100 (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@Comment @Ed: I noticed that you've closed this, and I won't mess with that, but did want to note that I've now blocked TDA for a 5th revert, after this he was already aware of this filing, and had been warned a couple times prior to his last revert. — Ched :  ?  03:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

198.84.241.55 reported by User:Fishbert (Result: IP warned)

Page: American Collegiate Hockey Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.84.241.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: WP:3RR-violating edit compared with version immediately preceding the 4 violating edits
Previous version reverted to: WP:3RR-violating edit compared with version from December 19, 2012 (see line 461/470 and 518/506 ... this has been going on for a while)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First
2. Second
3. Third
4. Fourth

The above are the user's reverts that violate WP:3RR.
User has continually pressed similar edits since December of last year, and has been reverted by at least 3 different editors in that time; TheOriginalSoni, Bhockey10, and myself.

After the user's 3rd revert within 24 hours, I warned him of the 3RR policy on his talk page. He has since deleted this warning.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 3RR warning on the user's talk page

There has been an abundance of attempts at civil discussion with this individual on the article talk page (from myself and others), but it has been largely without progress.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most recent version of article Talk page at the time of this writing ... see "Notable players section", "Creating a page standard inclusion/exclusion criteria for "notable players in professional leagues" section", and "Blind Editing". The section "This page should be deleted" may also be of interest, though not directly related to this complaint.

Also see attempts to resolve the dispute on the following user talk pages: TheOriginalSoni, 198.84.241.55, and Bhockey10.

Comments:
The article talk page, edit history comments, and interactions on user talk pages would appear to indicate this individual is a disruptive editor (tendentious, not engaging in consensus-building, and rejecting or ignoring community input) who goes through the motions of community discussion in an overtly anti-social and dismissive manner while continuing to press his views by removing content again and again over the objections of others. The user is also quite combative, accusing another editor (Bhockey10) of edit warring by reverting his disruptive edits, marking the entire article as a candidate for deletion, accusing editors who revert him of being a sock-puppets, accusing editors who revert him of being the people mentioned in the content he deletes, and directing personal attacks at others ("Are you really in university? The fate of this nation is in trouble if you are the future." on TheOriginalSoni's user talk page [as linked above] comes to mind).

In pushing his edits, this user frequently refers to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability; it has been pointed to the user (by multiple editors, myself included) that he often attempts to apply Wikipedia policy without fully understanding it. I don't claim to be an expert, myself, but when it has been pointed out that the policy he holds up to justify page content removal explicitly states "this policy does not apply to page or list content" (see the article talk page and dispute resolution attempts on user talk pages [as linked above]), the disruptive user has remained undeterred in aggressively attempting to apply it anyway.

I have not submitted anything to the noticeboard before, so I don't know if it is proper for me to put forward a desired outcome, but I would like to request a temporary block of 198.84.241.55 from editing the article in question. This being a low-traffic article and this dispute going on for about 4 months now, I'm not sure that the standard 24-hour block would suffice. I don't want to claim the user may not have valuable things to contribute to the page, but at this time he does not appear to work well with others and attempting to communicate with this individual to encourage him to participate in good-faith with the community on the talk page instead of continually pressing disruptive edits has been a fruitless and time-consuming waste.

Other Comments:
I will admit that my own interactions with this user have grown somewhat terse rather quickly. I may not always be the best at not biting the new users, but TheOriginalSoni and Bhockey10 have both shown a remarkable abundance of patience with this individual in the past (to no avail, and sometimes resulting in personal attacks).

This is a low-traffic article, and finding myself alone in dealing with this individual's more recent disruptive edits (continuing to revert, per dealing with disruptive editors guidelines), I had reached out to another editor (Bhockey10) by way of his talk page to ask for some support (here). I did this because he was familiar with this individual's behavior and because he is a long-time member of the WikiProject Ice Hockey / College Ice Hockey task force. I understand this was a mistake on my part, and have since removed my direct request for support from user Bhockey10's talk page (here). I had not received any reply from Bhockey10, nor has he been involved in the matter since (at the time of this writing, anyway).
Note: 198.84.241.55 seems to want to revert the removal of my improper request on Bhockey10's talk page in an attempt to bolster his claims that I am a sock-puppet account. His claims of sock-puppetry pre-date my improper request for assistance from Bhockey10 on April 8th (see edit comment in this diff). I don't believe he has submitted any actual report, though he does keep tagging our user talk pages with a "suspected sock puppet" tag that sock puppet guidelines say is only supposed to be used on blocked accounts. Needless to say, I am not a sock-puppet of Bhockey10 (or anyone else).

There was modest improvement back in December to the content in question (a list of "notable players in professional leagues") made by Bhockey10 in his/her dealings with this individual at that time (diff where Bhockey10 trimmed the content in question, based on the disruptive editor's content-removal "feedback"). But this had not stopped user 198.84.241.55 from continuing to press his views with disruptive edits. Indeed, user 198.84.241.55 appears to occasionally claim this modest improvement (again, made by Bhockey10) constitutes a civil agreement on what he is pushing (see article talk page and user talk pages [as linked to previously])... despite the accusations of edit warring directed toward Bhockey10 (and of sock-puppetry directed toward me) have come months after this change to the content was made. There obviously has been no agreement struck to support his continued content removals, despite his occasional claims.

The 3RR warning I gave to 198.84.241.55 on his talk page is not the only one he has received in the past few hours. Novaseminary also gave him a 3RR warning regarding Online counseling (here). I don't know anything about the dispute on Online counseling, nor the merit of that particular 3RR warning.

I have notified 198.84.241.55 of this report on his user talk page.
--Fishbert (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

After submitting the above report, I ran across this prior conversation (mediation attempt?) on an administrator's talk page. I feel it may provide additional context to the dispute and may be of interest/use in the resolution of this report.

--Fishbert (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound needy; but why the long delay on this one? Ok, the report is a bit of a wall-of-text (I tried to be thorough); but it seems rather clear with 3 different editors having run-ins with this IP's tendentious edits, bad-faith assumptions, personal attacks, clear violation of 3RR, attempts at resolution going nowhere, etc. I had wanted to hold off any further reverts until this report was resolved (the 'Dealing with disruptive editors' guidance appears to say that continuing to revert is the correct thing to do)... should I continue to wait, or is nobody looking into this?

--Fishbert (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is clear why. There are not 3 editors but only two. You fail duck and are a sock of bhockey10. Are you open for a checkuser? Furthermore trying to get someone block for 3rr because I delete a list of people who are not notable will 99% of the the time, result in a block to the person who re-adds the names. Just because I edit under an ip does not mean I should be blocked or be treated uncivil as you stated on my and your talk page. Lastly, as history indicates I have had discussions with users and we came to an agreement on who should be included, and in the end, it has been you that has failed to acknowledge this agreement. ps - the 3rd editor novaseminary, has a long history of 3rr, pov, and edit waring, refering to him to strengthen your case, will only result in your claims being uncreditabe. Like I have said, I am willing to work with both you and nova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.241.55 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Novaseminary has nothing to do with this report (totally different article; totally different dispute), and should probably submit his/her own report. And you have shown no interest in working with anyone thus far, despite numerous attempts at discussion from multiple editors over the span of 4 months and an administrator basically recommending that you chill out and play nice with others (as detailed in the report). Just here in this comment of yours, you toss out a baseless, bad-faith accusation of sock puppetry in one breath, then claim a willingness to work with that same person in the next. It's ridiculous.

--Fishbert (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Folks, I'm trying to go through proper channels, but feel like nobody has even read this report. I feel the IP is a disruptive editor who is stuck in the 'B' of the 'BRD' cycle (and I've pointed to months of evidence involving 3 different editors to support this). Rather than report to AN/I, I reported here to AN/EW because there was a 3RR violation. Is this not the correct place? Do you feel my report doesn't show what I purport it to? Is there just too much text for an admin to want to take it on? Please give me -some- feedback here; it's very frustrating to see report after report come in and get taken care of one way or another without even a peep regarding this one ... and not know why. I've never reported someone before; if I'm not doing something correctly here, please at least help point me in the right direction.

--Fishbert (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The IP was blocked for three days per another 3RR violation noted below. So, for now at least, this should do it. Novaseminary (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a relief, but he doesn't seem to be taking it very well on his talk page. I don't think "for now at least" will last very long.

--Fishbert (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Result: The IP is warned for long-term edit warring at American Collegiate Hockey Association. He has been trying to remove a section on notable players from the article since March 12. I see nine reverts of this material by the IP. If this resumes after his current block expires and before consensus is reached, sanctions are possible. Those on the other side need to be careful about 3RR as well. Meanwhile, consider opening up a WP:Request for comment on the talk page to get more input on this question. EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Applesandapples (Result: Declined)

Page: Ghulam Azam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [342]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [343]
2. [344]
3. [345]
4. [346]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [347]

Comments:
Repeatedly pressing a section which compares the article's subject to Hitler on the basis of two statements by his prosecutor and by another politician, without attributing (in the intro). Given POV concerns and that this is a biography of a living person, the material was removed and I raised the problems on the talk page. However, DS replaced the material 4 times. His last three reverts were undoing a different editor's edits, therefore I was not around to warn him. But this is yet another episode in DS's story of bullying editors [348] and aggressively pushing POV into articles.

(Also, I have a feeling that DS will assert that the editor he was warring against was a sockpuppet, and as such the reverts don't count as reverts. In fact, in my very first encounter with DS he described me as an "obvious sock" [349], and I think it is best for the purposes of this report to assume that User:Marianne1982 is not a sock unless proven to be, rather than let DS get away with this because of his hunch his enemy is a sock.) Applesandapples (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note. Her editing and comments look mighty suspicious. DS has opened a SPI here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I suppose we should wait until the SPI is concluded to best judge DS's actions. Applesandapples (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Content blanking falls under WP:VAND and reverting vandalisim is an exemption to 3RR, this counts for IP editors as well as shiney "new" accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would not necessarily rely on the vandalism exception when it comes to content blanking. It would depend on how much content was blanked, whether a reason was given, and what the content was. Sometimes, there is a good reason for removing content. This is all spelled out in the policy. Ostensibly, in this instance, the basis for removing the content was that the material was "untrue", which, if correct, would make the material a BLP violation. Less starkly, one could argue that the sources supporting the material are unreliable. I'm not taking a positiion here; I'm just hypothesizing. Unless the blanking truly damages the article, I wouldn't edit war over it and then claim to be exempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The SPI doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. Can we finish this first? Applesandapples (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Declined. The new account passes the WP:DUCK test quite handily and I don't think you will find anyone willing to take action on this regardless of the outcome of the SPI. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)